NOW: Retired SC senior assoc justice Antonio Carpio leads the Management Assoc of PH webinar on the Anti-Terror Bill. Carpio opens strong: "I object to the anti-terror bill because of provisions that are unconstitutional." @rapplerdotcom 
Carpio now quoting congressional transcripts of terror bill sponsor Senator Ping Lacson saying the anti-terrorism council is authorized to arrest and detain a suspect. Carpio quotes Lacson: "Hindi pa nangyari, nasa simula pa lamang, puwede na nating arestuhin."
Lacson has earlier denied that the council is authorized to order arrests and detention. Section 29 is very clear that the council is indeed authorized to order arrests and detention.
Carpio: Clearly, under Section 25, the anti terrorism council can designate a person as a terrorist. And therefore he can be arrested because terrorism as a crime.
Carpio said the bill's authority to declare people or groups as terrorists without a single hearing is unconstitutional for violating freedom of association, and the right to due process.
Carpio paints an example: Let's say a former senator is tagged as a terrorist for doing something that intends to create harm? He is arrested, and Mr X's relatives secure a writ of habeas corpus, and the court asks why is he in your custody? Police can show ATC authorization.
Carpio: If Mr X is charged for a non-bailable offense, and even if he files an appeal, he will still remain in jail like Senator Leila De Lima, that is the effect of Section 25.
Carpio: If the anti-terror bill is passed and becomes a law of the land, it would be like the country is under a perpetual state worse than martial law.
Carpio: The anti-terror bill will have a devastating effect on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Carpio: If we do not want a contraction of our civil liberties we must all work to have the objectionable provisions of the anti-terror act invalidated by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress.
Carpio: We're stuck with a very defective law that has many unconstitutional provisions.
Carpio also warns against Section 34 which allows for a house arrest. Some acts in the bill are bailable like inciting to terrorism. But Carpio said with Section 34's house arrest clause, the suspect loses his constitutional right to bail.
Carpio said he read congressional transcript and no one in the Senate objected to Lacson's statement during hearings that you can arrest someone without an overt act being committed. "That could have been corrected in House, but we're stuck with this now," said Carpio
Carpio said if anti-terror bill is now a law, the rally in UP Diliman could have been interpreted as an act of terrorism for it creates widespread fear of spreading the coronavirus.
Carpio said that while it's difficult, it's possible to mount a People's Initiative to void the anti-terror bill if passed into law.
Carpio said he doesn't agree with the Human Security Act's automatic penalty of P500,000 upon acquittal "because law enforcement will just not act." Carpio said government must find another way to have safeguard against abuse.
Carpio said that under the anti-terror bill, the destabilization plot matrix could have subjected the people there to warrantless arrest because it falls under the definition of a terror act as destabilizing and intimidating govt.
Responding to a comment that business groups should care about economic crisis more than anti terror bill, Carpio smiles first and says, "you cannot close your eyes to these events."
Carpio said that if anti-terror bill is passed into law, he will join petitions to question it before the Supreme Court. Carpio says he cannot act as counsel because there's a one year prohibition on him as retired justice. "I plan to be a petitioner."
If Duterte says publicly "ipapapatay ko kayo," is that an act of terrorism?
Carpio tries to venture into an answer, whether that falls under threat to commit terrorism, whether the threat creates widespread fear; settles with saying there's a need to revisit the bill.
Carpio tries to venture into an answer, whether that falls under threat to commit terrorism, whether the threat creates widespread fear; settles with saying there's a need to revisit the bill.
