Here are the 15 questions I wanted to ask Lacson, then and now, about the new Anti-Terrorism Law
Second of THREE PARTS
By Raïssa Robles
In the first part, I explained why I used the words “stealthily” and “hastily” to describe the manner by which Senate defense committee chair Panfilo Lacson had inserted the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law.
See – My reply to Senator Lacson who claims I was being malicious when I used the word “stealthily” to describe his insertion of Section 25 – one of the most dangerous provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Law
Section 25, according to prominent legal experts, gives President Rodrigo Duterte – through his cabinet officials who comprise the Anti-Terrorism Council – the power to “designate” or tag as “terrorist” anyone and any organization the cabinet officials suspect of being one.
In fact, Duterte went ahead of the new Anti-Terrorism Law and publicly tagged communist rebels “terrorists” because he said so. He said, “They think that they are a different breed, would like to be treated with another set of law, when as a matter of fact they are terrorists. They are terrorists because I finally declared them to be one.”
Senator Lacson had to scramble and say there was “nothing illegal” about Duterte’s statements because the Anti-Terrorism Council had already “designated” them terrorists in 2017.
Lacson insists the tag will not lead to arrests, but only to the freeze of assets.
But legal experts told the Supreme Court last week that is not the case. The tag can result in the arrest of any person and members of organizations that have been so “designated” by the ATC as “terrorist”.
Lacson is laying the predicate for charging me with cyberlibel
Lacson has also claimed in his official Senate press releases on the Senate website, several media forums and press interviews and releases that my blog post was “malicious.” To read the rest, PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK.