Justice secretary Agnes Devenadera admitted that Proclamation Order 1959 came about shortly after military ground forces saw certain armed groups roaming in Sharif Aguak town in Maguindanao. Government assessed the situation and came out with an analysis that there was “imminent threat“. Devenadera also said that civil courts were not functioning, and there was a threat of rebellion coming from the Ampatuans and their supporters.
With all of these “threats”, Malacanang decided to declare martial law.
Now, was Malacanang right in declaring martial law? No.
Martial law is a power available to the President not as a weapon to pre-empt a rebellion, insurrection or lawless violence. No.
Martial law is a weapon created by law so that the President can call out the Armed Forces to SUPPRESS an invasion or rebellion.
Meaning, the condition is already EXISTING and the State, as a response, uses coercive or suppressive force to prevent an escalation of such condition OR as a self-defense tool against those who want to bring down government.
Devenadera tried to create a scenario where there is already a rebellion committed by the Ampatuans. Yet, from her own mouth she admitted that courts were not functioning not because they are being prevented from doing so by the Ampatuans; rather, judges were not reporting to work out of fear or a perception of threats, not actually under threat or even being threatened.
Malacanang is terribly wrong in this. And this could have a dire repercussion on future decisions concerning the declaration of Martial law.
For example, nearing elections in May 2010, the Provincial PNP director reported seeing armed groups in Pangasinan or Bulacan. A killing occurred. Would this be enough to declare martial rule in these areas and immediately declare a failure of elections?
If we are to follow the logic of Proclamation 1959, yes.
How about if bombs went off in Metro Manila and rallies against Mrs. Arroyo occurred next week, would that be enough to declare even Metro Manila under Martial law? By Proclamation 1959, yes.
This Proclamation 1959 is full of legal loopholes and is based not on law, but on personal whims of Mrs. Arroyo. This is very dangerous because it puts democracy in utter jeopardy.
Mrs. Arroyo is a threat to the very democracy she reportedly wants to protect.
Mrs. Arroyo should be stopped at all costs, NOW, not in May 2010.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Dear Pat,
You are so right. There is NO IMMINENT threat and there was none whatsoever save for those created by the same entity in power. And here we are not talking about the local warlords as those are merely appendages of the even bigger one in Manila.
Some gunpowder-brained Braniac by the Pasig has found the self-inflicted situation in Maguindanao a fertile patch to grow the kind of fears that might be transplanted elsewhere given an escalation of dissent and criticism over Arroyo’s chosen “exit mechanism” or “self-preservation” modes.
By using Maguindanao as a petri dish of sorts, they are both pushing the envelope and testing the waters for an unconstitutional imposition of martial rule wether in Maguindanao or Lubao, or Manila. (note that the 1987 Constitution requires congressional consent to delare Martial Law)
To serve a warrant of arrest does not require a declaration of martial law unless ther is rampant lawlessness. Both the international media, local media, the reinforced presence of the plice and military now deployed, and the disarmament of the CAGGUs as claimed early by Sec. Puno should prevent a shootout from breaking out ala WACO.
The already highly passionate and sensitive situation is being exploited to test political options (plans A through Z) and that is probably the height of insensitivity and impunity that continues to characterize this government.
Regards,
Dean
There are three justifications for the imposition of martial law. Rebellion, invasion and when public safety requires it. That last one is nebulous and virtually undefined, but seems to be the only one that might apply and from now until someone in congress moves to declare unconstitutionality, then expect a whole lot of news to suddenly break justifying an “imminent” and “actual” (as Martial Law cannot be applied preventively on potential events) threat to public safety.
Those are the kinds that scare us.
Dean
Amazing we get another reminder of why it is important to choose who to elect into Congress. Congress can put a stop to any martial-law declaration of the president.
cut-and-paste from 1987 Constitution Section 18 :
Chiz Escudero has already made the plea for members of Congress to convene immediately. NoyNoy also requested members of Congress to convene immediately.
test123
It is too early to determine, if the move of Gloria Arroyo is
the Right move.
She herself worsened an existing problem of Political Warlordism
of our country. In Mindanao; Muslim Feudal Lords use Religion and
the degrading culture of Feudalism in their area. To grip their
power on their Fiefdoms.
It is like in the early Middle Ages. The Feudal Lords lived in
Castles (mansions). The Fiefs (local people) lived in Shanties in
a deplorable marginal condition.
The Feudal Lords gave protection. Some small favors like food (e.g,
tuyo, rice noodles, etc…distributed by Erap Estrada during elections). Some favors like nice dwellings (e.g., house and lot
given by Villar in Wowoowee Lottery). In Japan, the Feudal Lords
were protected by the Samurais (private armies of today).
This is where we are. In this digital age. Stuck in the Middle Age.
Stuck in the Middle Ages with neantherthals.
Dean
The Metaphor maybe true true. But, who voted for
these Brutes?
Of course technically who’d give a sh*t really. If anything a lot of people would actually see this as a good thing. They’d just wait it out until JUne 2010. Assuming of course they are going to be elections
With due respect sir, the call to organize and oust her NOW, that would be enough reason to declare proclamation 1959.
She is so high with “power addiction” right now. And I am not sure if she wanted to be rehabilitated. She’s hooked. Poor woman, I mean poor Juan.
Darbs, you are very much correct in both of your assertions. at all costs, right now, is very much dangerous with all the resources of the government under her disposal. And yes, she’s very very high…
There is a glaring problem to be solved. However, let us all be
vigilant. Do not politicalize the situation and the issues of
Maguindanao and the Mindanao problem. They need solutions. Solutions
will not solve them by ousting Gloria Arroyo and putting another
President who is not familiar with the situation and the problem. We
work together. In order to make a good solution that this tragedy will never happen again in the future.
Gloria Arroyo can leave a good legacy by solving the problem of
Warlordism. Or she be just another would be Dictator, who came and
made rich of herself. Statemanship is needed in this times. It
is the best of the times. It is also the worse of the times. It
is her choice.
Oh… I agree with Martial Law. Here’s my interpretation of rebellion and imminent threat.
Murdering innocent people is rebellious. The Ampatuans are not only suspects of murder but they have disobeyed the rules of the government. One of the duties of the Ampatuans is to implement and maintain peace and order in its locality- the purpose of EO 546. The Ampatuans have not made any effort to prevent the gruesome massacre from happening thru proper negotiations. Instead abuses their benefits by recklessly allowing government personnels, private armies and government equipment to kill innocent people. It was well planned. If one disobey the rules of the land, one becomes a rebel.
from Justice secretary:
why bury the ammunitions if it’s legal for the Ampatuans to store in a location easily accessible to the investogators or as prescribed by the law. the action of the Ampatuans 2 days after the masscare is an imminent threat.
These local officials were not ordered specifically to shut down except on offices that require security forces. This security forces has always been clearly disclose to the public and by the media.
My understanding of Martial Law…
Martial law –
1. is a system of rules that take effect if the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.
normal administration of Justice at the local level and national level. Did we not want Justice? yes or no? if your answer is no then martial law is not applicable.
2. It is sometimes imposed in response to civic emergencies or episodes of unrest or riots, or during wars or in cases of occupations in the absence of any other civil government.
Ampatuan Jr and Senior are local officials who are charged with more than 20 counts of murder. Did we not want suspension? Yes or no? if your answer is YES then who will oversee the local government in their absence?
3. it is used by governments to enforce their rule – for example, when threatened by popular protests
Popular protests mean the local people that are loyal to their warlords- Ampatuans. Did we not see them on TV? yes or no?
The requirements to declare Martial Law has many interpretation. Rebellion and Invasion are few of them. But there are many types of rebellion that is not only applicable to the general population but at the local government units. 57 innocent people murdered in cold blood is an outright invasion to hold a territory. Not allowing any other candidates to challenge them thru legislative process such as an election is an invasion to take control of a territory and protect the interests of the invading entity.
Leytenian,
Right on spot. The government and the people too have a right too to protect themselves from lawlessness and violance.
Dean,
Please do not confuse the issues. This is selective declaration of martial law in an area that is fast careening into lawlessness has constitutional basis and it is not the pundits at FV who will say that the basis was not there but the President. Under the constitution the president,
´x x xmay call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.”
Martial law was apparently declared because the perpetrators of the massacre were using the benefit of the constitution and the courts to contest the right of the government to prosecute them, let alone 40 lawyers arguing their “innocence”. They find it convenient to invoke the due process of law which they have peremptorily denied of their victims.
While you and me have some misgivings and disappointment over GMA’s governance, this Maguindanao massacre could be her redemption. Here is government pronouncement about martial law in Maguindanao:
“The declaration was prompted by reports of “armed groups in the province of Maguindanao” establishing positions “to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety” and of the “deteriorating condition of peace and order to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning, thus endangering public safety,” said Ermita, reading from the proclamation.
“Chief Superintendent Leonardo Espina, PNP spokesperson, clarified that the rebellion charges that would be filed are separate from the multiple murder charges filed against 12 individuals (including members of the Ampatuan clan) and 100 other unidentified suspects.”
So your fear that martial law was declared in Mindanao to mitigate the crimes committed by GMA’s cohorts was a stretch. The killing of civilians, journalists and the members Mangudadatu clan was already completed and was not done in pursuance of rebellion and invasion. Martial law was declared because the Ampatuans’ and their followers were using their influence, power and money to make a mockery of our constitutional and judicial system. The government branded it an “act of rebellion” but their previous involvement in the “massacre” were pure acts of brutality and terrorism.
Jcc,
please help me out on Mens REA and ACTUS of Invasion and rebellion. I’m having a hard time using the correct law term..
the elements of invasion and rebellion are there in my view.
The facts strongly support the Mens REA ( mental state) . Example, the meeting and preparation of the crime . Actus Reus ( picture shows buried equipment ) the burying and the transferring of the backhoe for example are the actus REUS of to crime. ( Invasion ) For example. the ACT of preventing another clan to file candidacy by murdering the people.
Mens REA and ACTUS REUS are justified … if it involves armies against our law of the land, the elements of rebellion can be explained that Murder is the ACTUS REUS of rebellion. The hiding of the ammunitions and the lack of support to the investigations is a mental PLAN- the MENS REA of the crime Rebellion.
Both Mens REA and ACTUS REUS cannot be divorced from each other for criminal charges. In my opinion, the ampatuans committed both rebellion and invasion.
FYI. Invasion can also be interpreted as protecting once territory that does not belong to them legally but belongs to the REPUBLIC of the Philippines.
I think you can explain the law better than me. I actually quit law school for lack of time . maybe next year..
“Mens rea is a latin term for “guilty mind”. The full latin principle is “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, (roughly translated, the act is not a criminal one unless the mind is). Thus if by accident one discharges a firearm and the bullet hit a wall and ricocheted and fatally hit a person walking by, there is no offense of murder, but if one purposely shot someone and the person died, the act is murder because the mind is guilty (intent to shoot) and it has concurred with actus reus ( the physical act of shooting) which resulted to death.
Unlike the Philippine Criminal law system where “actus reus and mens rea” must concur in order to charge someone with murder, the U.S. criminal law system was influenced by the English common law such that even where there is no criminal intent to kill, (mens rea) a person can still be charged with murder if the act was done with malice aforethought (not necessarily with premeditation). Malice can be shown by inflicting grievous bodily harm, i.e., attempting to maim the victim by hitting his shin with a baseball bat the victim hitting the pavement and died; reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, i.e., setting up a firework display in a dorm entrance that burns down the dormitory and torched the residents; felony-murder doctrine, i.e., in the course of bank-robbery, the perpetrators shot a bank teller.
In the case of the Maguindanao massacre, there is no doubt that those involved can be charged with multiple murders or even rape. Both actus reus and mens rea were present.
As regards rebellion and invasion, the Philippine Criminal Code look at it as a political crime and imposes a single penalty of reclusion perpetua for the offense. If an argument is to be made, according to Dean de la Paz that martial law was imposed to favor those involved because then they would be charged with rebellion only and can be punished with one reclusion perpetua. (life imprisonment) as against the power of the court to sentence the perpetrators to life imprisonment multiplied by the numbers of victims if they are treated as common criminals and not political criminals.
Laymen should take note that life imprisonment does not mean that the convict must stay in prison until alive. Life sentence, if my memory of the Philippine criminal law is still intact means the convict can be held in prison for 30 years. It makes sense if one is adjudged 3 life sentences, then you can effectively stay in prison for 90 years. But another trick is that the judge can order that service of sentence to be non-cumulative and must be served the 3 life term sentences simultaneously, ergo, if there are 57 victims in the massacre, 57 life sentences served simultaneously means 30 years in prison. Oh, well in the case of the powerful, 30 years in prison built with the amenities of home is not actually a prison. Just recall Jaloslos and Teehankee fame.
thank you JCC,
now I have a full understanding. But one more question. Can the families of the dead file a suit against the Amputuans for loss of income from their breadwinner dead husband or wife? Most of them have little children. I am also looking at it as financial loss for the family?
Since you mention that “As regards rebellion and invasion, the Philippine Criminal Code look at it as a political crime and imposes a single penalty of reclusion perpetua for the offense”. Is the State/central government responsible for the loss of income from a political crime?
I have heard that Arroyo promised the children EDUCATION.
Thank you again for the time.
Leytenian,
Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:
“Institution of criminal and civil actions. – (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.”
Thus, the prosecution can present in addition to the evidence to prove that the accused committed the crime, evidence about economic sufferings, loss of consortium and support by the spouse and her children by virtue of the death of their breadwinners.
The private complainants (relatives of the victims)can also inform the court that they will be filing a separate civil complaint to litigate the civil aspect of the case, therefore, the prosecutor in the criminal case will refrain from presenting evidence to prove the economic loss of the heirs.
atty JCC,
Thank you so much JCC. your explanation is so crystal clear.
News of government freezing Ampatuan assets came out on the paper at 8 AM Philippine time about 2 hours after your reply to my comment. It makes me wonder… hehehe
thank you again
Atty JCC,
one more question?
Can Mangudadatu be charged of Criminal negligence for his failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers/risks to occur. He was being warned by the Ampatuans. He may have intentionally avoid adverting to the reality of a situation- willfully blind. was his decision to send women and journalists is within reason common among politicians? or even Mang Juan and Pedro?
Leytenian,
What an interesting question. Criminal negligence is but a gradation or level of criminal liability. It is entirely different from criminal categories. In RP either you are a principal or accessory to the crime. Accessories are further divided into accessory before the fact or after the fact. The one who pull the trigger is the principal. The one who supplied the gun but was not present in the actual shooting is accessory before the fact. The one who provided the getaway car is accessory after the fact if he was not part of the original plan to shoot the victim, otherwise, he will be considered a principal too.
Driving a car recklessly in a crowded street which resulted to death of a pedestrian is criminal negligence in RP.(This is where your question fits the picture) The crime is denominated as Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide. The crime being punished is the “reckless conduct” of the person and not the homicide aspect and the penalty is prision correccional. (six months and one day to 6 years).
In the U.S. the crime would be murder. This is one of those crimes committed with malice aforethought. Malice is implied by driving recklessly in a crowded street. But driving recklessly in a desert road where an itinerant gypsy merchant got hit and died is not murder. He could be charged with Second Degree Manslaughter which could be RP’s version of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide.
Now as regards your query, the Mangandadatu’s patriarch cannot be charged with Criminal Negligence because he did not drive in a crowded street so to speak.
Your question may have some relevance in the civil case if one has to be filed by the private complainants (heirs of the victims). An argument of contributory negligence or assumption of risk may be raised by the Ampatuans that Mangandadatu knew the impending carnage and he did not do something about it and in fact had allowed his wife and her sister to walk through their death. If successful, the civil liability maybe mitigated. The doctrines of contributory negligence and assumption of risk are not so well develop in RP unlike in the U.S. where civil suits are involved, contributory negligence and assumption of risk are two standard defenses of the defendant.
Atty JCC,
The reason why I have to ask this question is its relevance to a person’s decision making. When risk is uncertain, a reasonable person would have not invited the media and put his wife into a possible dangerous situation. The people of Maguindanao may not be ready to accept Mangundadatu at least at this current time. His action to file after the murder instead of mourning over the loss of family members can be interpreted as not normal. The murder was enough threat to his own life too.
Mangundadatu’s assumption that working women and mediamen will be spared in some certain risk , can be considered an abuse of that common knowledge. It’s the ethics behind it that I am also not comfortable.
Maguinadanaon may deserve a better leader that is totally independent from the current situation. But this is Philippines where the application of ethics and moral standard are not so well developed. The Comelec is weak in incorporating the proper process of recruiting good leaders which HIGHLY requires ethics and good moral character. Just think of Estrada and a jalosjos to run again for office.
Thank you again Atty JCC.
Public safety in Maguinadano has already been compromised before, during and after this gruesome event. What else is required to declare a martial law? It’s time for the opposition to question and challenge the current administration. But why rally and oust Arroyo? In what way? at the expense of the people’s rally ? that’s another wowoweee..There are many ways to confront the decision of declaring martial law. One is to properly implement the rule of law.
The Ampatuan massacre has been condemned world-wide as the worst loss of life of media professionals in one day in the history of journalism. The Philippines is now the most dangerous place for journalist. The Massacre is the worst incident of political violence in the nation’s history. ( no political actor have been implicated of killing this many,there were allegations but this one is DIFFERENT- It is mass murder in cold blood against the innocent people)
Interesting,
My reaction was that the declaration was good, and evidently opposed to the notion that Ms. Arroyo was coddling the Ampatuans because they delivered her election. I rather fear she is damned either way, eh? For myself, I think it is clearly not a normal situation and cannot be resolved in normal ways. So I like the declaration and presume it will lead to a forceful apprehension of the murderers.
Joe
joe,
You must also look at it on the other side of the fence. The ruling for Maguindanao should have been “enforcing the law” not “oppressing the law“. There was no threat to over-ruling of the government, nor imminent danger or hostile take over to the government. (So help me, that this will not happen again)
[Martial Law] would give GMA the power to control while she still holds office. Maybe, just maybe, she is planning a brilliant plan for the opportunity to govern the whole island at the palm of her hands.
Food for Thoughts>/b>:
Gibo and miss pandak are the one planning this whole masquerade
At the risk of plagiarizing Hyden, I kinda adhere to his post when he eloquently said of the proclamation of Martial Law in Maguindanao… Testing 1-2-3, testing…
Dean
Dean de la Paz,
One totalitarian at play.
I do second that opinion by Hyden. One must conceive the outcome of these mess we are in.
Hyden Toro says:
December 6, 2009 at 1:27 am
“test123″
One of the results of “test-123″…. Pilipinas citizens are so alarmed by martial law that their elected representatives in Congress know to convene within 48 hours of the declaration to review matters.
Pinas Congress has convened already, right?
Test-123… test-123. Mukhang may oras pang mag-Christmas shopping muna. somebody did say earlier…. let them maglabu-labo muna.
Mario,
When the governor is suspected of being the massacre’s mastermind, and a mayor its suspected chief henchman, and all the tanuds belong to private armies, and the judges are afraid for their lives and will not act . . .I would say the government of the locality where martial law was declared is already “overtaken”.
You may be right, this is a devious plot for ulterior motives. I would prefer to think it is the firm act of a betrayed president . . . betrayed by the ruthlessness of the brutal slaughter . . . by someone SHE backed, just as they backed her. Maybe she is hurt, and pissed . . .
We can only wait and watch, eh? Warily, warily . . .
Joe
Dear Joe,
This is a bit circuitous and confusing, but please bear with me.
Without the declaration of Martial Law, the Maguindanao massacre is 57 counts of murder charged against the perpetrator. When martial law is declared according to imminent rebellion or rebellion, the massacre falls under the state of rebellion and under the articles of war.
Unless the massacre is considered murder per se (as it can be considered optionally as rebellious acts, and the victims, merely casualties of war) then the maximum penalty for rebellion is only six years, it being considred a political act.
Simply match this abbreviated punishment against corporal punishment multiplied 57 times under the murder statutes and one might see why martial law might benefit a declared albeit accused ally.
When rebel soldiers staged a coup in Pres. Aquino’s time, the people they killed were considered victims of a rebellion and the rebel soldiers were not charged with individual counts of murder. The most celebrated is Sen. Greg Honasan.
Instead, they were charged with mutiny and their civilian counterparts with rebellion (Sen. Enrile et al). That was under the 1987 constitution which still applies to the recent declaration by Arroyo.
During the coup attempts during Aquino’s presidency, it is good to note that, while there was a real shooting war in Manila, martial law was not declared and the writ of habeas corpus was not suspended.
The declaration of martial law in connection with the arrest of the Ampatuans within the period of the declaration thus makes the imposition suspect as it is based on “rebellion”.
Regards,
Dean
Dean,
I appreciate the brief, and understand the concern. I hope that is not the reason for the declaration, to lessen the punishment. That would be tantamount to being a participant in one of the most horrendous acts I’ve seen in my rather lengthy lifetime.
Joe
dean,
the revised penal code had been updated imposing reclusion (life imprisonment) to those guilty of rebellion.
I remember the Star Wars Movie scene during the Senate session of the Empire.
‘How do end democracy? By an applause.
i’m reminded of a scene from Jewel in the Palace. The queen is telling the protagonist (who insists on healing the king) that there are 2 types of people that could harm the king. First is the competent doctor with evil intentions. The other type is the good-intentioned but incompetent doctor. If you ask me, I’d rather put my trust on the good-intentioned one, as we can still get lucky. No matter how competent GMA is, she is determined in screwing the people and the country for her own benefit.
oust arroyo and on to the cycle..
“Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction.”–Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
I could be wrong, but I suspect this Martial Law “trial run” scenario appears to have come from the mind of DND chief Norberto Gonzales. The rest merely agreed.
“This Proclamation 1959 is full of legal loopholes and is based not on law, but on personal whims of Mrs. Arroyo. This is very dangerous because it puts democracy in utter jeopardy”.
Democracy was already at risk and jeopardized when these political bandits put some 60 people to death without trial and without due process.
Indeed, the plot thickens.
Rivalry, Rido, then Rebellion.
Trickery, Treachery, or Treason?
Hhhmmm, this reminds of the unforgettable scene in the classic movie Godfather, where the dying Marlon Brando cautions his soon-to-be heir Robert de Niro:
“The one who mediates for peace is the traitor…”
Did Marlon? I thought DeNiro was the young Vito Corleone. Check once more, Phil.
You’re so right, Joma. It was Al Pacino.
Pat – this is another strategy of GMA to cling to power. GMA knows her problem, which is the opposition and the other neutral society of people are aware how MARTIAL LAW happened in 1970′s…and how it affect their lives…GMA will never escape from this scenario and will always try to outwit the Filipino people…imagine how many times she tried to change the constitution under her term…and how many Millions of Pesos she wasted for this purpose only…and for me; she think that the only solution to elevate the problem of the Philippines, is her. Sa ibang salita…pakapalan ng mukha para umasenso ang sarili…di lang talaga niya alam kung paano niya makukuha ang buong sambayanang pinoy na maniwala sa gusto niya…aba to the rescue pa si DOJ secretarym para ipagtanggol sa lahat ang martial rule sa maguindanao…rebellion kuno!…rebellion ba yun…ang mga armas ay galing pa sa AFP!…mga ungas! sino ang niloloko niyo…pakapalan talaga ng mukha…Rebellion daw ha…sila Ampatuan…ka-grupo nila sa kanilang partido…tapos ilalag-lag…para magkaroon sila ng dahilan makagawa ng bagay na ganito. buseet talaga…hoy mga inaa-anak ni GMA…ipabalik niyo na sa mga magulang niyo yung kandila nila.
Cynicism and opposition to the declaration of Martial Law in Maguindanao should and must be strongly expressed, otherwise the objective(s) of this action by the government might breed some unintended consequences.
When appropriately used and not abused, Martial Law is a very powerful and effective tool of a legitimate civil government. But when abused, it is a very destructive instrument against the people.
In declaring it in Maguindanao’s situation, cynicism may say that perhaps the current administration is launching a trial balloon for some sinister grand scheme — thus the need for people’s strong expression of opposition against possible abuse and misuse of this power.
On the other hand, if legitimate and honest objective(s) is truly the government’s intention in declaring Martial Law in Maguindanao that will facilitate the delivery of justice to the case of the gruesome massacre of the innocent civilians and also if it effectively helps in disarming and disarming warlords and their private armies, then by all means it is worth supporting.
It’s yet few days since it was declared in Maguindanao, but if it has already achieved its objectives (or maybe in the next 5 to 7 days or less), then the government must end it ASAP lowering and reverting back the alert level of the area to the status to emergency.
We all know the dangers of Martial Law.
Non-malignant,
I do respect your analogy. But, due to unforseen circumstances, we could be all, a puppet on a string. We do have 60 Days you know. Then, we all “Surge The Gate” like dogs!
Food for Thoughts:
• Hell, if her Administration(s) didn’t respond to the crime committed
• What would you have done
• Wait till Hell freezes over
• Or, send the cavalries and let’s have a party
When the duly constituted legal authority commits mass murder and tries to bury their act is this rebellion or a massive abuse of state power.
This massive criminal abuse of state power in a centralized form of governance is a crime against humanity. . State power carried out the mass murder.
Even before the declaration of selective martial law the entire police force was replaced by the central government. In point of fact the claim that the judicial system had collapsed is not true. Under the centralized form of government there is only one national judicial system. If all or most of the judges in the area got scared and did not attend to their official function that does not mean there is no recourse.
The prosecutorial service under the executive government can still petition the administrative division of the SC for permission to transfer venues. In point of fact all searches done by the police were done without proper search warrants issued by a court.
When state actors commit mass murder then the offices that have administrative control of these state actors who turned mass murderers are liable. The DILG and DND apart from the Office of the President are responsible down to the men who pulled the triggers.
The PNP, CAFGU and CVO’s were all legally constituted authority. This entire declaration of martial law is simply a crude attempt to change the legal narrative to absolve the central government of complicity in this mass murder.
GMA, Ronaldo Puno and Gilbert Teodoro bear command responsibility for this mass murder.
What rebellion are they talking about? Martial law is simply a deodorizer after GMA personally handed out financial contributions to members of the family of journalists who got killed.
No amount of spin will change the facts.
The mass stupid of this country is rejoicing while the country continues to bleed. The real mass murderers will get away.
Just watch the PR spin on Carandang’s show and other ANC programs from the government in the coming few days.
The guys who did the killings are all her duly appointed agents. Taxpayers fund the murderers and taxpayers fund the victims too. In the end some nobody’s will confess to going amuck.
The new president except Teodoro should sign the Rome statute and bring these guys including DOJ Secretary Devanadera to the International Criminal Court for the cover up.
Slodobodan Milosovich never actually killed any Muslims in Bosnia. But he put in place an infrastructure
for mass murder in the Yugoslavian Civil War.
J-AG
I think Atty. JCC can explain this but let me try.
The prosecutor will probably point the AMPATUANS as the PROXIMATE CAUSE ( location and DIRECT duty) . The rest can be LIABLE as CONTRIBUTORY to the crime regardless if they knew nothing that a crime is about to happen.
But Rebellion is a political crime against the will of the government. Not sure if the CONTRIBUTORY cause is applicable. It’s probably the reason why Gloria created an Independent commission to investigate this political crime?
Leytenian,
Under the principle that the sovereign cannot commit a wrong, any illegal act made in connection with the discharge of an office is considered a personal illegal act of the official by which he alone should be answerable and not the State. No subsidiary liability can be imposed on the state or its political subdivisions by virtue of an erroneous or illegal acts of its officials. Besides, government money is not subject to court garnishment or civil interdiction, unless the State gives its consent of over such judgment of liability.
But government owned and controlled corporations peforming mixed proprietary and governmental functions have in the charters creating them provisions that they can sue and be sued therefore, civil liability can be adjuged against them.
thanks atty JCC… you made my day.
jcc,
Hey, you are good at this. You should put your talent to highly valuable use – to an essentially unrepresented people – and form a Civil Liberties Union. Eventually you might become like an ardent US liberal, defending the rights of people who, in the Philippines, have precious few defenders.
Joe
joe,
I have done that. Let’s say I was burnt out.
jcc,
I can readily understand why.
Joe
hey joe,
We should have all three, “(leytenian, j_ag and jcc)” individual in the public servant committee. Excellent questions by leytenian, great perspective by j_ag. Most awesomeness rebuttal by jcc. A totally eye opener!
hey hey Mario,
Yes, a good discussion, for sure. We are in good legalistic hands.
Joe
Manoy Jose,
Your baby is your look-alike, heheh. (shhhh, wag magagalit ang nanay.)
Any one agreeing to/with Martial Law to effect a function of police powers is playing with fire threatening the peace and stability of the nation.
Play with fire and you get burned. Get burned if you want, but you are putting my country and people at great risks. Mga bugoks.
A bad beginning will never end good.I always believe that GMA and her cohorts, through deceit and machination, stole the power from ERAP.
Having done that, they have to steal the presidency from FPJ through Garci.
Now nearing her term, they must act again. And they are now doing something to cling to power.
AND MOST PROBABLY, THEY WILL SUCCEED.
But I will not will despair. For this will all end. There is no other logical conclusion.
Her situation is like a man with terminal disease trying to postpone his death. Postpone, he can, but the inevitable will happen.
So anti-GMA bloggers, relax and just sip coffee at the Starbucks. Her time will come. There is other way for her but to fall. Face down.
I remember that during Marcos time, I always fumed with anger asking what power in heaven can stop him. Especially at the height of his power.
My grandfather wisely advised me to keep cool. A BAD BEGINNING WILL ALWAYS END BAD, he said. True enough. Marcos was ousted.
So was Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and countless other leaders who started their rule with their wrong foot.
How true and how safe. In fact, even reasonable and justified (as opposed to the bad example) leadership will also end, even with their right foot.
We will bring this Pandak Goblin to justice once she loses her presidential immunity.
Let the people and the world remember her monstrous crimes.
OK… lets address Pat ” We should unite and oust Mrs. Arroyo NOW” on the front not behind…lol
Many opposition leaders find Martial Law unconstitutional. It was declared already so we have to face the reality now and what should be then the next and proper step. The constituion says that martial law can be in effect for 60 days unless it is revoked, shortened or extended by congress. If many people think that it was an unfair declaration for so many reasons and that we need to reunite , the new united people must speak not in front of EDSA but in front of congress or DIRECTLY to their respective representative. The majority of the House is in favor of martial law for so many reasons. Like for example, Gloria still controls the budget. Yes it’s true that Congress is supposed to act as” check and Balance” but in reality majority desires to receive the check and balance it without the people. yes or no?
But here’s an interesting lines from Philstar…
leytenian,
The perspective expressed in Philstar is very interesting. Do I correctly deduce that Mindinao people are generally FOR martial law, and the greater security it provides them?
Joe
the lady who wrote the letter expressed strong opinion that the voice of Mindanao matters most but GMA may have no choice or was very upset from the blowback at that time. Or her advisors may have considered their decisions according to the report at the locality.
1. tips from local citizens about an area where there was an activity two days after the massacre. The tip was probably disclosing that some huge numbers of firearms were buried. To make the move fast and legal, Martial law must have been the only option at that crucial time. To dig to someone’s backyard is not legal without a warrant or legal purpose.
2. Tips to whereabouts of suspects. Our courts are slow. And in the news, many local courts were closed due to death threat. To secure a warrant of arrest may take time.
3. Ampatuans filed writ of Amparo. I can interpret that as their opportunity ( time left to move and think ) to carry on other alternatives such as.. to dig the firearms, communicate with their CVO’s and shoot back..
4. Time to act
The result of Martial Law was the apprehension of 67 suspects and the recovery of many ammunitions that can arm a battalion.
To answer your question, I cannot speak in behalf of them but the people needs education and fear free environment…
I saw and heard that Cong. Dilangalen is against Martial Law…he is one of representatives in Muslim Mindanao. “SO NOT ONLY LUZONIANS DOES NOT WANT MARTIAL LAW” eh!
The act committed by the Ampatuans was not rebellious, how come they rebel to themselves…for which they are the GOVT in Maguindanao? @#CK!…their act was abused of power and authority not rebellion…@#CK! again…
These people who wants to say BLACK is WHITE, and WHITE is BLUE are the dogs of GMA…trying to explain that there were rebellion in Maguindanao…that Justice system will not be effective if Martial Law will not be the law in Maguindanao @#CK!…which what happened in Maguindanao was an act of terrorism…see the draft made by our Congress for anti-terrorism bill.
Privacy International
Philippines Anti-Terrorism Bill
25/05/2005
In response to the terrorist attacks in February, the draft bill on terrorism has been introduced in May 2005.
This bill consolidates all the draft bills that were submitted in response to those attacks.
This bill and its sister proposal, the ID card bill have been marked as ‘urgent’ by the President and is not set to undergo much parliamentary scrutiny since it is already approved by the President.
——————————————————————————–
Draft as of May 4, 2005
Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session
Bill No.
Introduced by the Committee on Justice and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
AN ACT
DEFINING TERRORISM, ESTABLISHING INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS
TO PREVENT AND SUPPRESS ITS COMMISSION, PROVIDING PENALTIES
THEREFORE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted in the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1.Short Title.- This Act shall be known as the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005:’
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.— It is hereby declared the policy of the State to safeguard and protect the lives/properties and environment, promote the dignity of the people, and to strongly condemn terrorism as a crime against the law of nations and humanity. The State shall take all the necessary measures to prevent, suppress, and penalize terrorism in all its forms. It shall continue to respect and promote the values, rights and freedom enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. Consistent with its foreign policy, the State shall extend cooperation and undertake mutual assistance with oilier States and international organizations in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution of persons involved in terrorism.
SEC. 3. Terrorism. – Terrorism is the premeditated, threatened, actual Use of violence, force, or by any other means of destruction perpetrated against person/s, property/ies, or the environment, with the intention of creating or sowing a slate of danger, panic, fear, or chaos to the general public, group of persons or particular person, or of coercing or intimidating the government to do or abstain from doing an act.
SEC. 4. Terrorism; How Committed. -Terrorism is committed by any person or group of persons, whether natural or juridical, who, with intent to create or sow danger, panic, fear or chaos to the general public or a group of persons or particular person, or to coerce or intimidate the government to do or to abstain from doing an act through the premeditated, threatened, or actual use of force, violence or oilier means of destruction, commits any of the following acts:
(1) Threatening or causing death or serious bodily harm (on person or persons),
(2) Threatening or causing serious risk to health or safely of (the public or any segment of the public;
(3) Threatening or causing substantial damage or wanton destruction or resorting to arson on critical infrastructure or property, public or private;
(4) Threatening or causing serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work;
(5) Hijacking or threatening to hijack any kind of aircraft, electric or railroad train, locomotive, passenger bus or oilier means of mass transportation, or public conveyance, or piracy of ship or sea vessel;
(6) Taking or threatening to kidnap or deprive any person of his/her liberty;
(7) Assassinating or threatening to assassinate, or kidnapping or threatening to kidnap the President or the Vice President of (lie Philippines, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the Mouse of Representatives or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court}
(8) Killing or violently attacking an internationally protected person or depriving the liberty of such person in violation of the Convention on the Protection and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, and oilier international agreements;
(9) Attacking or threatening to attack the cyberspace, by destroying the actual machinery of the information and communication infrastructure, disrupting the information technology underlying the internet, government or private networks or systems, or committing any unlawful act against networks, servers, computers or other information and communication systems;
(10) Willfully destroying the natural resources in land, water and air, such as forests or marine and mineral resources, or intentionally causing oil or toxic spillages, or other similar acts of destruction against the environment that threatens ecological security;
(11) Unlawfully manufacturing, processing, selling, acquiring, possessing, using, diverting, supplying or transporting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents, or equipment and instruments used in their production, distribution, release or spread that would endanger directly or indirectly the safety of one or more individuals, or to cause mass destruction or great damage to property; or
(12) Unlawfully manufacturing, selling, acquiring, supplying, disposing, using or possessing explosives, bombs, grenades, projectiles, devices or other lethal weapons, or substances or machinery used or intended to be used for the manufacture of explosives in furtherance of, or incident to, or in – connection with, an act of terrorism defined herein.
Any person who commits any act of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Ten Million Pesos (Flip 10,000,000.00): Provided, That, if an act of terrorism should result in the death of a person, or if committed with the use of uniform, paraphernalia, communication equipment, or other implements peculiar to the armed-forces or other-law enforcement agencies, or if the offender is a government official or-employee or has retired, resigned, dismissed or otherwise separated from the government service, the penalty of death shall be imposed.
SEC.5. Conspiracy or Proposal to Commit Terrorism. – There is a conspiracy to commit terrorism when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit any act of terrorism as defined herein and decide to commit it.
There is proposal to commit terrorism when any person who has decided to commit any act of terrorism as defined herein proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
The conspiracy or proposal to commit any act of terrorism shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of Five Million Pesos (Php 5,000,000.00); Provided, That if the person is a government official or employee or has retired, resigned, dismissed or otherwise separated from the government service, the maximum penalty and (lie accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office shall be imposed.
SEC. 6. Inciting to Terrorism.- It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons, natural or juridical, to incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in Section 4 of this Act by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to incite others to terrorism.
Any person who incites others to commit terrorism shall suffer the penalty of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of Five Million Pesos (Php 5,000,000.00): Provided, That, if the person is a government official or employee or has retired resigned, dismissed or otherwise separated from the government service, the maximum penalty and the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office shall be imposed.
SEC. 7. Acts that Facilitate, Contribute to or Promote Terrorism. – It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons, whether natural or juridical, to knowingly, willfully and voluntarily facilitate, contribute to or promote terrorism through any of the following acts:
(1) Establishing, maintaining or serving as contact or link with any person or group of persons or organization/s who have pursued or are pursuing terrorism;
(2) Arranging or assisting in the conduct of meeting of two (2) or more persons, knowing that the meeting is to support or is in furtherance of terrorism;
(3) Participating in training and providing training facilities to any person or group of persons, organizations to carry out terrorism;
(4) Providing or offering to provide training, skill or expertise in furtherance of terrorism;
(5) Recruiting in order to facilitate or commit terrorism;
(6) Facilitating the entry or stay in the Philippines of aliens, knowing that the aliens have pursued or are pursuing terrorism;
(7) Facilitating, providing, soliciting or encouraging financial or material support for the commission of terrorism; or
(8) Harboring or concealing any person whom one knows or has reasonable ground to believe, to be the person who carried out any act slated in this Section or who committed or is likely to commit any act of terrorism.
Any person who commits any of the acts stared in this Section shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Ten Million Pesos (P10,0000,000.00); Provided, That, if the act should result in the death of a person, or if such act was committed with the use of firearms or ammunition, or uniform, paraphernalia, communication equipment, or other implements peculiar to the armed forces or other law enforcement agencies, or if the offender is a public officer or employee, the death penalty shall be imposed.
SEC. 8. Proscription of Organization. – For the purpose of tins Act, an organization may be proscribed as terrorist organization by the Secretary of Justice upon the recommendation of the Anti-Terrorism Council created by this Act if such organization is characterized by any of the following:
(1) Any member or members thereof openly and publicly declares, admits, acknowledges, to have committed any of the acts punishable under this Act;
(2) Any member or members thereof have committed an act or acts of terrorism as defined and described in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of tins Act;
(3) It is proscribed by the United Nations or other international organizations.
Proscriptions shall be published in the government gazette and major newspapers. Any proscribed organization or member thereof may move for de-proscription or de-listing before the Department of Justice (DOJ), whose decision is appeal able to the Court of Appeals.
SEC. 9. Membership in a Terrorist Organization. -Where an organization has been proscribed as a terrorist organization, it shall be unlawful for any person who knowingly, willfully, and by overt acts, affiliates himself, becomes, or remains a member of such organization unless he can prove a lack of personal knowledge of the organization’s activities; or that he has not taken any part in the activities of the organization at anytime while it was proscribed; or that lie took immediate steps to terminate his membership there from as soon as practicable after it was proscribed; or that the organization was not declared a terrorist organization at the lime one became a member or begun to profess to be a member.
Any person convicted under this section shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment from not less than six (6 )years and one (1) day to not more than twelve (12)’years: Provided that, if the offender is a a government official or employee, or has retired, resigned, dismissed or otherwise separated from the government service, the maximum penalty and the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office shall be imposed.
SEC. 10. Making False Threats of Acts of Terrorism.- It shall be unlawful for any person to:
(1) Communicate or make available by any means, any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with (he intention of inducing him or any other person a false belief that a terrorist act has been, is being or will be carried out; or,
(2) Place any article or substance in any place, or dispatch any article or substance by mail or by any other means of sending things from one place to another with the intention of inducing in another person a false belief that –
(i) the article or substance is likely to explode or ignite and thereby cause personal injury or damage to properly; or
(ii) the article contains or the substance consists of any dangerous, hazardous, radioactive or harmful substance; any toxic chemical; or any microbial or other biological agent, or toxin, that is likely to cause death, disease or personal injury or damage to property.
For purposes of subsections (1) and (2), a reference to a person inducing in another person a false belief does not require the first-mentioned person to have any particular person in mind as the person in whom lie intends to induce the false belief. The penalty of imprisonment for a period of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day to not more than twelve years and a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person convicted under this Section. Provided that, if the offender is a government official or employee, or has retired resigned, dismissed or otherwise separated from the government service, the maximum penalty and the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office shall be imposed.
SEC. 11. Failure to Disclose Acts of Terrorism. — Any person, who, having personal knowledge or information of any acts punished under this Act, conceals or docs not disclose and makes known the same, as soon as possible to the government or any of its authorized agencies, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00): Provide , if the offender is a government official or employee, or has retired, resigned, dismissed or otherwise separated from the government service, the maximum penalty and the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office shall be imposed.
SEC. 12. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner. – Any public officer who, during his tour of duty, deliberately allows or connives in the escape of a prisoner under his custody or charge, who is accused of, or sentenced by final judgment for committing any of the acts punishable under this Act, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than ten (10) years and one (1) day to not more than twelve (12) years. Furthermore, the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification to hold public office shall be imposed on the said public officer.
If the escape or evasion by such prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the public officer charged with the conveyance and custody of (lie said prisoner as the case may be, during his tour of duty, said public officer shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years and one (1) day to not more than eight (10) years, and the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification to hold public office.
SEC. 13. Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnership, Corporation, Association and other Juridical Person. -In case of any violation of this Act committed by a partnership, corporation, association, foundation or any juridical person, a partner, president, director, or manager who consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as co-principal. Provided that, the offending partnership, corporation, association, foundation or any juridical person shall either be penalized with a fine of not less than One Hundred Thousand (Php 100,000.00) Pesos to not more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 500,000.00), or be dissolved or both, at the discretion of the Court.
SEC. 14. Arrest and Detention.— Any peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit any of the offense under this Act; or (b) when any of said offense has in fact been committed and lie has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the same.
Any person arrested under this Section may be detained for a period of not more than fifteen (15) days following his arrest.
The period of detention may be extended beyond fifteen (15) days if the person arrested without a warrant demands for a preliminary investigation and consents to it in writing and in the presence of his or her counsel. He shall be entitled to all other rights under Republic Act No. 7438, otherwise known as “An Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under Custodial Investigation.”
The Commissioner of Immigration may detain without bail any alien charged with any act of terrorism penalized under this Act.
SEC. 15. Additional Penalty if Offender is an Alien. – In addition to the penalties herein prescribed, any alien who violates any of the provisions of tin’s Act shall be deported without further proceedings immediately after service of sentence.
SEC. 16. Immunity from Prosecution.- Any person who serves as a witness for the government or provides evidence in a criminal case involving any violation of this Act, or who voluntarily or by virtue of a subpoena ad testificandum or subpoena duces tecum, produces, identifies or gives testimony on, but not limited to books, papers, documents, tapes containing words, sounds, pictures or images, photos, maps, diagrams, sketches, recordings, disc or any other form of written, recorded, or real evidence; shall be immune from any criminal prosecution, subject to the compliance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1732, otherwise known as “Decree Providing Immunity from Criminal Prosecution to Government Witnesses” and the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.
SEC., 17. Witness Protection; Reporting Leading to Arrest and Conviction of Terrorists. -Any person who provides material information, whether testimonial or documentary, necessary for the investigation or prosecution of individual or group of organization of individuals accused of committing any of the offenses under this Act shall be entitled to the protection and subject to the obligation imposed under the Witness Protection Program pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
SEC. 18. Applicability of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended by Republic Act No. 9194.— Terrorism and other violations of this Act shall be considered unlawful activities under RA 9160, otherwise known as the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001,” as amended.
Upon determination that a reasonable ground to suspect exists dial any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to terrorism and other violations under this Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) may issue a freeze order, which shall be effective immediately, on the said monetary instrument/s and/or properties fur a period not exceeding ninety (90) days unless extended by the Court of Appeals. Notice to the purported owner/s that his/their monetary instrument/s and/or properly has/have been frozen shall be issued simultaneously with the issuance of the freeze order. The purported owner/s of the monetary instrument/s and/or property shall have three (3) working days upon receipt of the notice to explain why the free order should be lifted. The AMLC has three (3) working days to resolve the freeze order case from receipt of the purported owner/s’ explanation. If the AMLC fails to act within three (3) working days from the receipt of the said purported owner’s explanation, the freeze order shall automatically be dissolved.
A freeze order ‘shall stop all movements or transactions of or involving the monetary instrument/s and properly. In cases where checks drawn against a bank account subject of a freeze order were issued within fifteen (15) days prior to the issuance of the freeze order, the freeze order shall likewise result in the automatic cancellation and stop payment thereof. All movements or transactions, irrespective of the amount involved, occurring within the same period shall be reported to the AMLC.
Provided, that deposits or investments with any banking institutions or non-bank financial institutions may be inquired into or examined without prior court order pursuant to RA 9160, as amended: Provided, further, That any person of covered institution knowing that any money, instrument, or property or its proceeds, represents, involves, or relates to terrorism or the furtherance thereof and fails to report the same as suspicious transaction to the AMLC shall be criminally liable pursuant to Section 13 of this Act.
SEC. 19. Communication Assistance/or Law Enforcement Agencies. –
(a) The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the “Anti-Wire Tapping Act” to the contrary notwithstanding, any peace officer may apply ex parte before the executive judge of any Regional Trial Court for an order, or extension of such an order, requiring a provider of wire or electronic communication service to provide intercepted communication and call identifying information to law enforcement agencies, or authorizing or approving the installation, use and/or retrieval of surveillance device, in connection with an investigation for any offense punishable under this Act.
(b) For purposes of this Act, a surveillance device shall include but not limited to the following:
1) Data surveillance device or program capable of being used to record or monitor the input of information into, or the output of information from, the computer;
2) Listening device capable of being used to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a conversation or words spoken to or by any person in conversation, but does not include a hearing aid or similar device used by a person with impaired hearing to overcome the impairment and permit that person to hear only sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear;
3) Optical surveillance device capable of being used to record visually or observe an activity, but does not include spectacles, contact lenses, or similar device used by a person with impaired eyesight to overcome that impairment;
4) Electronic tracking device capable of being used to determine or monitor the location of a person or an object or the status of an object;
5) Pen register capable of recording or decoding electronic or other impulses which identified the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached, but such term does not include any device used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communication services provided by such provider or any device used by a provider or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of its business;
6) Trap and trace device capable of capturing the incoming electronic or other impulses which identify the originating number of an instrument or device from which a wire or electronic communication was transmitted; or
7) A device that is a combination of any two or more of the devices referred to in paragraphs (1) to (6) of this Section.
(c) When peace officer has certified that the information likely to be obtained by such interception, installation or use is relevant to an ongoing investigation for any offense punishable under this Act, the court shall issue an ex parte order requiring a provider of wire or electronic communication service or authorizing the installation, use and/or retrieval of the devices applied for, for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days. An extension of such an order may be granted, provided that such extension shall not exceed sixty (60) days.
Such order shall state one or more of the following -
(1) the premises to be subjected to surveillance;
(2) the use of surveillance device in or on a specified object or class of object;
(3) the use of surveillance device with respect to the conversations, activities/or location of a specified person or a person whose identity is unknown;
(4) the order be sealed until otherwise ordered by the court;
(5) the person using the line to which the device is to be attached, or the company who has been ordered by the court to provide assistance to the” applicant, -not to disclose the existence of the device or the existence of the investigation to the listed subscriber, or to any other person, unless or until otherwise ordered by the court.
(6) the provider of wire or electronic communication service to provide intercepted communication and call identifying information to the peace officer; or
(7) the entry into the premises, and into oilier specified premises adjoining or providing access to the premises, in order to install or retrieve the surveillance device.
(d) A provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person shall install or assist in the installation of such device forthwith on the appropriate line and furnish such peace officer forthwith all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the installation, use and/or retrieval of the device unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that the person so ordered by the court, accord the party will respect to whom the installation, use and/or retrieval is to take place, if such assistance is directed by a court order.
(e) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the information obtained by the device shall be furnished to the peace officer designated in the court order, at reasonable intervals during regular business hours for the duration of the order.
(f) Any person who discloses information obtained, gathered or acquired pursuant to this Section, for the purpose other than that for which it was authorized, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day to not more than six (6) years: Provided, That, if the offender is a government official or employee or has retired, resigned, dismissed or otherwise separated from the government service, the maximum penalty and the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office shall be imposed.
(g) A court order shall not be required to authorize the installation, use or retrieval of surveillance device in any case where a peace officer, in connection with an investigation for any offense punishable under this Act, obtains the written consent of a party to the communication to be monitored or recorded in connection with any offense punishable under this Act.
(h) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or oilier specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under this Act. A good faith reliance on a court older under this Act, is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this Act or any oilier law;
(h) Any communication, written or spoken word, conversation, discussion, information, photos, or data taken, obtained or acquired in violation of this Section shall not be admissible as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
(i) Any person who hinders, obstructs or otherwise prevents the peace officer from performing his duties stated in Section 21 of this Act shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day to not more than six (6) years: Provided, That, if the offender is a government official or employee or has retired, resigned, dismissed or otherwise separated from the government service, the maximum penalty and the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office shall be imposed.
SEC. 20. Seizure of Vehicle, Vessel, Aircraft, Equipment, or Other Property or Instrument.- Any vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment, or oilier property or instrument used in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with any act of terrorism as defined in this Act shall be presumed prima facie evidence to have been unlawfully used n furtherance of or incident to or in connection with any act of terrorism as defined in this Act, and shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture thereof, in favor of the government, including but not limited to all the proceeds of the crime, such as money and other assets obtained thereby and instruments or tools with which it was committed unless they are property of third person not liable for the offense and who docs not knowingly authorize, tolerate or consent the use of the same.
SEC. 21. Prosecution of and jurisdiction Over Cases Involving Terrorism and Terrorist Activities.- The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all offenses punishable under this Act.
Any person may be charged with or convicted of any offense punishable under “Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Act without prejudice to the prosecution of any act or acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code or oilier special laws provided that such act or acts are not absorbed in the offense charged.
When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in the charge if the intent to create or sow a state of danger, panic or chaos to the general public or group of persons or particular persons was not proven during the trial. No person, however, shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
SEC. 22. Non-Applicability of Probation and Plea-Bargaining;.– The provisions of the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 908, as amended, shall not be applicable for offenses punishable under this Act. Neither hall the provisions on pica bargaining provided for in the Rules of Court be made applicable to offenses punishable by this Act.
SEC. 23. Mutual Assistance and Cooperation Between the Philippines and Other States or International Organizations. -When a foreign State or International Organization makes a request for assistance concerning any matter related to any act of terrorism, the Council as created under Section 24 of this Act shall take the appropriate action on the matter, provided that such request of the Philippine Government to a foreign State or International Organization shall be coursed through the Council.
SEC. 24. Anti-Terrorism Council.- There is hereby created an Anti-Terrorism Council under the Office of the President, which shall serve as the central policy-making, coordinating, supervising and monitoring body of the government on all matters of domestic and international terrorism. It shall be composed of the Executive Secretary as Chairperson and the National Security Adviser (NSA) as Vice Chairperson, with the following as members:
a. Secretary of Foreign Affairs;
b. Secretary of Justice;
c. Secretary of National Defense;
d. Secretary of the Interior and Local Government;
e. Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process;
f. Director General, National Intelligence Coordinating Agency; and
g. Others as may be designated by the President
The Council shall organize an Anti-Terrorism Command Center which shall direct, coordinate, supervise and monitor the implementation of various measures against terrorism. It shall be headed by the National Security Adviser as the National Coordinator and shall be staffed, among others, by personnel coming from various agencies of the government.
In addition to their regular functions, the following agencies shall provide technical and other necessary support to the Council: the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP); Philippine National Police (PNP); National Bureau of Investigation (N131); Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); Bureau of Immigration (BI); Office of the Civil Defense (OCD); Philippine Center on Transnational Clime (PCTC); Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC); Consular Office of the Department of Foreign Affairs; Office of Transport Security (OTS); Health Emergency Management Services (HEMS); Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNR1); Environmental Management Bureau (EMB); Security and Exchange Commission (SEC); Bureau of Customs (BOC); National Prosecution Service (NAPROSS); National Telecommunication Commission (NTC); Board of Investments (B01), Commission on Information and Communication Technology (CICT), Bureau of Trade Regulation (BTR), Office of the Muslim Affairs (OMA), National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); and oilier agencies as maybe deemed necessary by the Council.
SEC. 25. Functions of the Council. – In pursuit of its mandate under the preceding section, the Council shall have the following functions:
a.Formulate a comprehensive program and establish institutional mechanisms, when necessary, to deter and prevent acts of terrorism to include, programs to prepare the government and the country to cope with nil forms of terrorist attacks and their consequences, such as, but not limited to, the use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, or oilier weapons of catastrophic effect;
b.Supervise and coordinate the implementation of government policies, plans and measures to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism;
c.Conduct policy researches and studies in addressing terrorism;
d.Direct and monitor the conduct of anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism measures and post-conflict actions to address the effects of terrorism;
e.Direct and monitor the immediate investigation and speedy prosecution of cases involving acts of terrorism and monitor the progress of such cases;
f.Transfer the-conduct of investigation of specific .cases from one law enforcement agency to another;
g.Establish a comprehensive data-base information systems and linkages on anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism operations and post-conflict actions;
h.Approve the grant of monetary rewards and incentives to informants who are willing to give vital information for the arrest of those who committed the acts of terrorism;
i.Recommend the inclusion of vital witnesses under the Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Program;
j.Keep records of its proceedings and decisions, and such records shall be subject to such security classifications as the Council may, in its sound discretion, direct to safeguard the national interest;
k.Recommend to the Department of Justice the proscription and de-proscription of terrorist organizations.
l.Call upon any department, bureau, office or oilier executive agency for assistance; and
m.Exercise such oilier functions as may be assigned by the President.
SEC. 26. Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal Code and Other Generator Special Laws.-The provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other general or special laws have a suppletory application to the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 27. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act, the Anti-Terrorism Council shall promulgate the Implementing Rules and Regulations as may be necessary to ensure the efficient and effective implementation of the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 28. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act.— The provision of Article 2(5) of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to include the crimes penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Act.
SEC. 29. Separability Clause.- If any provision or portion of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, the other provisions or portions of this Act, and the application of such provision or section to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 30. Amendatory Clause. – Republic Act No. 9160, as amended by Republic Act No. 9194, Republic Act No. 4200, Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, and P.D. 968 are hereby amended or modified accordingly.
SEC. 31. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules or regulations or parts thereof, inconsistent with (lie provisions of tin’s Act arc hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
SEC. 32. Effectivity.- This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved.
terrorism is a type of rebellion just like mutiny. Are you interpreting the law like black is white and white is blue?
i think atty JCC can give us a two sided view.. (modern view or backward view) I am for world or modern view.
“terrorism is a type of rebellion just like mutiny”-ginawa lang yan na parehas, para walang magreklamo at magwelga laban kay GMA…kaya yung mag-wewelga daw ay mga terorista…ganun daw yun…yung pumatay ng maraming tao ay pag-rerebelde…aba yung bank robbery with homicide rebelyon na pala yun…yung pananaksak na walang dahilan dahil adik…rebelyon na yun…aba madami na palang rebelde dyan sa Pilipinas….yung mag-hijack ng may dalang bigas…rebelyon din ba yun…ayus na ayus….yes we may need JCC, he’s good at this. for me a virgin forest is a virgin…but when it is explored thru modern or antique equipments…I call it deforestation…sa tagalog pangbabalahura.
When the sovereign Nixon informed the court, through his lawyer, the Supreme Court of the U.S. that he had the sovereign absolute power to decide on what to release to the judicial authorities and cited Louis XIV as his sovereign precedent the S.C. struck him down.
The sovereign is no more and in its place are the chains that bind the sovereign under the rule of constitutional law.
The struggle today is between the originalists (strict constructionists) and the reconstructionists in constitutional law under the every evolving Anglo Saxon law.
The United States today stands as an example of a constitutional republic where sovereignty lies with the people.
In England, France and Russia during varying times in their history they killed their Kings.
Nixon surely would have gone to jail. GMA should also face scrutiny for personally approving the establishment of CVO’s to counter the Islamic insurgency.
There are many in the U.S. who still believe that W. should be impeached and prosecuted for war crimes.
The U.S. invaded Iraq for the crimes of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda a product of that regime.
“It’s probably the reason why Gloria created an Independent commission to investigate this political crime?”-leytenian
Where are you coming from, leytenian?
A large group of people traveling on a highway, and another group of motorists who incidentally happened to be at the same area at the time, were stopped by criminal monsters then killed, mutilated, raped, vaginas shoot, including the pregnant woman, killing more than 58 innocent human beings in one full swoop.
And you called the atrocity a “political crime”?
I can’t believe this.
shoot; shot? sorry.
Bert,
See what happened when you start using those words, now your misspelling shot, beforehand. LOL!