Iginiit ni Senator Panfilo Lacson na maaaring naguluhan si retired Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio sa salitang “designation” at “proscription” sa ilalim ng proposed Anti-Terrorism Act.
Sa webinar, sinabi ni Lacson na mali si Carpio nang ipilit nito na ang indibidwal na “designated” bilang terorista ay maaaring maaresto batay sa kautusan mula sa Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC).
“This is not only inaccurate. This is plain and simple wrong. Arrests, same as detention, are not intended consequences of designation,” ani Lacson.
“Designation is purely an executive and administrative process intended to trigger the issuance of a ‘freeze order’ of properties and assets of designated terrorist individuals or terrorist organizations or associations,” dagdag pa nito.
Paliwanag ni Lacso, isinasaad sa Section 25 ng panukala na “the designation shall be without prejudice to the proscription of terrorist organizations, associations, or groups of persons.”
“With respect to Justice Carpio, he must have confused ‘designation’ with ‘proscription’ of terrorist groups, organizations or associations,” lahad ni Lacson.
“Proscription under Section 26 requires court intervention where a full-blown hearing will take place before a group or organization may be considered a terrorist organization.”
Ito naman ang naunang pahayag ni Carpio na pinag-ugatan ng patutsada ni Lacson.
“Once so designated, the individual can now be arrested upon order of the Anti-Terrorism Council. Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the penalty is life imprisonment. You will be imprisoned throughout your physical life,” giit ni Carpio.
“‘The question is, how will the Anti-Terrorism Council make such designation? How will it designate you a terrorist or [determine that] your organization is engaged in terrorism? Is a hearing required where the individual or organization is represented? The only requirement under Section 25 is upon probable cause. Probable cause doesn’t require a hearing.”