Detention of a maximum period of 24 days already imposes punishment even to innocent individuals, violates his or her right to due process, right to bail, as well as other rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

These arguments were raised by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman in convincing the Supreme Court to declare “unconstitutional” the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) that has been profusely opposed by various groups and individuals in 37 court petitions.

Lagman said the 37 “kindred groups of petitioners” strongly questioning the ATA filed Monday, June 28, “six -clustered memoranda in support of their consolidated petitions.” Lagman, petitioner and counsel in Case No. G.R. 252579, has been placed in charge of preparing the memorandum for cluster 5 that presented arguments in support of a bid for the SC to void Section 29 of the ATA.

Section 29 provides for the detention of suspected terrorist for longer periods even without judicial warrant of arrest.

The veteran lawmaker also presented the written arguments on other challenged provisions of the ATA and sought the declaration of the whole law as a contradiction of rights guaranteed under the Constitution for every individual.

“The inordinately long detention period of a maximum of 24 days authorized under Section 29 violates the constitutional guarantees of the right to due process, right against unreasonable seizures or arrests, right to presumption of innocence, right to bail, right to speedy disposition of one’s case, right against torture, right to secure the writs of habeas corpus and amparo, where time is of the essence in the effective exercise of said rights,” said Lagman in the memorandum.

He pointed out that the subtitle alone that reads “Detention without Judicial Warrant of Arrest” already consists of an ”express admission that the written authorization of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) for the arrest and detention of a terrorist suspect is a violation of Section 2 of Article III of the Bill of Rights which mandates that no person can be arrested without a warrant of arrest solely issued by a judge upon finding of probable cause.”

“The ATC, which is a purely executive agency, cannot be vested with the power to issue warrant of arrest,” the memorandum stated.

According to Lagman only a judge can order the arrest or taking into custody of a a suspect and this authority cannot be given to the ATC which is a body under the executive department.

“The arrest and detention of a person on mere suspicion violates the constitutional requirement that there must be probable cause before a person can be arrested,” he argued.

The petitioner added: “The arrest and detention under Section 29 are not among the three limited instances of warrantless arrest under Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which can be amended solely by the Supreme Court, not by legislation like the ATA.”

Lagman also noted that there had been an attempt in the Implementing Rules and Regulations to “cure the constitutional infirmities of Section 29”.

However, he stressed that such move is an “exercise in futility because the IRR as a mere administrative issuance cannot supplement, modify, amend, or cure the substantive law which it seeks to implement.”

“Moreover, the long detention without judicial warrant, intervention and oversight violates the international covenants, of which the Philippines is a State party, prohibiting arbitrary arrests and arbitrary detention,” the independent lawmaker explained.