Defense - 19!08!13 Org Mting. Anti Terrorism Act

Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines

SENATE
Pasay City
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY

JOINT WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Date : Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Time : 9:30 a.m.
Venue : Sen. Ambrosio B. Padilla Room

2nd Floor, Senate of the Philippines
Financial Center, Roxas Boulevard
Pasay City
Agenda : PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT, AMENDING R.A.

NO. 9372:
SENATE BILL NO. 6 - AN ACT AMENDING R.A. 9372

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ACT TO SECURE THE
STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM
TERRORISM OR THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT (HSA)
OF 2007, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES (by Senator Sotto III)
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2019:
SENATE BILL NO. 21 - AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN

PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS ‘AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND
PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM’ (by Senator
Lacson); and
SENATE BILL NO. 630 - AN ACT TO COMBAT

TERRORISM AND SECURE THE NATION, AMENDING
FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 AND OTHER LAWS (by
Senator Marcos)
1
Committee on National Defense and Security
Joint with the Finance
August 13, 2019 (Tuesday)
Page2

ATTENDANCE
SENATORS:
HON. PANFILO M. LACSON - Chairperson, Committee on

National Defense and
Security
HON. FRANCIS “TOL” N. TOLENTINO - Vice Chairperson,
Committee on National
Defense and Security
HON. RONALD “BATO” DELA ROSA - Vice Chairperson
HON. CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE T. GO- Vice Chairperson,
HON. IMEE R. MARCOS - Vice Chairperson,
Committee on Finance
HON. VICENTE C. SOTTO III - Senate President
GUESTS/RESOURCE PERSONS:
Hon. Delfin Lorenzana - Secretary, Department of

National Defense (DND)
Hon. Ricardo David Jr. - Undersecretary, DND
Hon. Eduardo M. Año - Secretary, Department
of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG)
Hon. Gregorio B. Honasan II - Secretary, Department of
Information and Communications
Technology (DICT)
Hon. Hermogenes Esperon Jr. - Secretary, National Security
Adviser (NSA)
Gen. Benjamin R. Madrigal Jr. - Chief of Staff, Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP)
Hon. Gwen Pimentel-Gana - Commissioner, Commission
on Human Rights, (CHR)
Gen. Alex Monteagudo (ret.) - Director General, National
Intelligence Coordinating
Council (NICA)
Judge Felix Reyes - Branch 272, Regional Trial
2
Committee on National Defense and Security
Joint with the Finance
August 13, 2019 (Tuesday)
Page3

Court, Marikina City
Mr. Elmedio B. Tagra - Directorate for Intelligence,
Philippine National
Police (PNP)
Mr. Florentino P. Manalastas Jr. - Executive Director, Anti-
Terrorism Council-Program
Management Cener
SENATE SECRETARIAT:
Ms. Charlyne Claire Fuentes-Olay - Committee Secretary,

Committee on National Defense
and Security
Ms. Cindell B. Gealan - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Araceli D. Masicap - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Maribel P. Mendoza - Committee Stenographer
MS. Rosemarie J. Ortiz - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Ma. Rosalinda J. Catadman - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Merlene J. Palaganas - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Jeniffer De Silva - Committee Support Staff
Mr. Eriberto Caña - Committee Support Staff
Mr. Julius Gonzales - Committee Support Staff
(For complete list, please see attached Attendance Sheet.)
.../admasicap/imjv

3
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY JOINT WITH
THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
CBGealan I-1 August 13, 2019 9:23 a.m. 1
AT 9:23 A.M., HON. PANFILO M. LACSON,

CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
DEFENSE AND SECURITY, CALLED THE HEARING TO
ORDER.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. This meeting is hereby called to order.
VOICE. Good morning, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Included in today’s
agenda are the following: the organizational meeting of the Committee
on National Defense and Security; and a hearing to discuss the different
measures pertaining to the amendments of the Human Security Act of
2007.
For the information of everybody, the following are the members
of this Committee: this representation is the Chair; Vice Chairpersons:
Francis “Tol” Tolentino, Senator Grace Poe, Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela
Rosa, Senator Christopher Lawrence Go, Senator Gordon, Senator
Pacquiao; and the members are Senator Lapid, Senator Villanueva,
Senator Marcos, Senator Binay, Senator Angara, Senator Revilla,
Senator Gatchalian, Senator Villar, Senator Hontiveros, Senator
Pangilinan, Senator De Lima; ex officio members are Senators Recto,
Zubiri and Drilon.
4
Now, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the Vice Chair
of the Committee, Senator Francis “Tol” Tolentino and, of course,
Senator Dela Rosa.
Thank you, sirs, for attending this meeting and hearing.
Comsec, can you acknowledge the presence of our resource
persons?
THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY (MS. OLAY). Good morning.
Let me acknowledge the presence of our resource persons for this
hearing.
We’ll start with Secretary Delfin Lorenzana of the Department of
National Defense, Secretary Eduardo M. Año of the Department of the
Interior and Local Government; Secretary Gregorio Honasan of the
Department of Information and Communications Technology; Director
General Alex Paul Monteagudo from the National Intelligence
Coordinating Agency; General Hermogenes Esperon Jr. from the
National Security Council; General Benjamin Madrigal of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines; Executive Director Florentino Manalastas Jr.
from the Anti-Terrorism Council Program Management Center;
Commissioner Gwen Pimentel-Gana from the Commission on Human
Rights; Police Brigadier General Elmedio Tagra from the Philippine
National Police; Deputy Director General Damian Carlos, also from the
5
DILG; Usec Ricardo David Jr. from the DND; and Judge Felix P. Reyes
from Branch 272 of RTC Marikina City.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Comsec.
The Chair manifests that the Committee is adopting and
subscribing to the pertinent provisions of the Rules of the Senate, Rule
10, Section 13, paragraph 13, Committee on National Defense and
Security, we have 19 members, “All matters relating to national defense
and external and internal threats to national security; the Armed Forces
of the Philippines; pension plans and fringe benefits of war veterans and
military retirees; citizens army selective service; forts; arsenals; military
camps and reservations; coast, geodetic and meteorological surveys;
civil defense; and military research and development, and the rules of
procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation. These rules shall
guide the operation and conduct of the meetings, hearings and
investigations of the Committee.”
Do I hear a motion to adopt the rules?
SEN. TOLENTINO. I so move, Mr. Chair, that we adopt Section
5 of the Rules of the Senate for purposes of guiding the proceedings of
this Committee.
SEN. DELA ROSA. I second, Mr. Chair.
6
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). There’s a motion properly
seconded to adopt the Rules of the Committee, and it is hereby adopted.
Okay. We’re done with the organizational meeting. We’ll go to
the second part of the agenda, to hear the measures pending in the
Committee or referred to the Committee to amend the Human Security
Act of 2007.
Now, during the last Seventeenth Congress, the Committee on
Public Order and Dangerous Drugs, to which the bills related to terrorism
were referred, conducted two public hearings: one, on October 1, 2018,
and the second on November 27. In fact, a committee report was
presented on the floor one week before Congress went on sine die
adjournment. However, due to lack of material time, the said measure
was not enacted into law.
During the two public hearings, the following proposals were
considered and incorporated in the committee report: from the National
Security Council, they proposed that the P500,000 in the form of
damages to the accused when acquitted should be scrapped, the reason
being there are already existing laws in relation to granting
compensation to falsely charged persons; further, they also suggested
that a special detention facility for terrorists, like a super maximum
detention center shall be provided by the government; and they also
7
suggested that special courts will try violations of the Anti-Terrorism
Law.
On the part of DICT, they suggested that NTC instead of DICT
should be imposed with the duty to compel the telecoms and the
Internet service providers for the production of such pertinent data,
information or records as they, not the DICT, have the adjudicatory
powers that could effectively enforce judicial orders, resolutions or
directives that would compel an individual to perform or refrain from
performing an act.
The Anti-Terrorism Council Program Management Center, it was
agreed upon that they will retain most of their function under the same
setup instead of converting themselves into a commission.
Now, DFA supports the inclusion of the secretaries of DICT, DOST,
DOTr, DOLE and DepEd to the Anti-Terrorism Council, and the addition
of a provision on foreign terrorist fighters, which has already been
included in at least one of the bills.
These and more which were discussed and resolved during last
year’s public hearings and those that we will consider in this public
hearing are being recommended by the Chair to be spread into the
records of the Committee on National Defense and Security for
consideration in our committee report. Para lang hindi tayo paulit-ulit
8
at—unless mayroon kayong mga bagong input or maybe nagpalit iyong
isip ninyo from November to this day, then you can pop out.
So who do I recognize first? Seniority? Senator Honasan.
Secretary Honasan is recognized. About DICT.
MR. HONASAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to put on record our initial position
on the proposed Senate bills, to be followed by more comprehensive
written submissions.
First, on countering violent extremism in social media, the DICT
supports the duties and responsibilities against violent extremism in
social media.
The DICT’s policy initiative on social media used for government
is aligned with the objectives of the measures countering violent
extremism in preventing violent extremism, counter radicalization,
deradicalization and providing aftercare thereon.
Second, on the expanded definition of terrorist acts, the DICT
supports the Senate bill’s expanded definition of terrorist acts to include
acts under Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
as predicate crimes with the following reservations: first, reservations
of the use of Republic Act 10175.
9
RA 10175 covers all crimes under the Revised Penal Code and
special penal laws, and imposes a penalty one degree
higher…/cbg/mva
10
ADMasicap II-1 August 13, 2019 9:33 a.m. 1
MR. HONASAN. …a penalty one degree higher if the crime is
committed by, through and with the use of ICT technologies. This is
Section 6 of RA 10175.
Second, crimes under the Revised Penal Code in special penal laws
have different classifications, Mr. Chairman, such as grave, less grave,
light felonies offenses under Article IX of the Revised Penal Code.
It is submitted that not all crimes committed by, through and with
the use of ICT, though ipso facto be considered as a means of
committing terrorism or terrorist acts. Relevant exceptions, as we
suggest, Mr. Chairman, can be made regarding light felonies, offenses
or for crimes that are not of the same class or kind as the other
predicate crimes of terrorism.
Ito po, Mr. Chairman, we would humbly suggest comprehensive
inputs from the Department of Justice para ma-cover po ito and, of
course, closer coordination among the line agencies that are primarily
involved in countering and countermeasures and, of course, considering
also their vulnerability to assaults like cyberattacks.
Third, the DICT with the other executive departments may likewise
be--ito po, we humbly suggest this also--to be designated as part of the
anti-terror council which would be timely considering that RA 9372 was
11
enacted before the DICT was created. So, this is just a modification,
Mr. Chairman.
Second, statutorily tasked, either directly or through its bureaus
and attached agencies to implement the law, judicial orders and court
authorizations relative to ICT-related terrorist activities.
And finally, statutorily, power to exercise adjudicatory powers and
impose administrative fines and penalties in relation to ICT-related
terrorist activities.
So, Mr. Chairman, finally, in general, the DICT supports and poses
no objection to the pertinent provisions to the abovementioned Senate
bills in relation to its mandate.
We will follow this up, Mr. Chairman, with more comprehensive
submissions in coordination with the other agencies.
Salamat po.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). As a matter of fact, the
Committee would strongly suggest that DICT play a more active role.
After all, NTC is more regulatory pero ang DICT, kayo iyong mas
technical. May technical capability, of course, when you deal with the
telcoms and ISPs, (Internet Service Providers), will be in a more
capable position to deal with them. So, that is the humble submission,
Mr. Chair.
12
MR. HONASAN. Mr. Chairman, I am also happy to report to you
that I am actively involved in using my smartphone.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you.
So, if we follow seniority but, of course, if you are willing to yield
to Secretary Esperon?
MR. LORENZANA. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Okay lang?
MR. LORENZANA. I yield.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Sige. Secretary Jun is
recognized.
MR. ESPERON. The esteemed Committee Chair and the
members who are actually the vice chairpersons, colleagues, ladies and
gentlemen, good morning.
We gather today hoping for the immediate passage of the
proposed amendments to the Human Security Act.
First, allow me to extend our appreciation from the security
sector, to Senate President Sotto and Senator Lacson for their efforts
in expediting the process. Through their respective proposed SBN Nos.
6 and 21, they have shown their commitment and initiative in combating
the growing danger by terrorism in the Philippines.
13
Let me also acknowledge, of course, the former Senator Honasan
for his support and now his very strong participation in these hearings.
And just to go back to his statement, may I say that there is already a
resolution by the Anti-Terrorism Council for indeed the inclusion of the
DICT as a member thereof.
Secondly, may I point out that in less than a year there had been
three suicide bombing attacks in Mindanao. Two in Sulu and earlier, one
in Basilan. Further intelligence sources have reported that due to the
collapse of the Daesh in Syria and Iraq, terrorist fighters have been
returning to their countries of origin to continue their reign of terror.
These events alarm us to a chilling escalation in tactics, damage and
barbarity that terrorist groups are willing to engage in just to further
their extremist agenda. Evolving strategies by these terrorist groups
demand that we in the security sector should be able to adjust and take
the initiative in order to effectively counteract these terrorist groups. It
is unfortunate to note that the current version of HSA contains
loopholes and obstacles which have prevented the security sector from
establishing deterrence through effective criminal prosecution against
suspected terrorists.
Meantime, Mr. Chairman, may I update you on the fact that the
Anti-Terrorism Council has adopted the national action plan for
14
preventing and countering violent extremism. That will extend our
hands and operations into the six vulnerable sectors namely: the
community, the social media, schools and madrasas, religious leaders;
fifth, OFW and religious scholars and, of course, persons in jails and
prisons which are sources of future terrorists.
The proposed amendments to the HSA are integral to the
institutional framework that the security sector requires to thwart the
spread of terrorism in the Philippines. It affords us the capabilities,
effectiveness and flexibility to address both existing and emergent
threats by terrorist organizations.
Additionally, the proposed bill provides for the means to
counteract the wide spectrum of terrorist activities through and by
involving numerous government agencies.
In closing, may I call on all the other stakeholders involved in the
passage of the proposed amendments to the HSA to join forces in fast
tracking the passage of the law.
Thank very much, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Secretary
Jun.
By the way, under consideration in today’s public hearing are three
bills: Senate Bill No. 6 filed by the Senate President; Senate Bill No. 21
15
filed by this representation; and Senate Bill 630 filed by the Honorable
Imee Marcos.
So, Secretary Lorenzana is recognized.
MR. LORENZANA. Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee,
ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
Mr. Chairman, I will no longer go over my statement. I will just
go directly to the amendment that we are thinking, only two, Mr.
Chairman. To increase the detention of probable terrorists or terrorist
people from 30 to 60 days--I think 30 days iyong last time. Puwede
naming i-increase ng 60 days. That’s only our suggestion.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Masama ang tingin ni
Gwen sa iyo.
MR. LORENZANA. Pangalawa, Mr. Chairman, we would like to
include the chief minister of the BARMM in the Anti-Terrorism Council.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Can you say it again?
MR. LORENZANA. The chief minister of the BARMM to be
member of the Anti-Terrorism--
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). Sit in the council.
MR. LORENZANA. In the council, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes. Okay.
MR. LORENZANA. That’s all, Mr. Chairman.
16
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). As it is provided doon sa
mga measures, we increased the reglementary period of detention from
the usual 36 hours to 14 days with an option to extend it to another 15
days. Now, you are asking to further increase the reglementary period
from 14 to 30, further extendable to another 30 days para 60 days.
What’s your reason for that? And after that, we will hear from the
Commission on Human Rights.
And by the way, we also invited Judge Felix Reyes. The only
conviction na nangyari sa Human Security Act sa pag-implement doon
sa kanyang sala, Branch 70 sa Taguig. And we want to hear from him
iyong input niya kung ano iyong na-experience niya.
Of course, we could have also invited DOJ para sa side ng
prosecutor, ano iyong mga strength and weaknesses ng batas, iyong
Human Security Act na na-encounter nila while prosecuting. But I think
it would suffice that we hear from Judge Reyes.
Okay. Please enlighten us bakit kailangang 60 days.
MR. LORENZANA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think simply we would
like to give the law enforcement agencies enough time to develop their
case. I think sometimes 30 days is not enough considering that it is
17
very difficult also to develop cases. Anyway, 60 days, that’s quick, two
months lang po iyon, Mr. Chairman. Just to give them time…/admasicap/imjv
18
MPMENDOZA III-1 August 13, 2019 9:43 a.m. 1
MR. LORENZANA. …Just to give them time, more time to develop
the case.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). May we hear from
Commissioner Gwen. What say you? [Laughter]
MS. PIMENTEL-GANA. Good morning, Mr. Chair. And good
morning to Senator Tolentino and Senator Bato.
Mr. Chair, like Secretary Honasan, I would like to read a short
statement but subject to submission of a longer paper. But I will answer
later on the proposal of Secretary Lorenzana.
Can I proceed, Mr. Chair?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Please proceed.
MS. PIMENTEL-GANA. Thank you.
The Commission on Human Rights recognizes that it is the State’s
duty to protect the lives of all Filipinos against threats of life, liberty and
security.
The enactment of measures that addresses such situations is
within the government’s powers and is assumed to be for the benefit of
all.
Republic Act 9372, also known as the Human Security Act, and its
proposed amendments while seem to safeguard the country against
terrorism, however, also raises grave concerns on how certain provisions
19
might contravene existing laws and infringe on our constitutionally
protected rights.
The Commission expresses its reservation on several provisions of
the proposed measures, particularly: (1), on the overly broad definition
of terrorism which includes any of the acts committed against any
person or entity which makes it difficult to distinguish terrorism from
ordinary crimes that are already sanctioned by the Revised Penal Code
or special laws; (2), the inclusion of glorification of terrorism as
punishable act that might lead to breaches of the right of expression or
speech; (3), the increase of the period of detention from three days to
14 days or 30 days without a valid warrant of arrest which violates one’s
constitutional right to be presumed innocent and the right to liberty.
So that’s our position regarding the matter, Mr. Chair.
And number four, the repeal of certain safeguards in the present
law like Sections 56 and 62.
In the end, the challenge for the government is to find balance
between upholding national security and the respect of human rights.
It is important for the state to equally improve its intelligence
gathering and investigation capacity for a more targeted pursuit of
terrorists and other fearmongers whose interests solely lie in hurting the
Filipino people.
20
Our call is to continue forging stronger foundations for security
and sovereignty as well as for human dignity and rights. We should not
be made to choose between safety and human rights.
We welcome, therefore, the consultations, study and debate being
conducted by the Committee under your mantleship, Your Honor.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you,
Commissioner Pimentel-Gana.
Senator Tolentino is recognized.
SEN. TOLENTINO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Nagpaalam ako kasi aalis ako mamaya. I’d like to focus my
attention to two provisions contained in Senator Lacson’s bill as well as
Senator Sotto’s bill and this is very timely because it refers likewise to
the agenda heard by Senator Bato’s committee last week. And I’d like
to refer this to Secretary Año. Found in Sections 4 and 5 of Senator
Sotto’s bill is an aspect related to recruitment to terrorist organizations.
This is likewise present in Section 9 of Senator Lacson’s bill, recruitment
to and membership in a terrorist organization. Siguro po this will be
very timely considering that Senator Dela Rosa will have another hearing
tomorrow concerning the recruitment being done—this is current—in
various state universities by certain groups allied with leftist
organizations, and Commission on Human Rights is listening. May we
21
request from Secretary Año just a short position paper relative to the
recruitment process? Kasi po ang involved dito kabataan. Ang nagre-
recruit din kabataan. We are not talking here of lowering the age of
criminal responsibility. So para mas maliwanag po itong—I heard
Madrasah kanina— Para mas maliwanag itong Section 9 at Section 4,
ano po ang pananaw dito ng DILG lalong-lalo na—Pasalamat po ako
sinuportahan ninyo iyong call ko na pumasok ang ating kapulisan sa mga
eskwelahan para mag-patrol. Ito po iyong sinabi ko noong last
committee hearing wherein I even asked an apology from the PUP doon
sa mga magulang at nag-apologize sila and I’m asking for an apology
likewise from the board of regents and I asked them for a position paper
relative to their support to the revival of the ROTC Law.
So sa pananaw po ba ng DILG, itong recruitment process ang
magiging liable po dito iyong kabataan din or the organization itself
considering—iyong sa hearing—Pinagsama ko na iyong hearing noong
isang araw wherein Senator Lacson was present wherein the recruiters
are also of minor age. So siguro mas mainam po rito mapadalhan kami
ng position paper ng DILG relative to Sections 4 and 5 and Section 9
para ma-guide po iyong Komite alin po iyong magiging liable po dito,
iyong organisasyon o iyong mga kabataang nag-recruit ng mga
kabataan din para sumapi sa kanilang organisasyon?
Secretary Año.
22
MR. AÑO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
From the DILG, of course, it would be better if both the recruiter
and the organizations are held liable and accountable. But the problem
now in our present situation, there is no law that outlaws the
organization. When the R.A. 1700 or the Anti-Subversion Act was
repealed, the Communist Party of the Philippines is no longer an illegal
organization. Whereas in that Act, the Communist Party of the
Philippines—
SEN. TOLENTINO. Secretary Año, so you’re implying that part
of your proposed amendments to Senator Sotto’s and Senator Lacson’s
bills would be to include the revival of the Anti-Subversion Law and to
name the organizations that should be considered illegal per se?
Secretary Año.
MR. AÑO. Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Chair.
SEN. TOLENTINO. Can that be part of your position paper as
well?
MR. AÑO. Yes, we are going to submit our position paper for the
restoration of R.A. 1700 or any similar enactment of law that would
actually implement the purpose of the Anti-Subversion Law.
In the United States, the Communist Control Act of 1954 has never
been repealed. That’s why it’s very hard for a subversive organization,
23
particularly a communist organization, to thrive in the United States, Mr.
Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you. It is the
Chair’s humble submission that it should fall on the provision on
proscription of terrorist organizations. Kasi sa ngayon kung ang nagre-
recruit iyong organizations, what we call the front organizations of the
CPP-NPA, ito iyong mga legal fronts, we cannot hold them liable because
guaranteed under the Constitution pwede silang mag-enjoy ng freedom
of assembly, hindi ba? Kasi ginagamit lang sila sa pang-rally. But it is a
different matter—kasi there’s an ongoing case filed by the security
sector—I think the DOJ filed a case ng proscription, hindi ba, against the
NPA as a terrorist organization?
What I cannot understand kung nagpa-file tayo ng kaso ng
proscription, bakit kailangan i-identify pa natin iyong individual
members that would be included? Kasi these are nameless and faceless
people. So ang ibig sabihin ba kung sino lang iyong nakalista as
members of the terrorist organization or terrorist group about to be
proscribed as a terrorist group, tagged as a terrorist group, iyon lang
ang pwedeng arestuhin without warrant because the others will go
through the usual judicial process? And I would like ask the opinion of
Judge Felix, the Honorable Judge Felix in this regard. Kasi sa ngayon,
narinig ko—I just read in the papers that the court, the RTC na naghi-
24
hear noong proscription case is asking for specific names of individuals
na pwedeng i-include doon sa terrorist organization. Pero ang sini-seek
natin to be proscribed is the NPA itself. Ang dami naman diyan na
talagang alam nating NPA using aliases, hindi ba? And these are
nameless, faceless, yet to be identified members of the NPA.
…/mpm/jmb
25
RJOrtiz IV-1 August 13, 2019 9:53 a.m. 1
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). …identified members of
the NPA. Nakikilala lang natin through intelligence reports and kapag
may mga encounters, may nahuhuli, through interrogations, hindi ba,
and investigation.
Unless you would like to say something? After you, we will
recognize Judge Felix.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just like to provide an update to the Chair, we had a meeting
with the DOJ representative, the prosecutor, two weeks ago about this
proscription against the CPP-NPA. And the prosecutor explained that--
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Ang pinapapa-proscribe
not only the CPP-NPA?
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Okay.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. We actually started with 600 names and
then it went down to 18 and now it’s only--
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Hindi kasama ang NDF?
MR. MONTEAGUDO. No, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Kasi they always go
together, CPP-NPA, NDF?
26
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir, that’s one of the issues that we
also raised with DOJ but it is related to the declaration of the President,
only the CPP-NPA was declared as a terrorist organization.
The prosecutor explained that the number of personalities in the
filing for the proscription was reduced and eventually I think only two
names were left. For the reason that he said that these are the only
two that--we only need at least two names because it’s the organization
that will be proscribed. So if we have too many names, it will take longer
time because for each individual, we will have to prove the case for each
individual. But once the case per individual is presented, then they
represent the organization. Then it’s the organization that will be
proscribed and all the members of that organization will be considered
as terrorists. The more names, the more difficulty, the longer it will
take for the prosecution to present his case. That’s the explanation of
the prosecutor and that’s also the advice--
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). So the implication is
that the objective in including all members of the proscribed terrorist
organization kasama, automatic?
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Kaya lang dalawa iyong
sinama para hindi na iyong napakaraming tina-tackle sa court process,
27
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir, just for the process of the
proscription, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Okay.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Although the names are—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you for clarifying.
Judge, may we hear from you.
MR. REYES. Good morning po.
Regarding the earlier statement of Senator Tolentino about the
recruitment under Section 4 and 5 of the version of Senate President
and then Section 9, it explicitly provided here that the recruitment
should be to a terrorist organization. And I think the terrorist
organization that is being referred to here is the terrorist organization
proscribed under Section 17 of the Human Security Act. And as far as I
know, it was only the ASG which is being proscribed by one RTC in
Mindanao. And this is the first time that I came to know about the—was
it filed already po about the proscription of this CPP-NPA? Saan po, RTC
in Mindanao din po ba or in Manila?
VOICE. Manila.
MR. REYES. I will check, Mr. Chair. And also regarding the
requirement that the names of the members should be identified in the
petition, I will check it and if there is a problem, I will refer it to the
Office of the Court Administrator.
28
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Judge.
May we also hear your comments on the provisions of the Human
Security Act that is being sought to be amended? Ano ba iyong nakita
ninyong mga weaknesses doon sa Human Security Act of 2007? I’m
glad that there is a test case kasi walang security officials na gustong
mag-file ng violation ng Human Security Act. They would rather file
robbery, murder and other crimes kasi walang P500,000 na damages
per day. So ano po ba iyong nakita ninyong mga weaknesses and also
the strength of the Human Security Act of 2007?
MR. REYES. Before, Mr. Chair, I just would like to share my
experience in handling this case against a rebel who put up a training
camp somewhere in Mindanao. Actually, I was detailed in one of the
branches in Taguig. And you all know of the change of venue because
the original plan was to conduct the hearing in Cagayan de Oro and
detain the rebels in Camp Evangelista. But I understand that then SOJ
Aguirre was not satisfied with the security detail in Camp Evangelista.
And there were also no judges who are willing to handle the cases in
Cagayan de Oro City maybe because of the proximity to Marawi City. So
the Supreme Court en banc decided to transfer—because I think it was
the rebel who were earlier transferred to Camp Bagong Diwa. So it was
the decision of the en banc for the RTC judges to handle the case.
Because we are conducting our hearing in the camp, inside the camp.
29
So I think that is also one aspect that the committee should look into
about the change of venue. Because every time that the rebels are
detained in Camp Bagong Diwa, it’s usually the Taguig judges. So the
Taguig judges are already complaining. So if I may suggest, I have a
chance to have a study tour in counterterrorism in Australia, together
with Justice Peralta, and we visited a detention. And they have a facility
wherein there is no need to transfer the terrorists. They have two booths
wherein the terrorist can just sit down on that booth, he can view what’s
happening in the court room. And people in the court room can also view
him especially if he testify. And another booth is for the privacy in
communication with the terrorist and his counsel. Well, I understand
that last June, upon the request of the jail warden in Davao, there was
already a pilot project in this remote testimony. I think it is being done
already by the Supreme Court.
Now, with respect to this case that I handle, Your Honor, I do not
know that this was the first conviction under the Human Security Act.
Well, here there were four accused who were charged with the predicate
crime of rebellion in relation to Section 3 of the Human Security Act.
Well normally, the prosecution should have established the elements of
the predicate crime of rebellion. Luckily in my case, I just only took
judicial notice of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Lagman
wherein it sustained the approval of both Houses in the proclamation of
30
Martial Law. And in the decision of the Supreme Court, it was already
mentioned of the existence of rebellion. So that’s a good thing but were
if not for that case, well I go onto the detail of the presentation of the
prosecution to prove the elements of rebellion which is not easy. So
what I determined only is the participation of this accused. So it was
established by, I think Army sergeant, who was able to infiltrate this
recruit, the group. So with that, Your Honor, I convicted the accused.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). So, Judge, what you are
telling us is you actually convicted the accused for the crime of rebellion
not for violation of the Human Security Act? Because you convicted
him for the crime of rebellion in relation to the Human Security Act,
ganoon po ba iyon, Judge?
MR. REYES. Opo but in my dispositive portion, I mentioned that
I convicted him for terrorism.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). For terrorism.
MR. REYES. If I may read the—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Judge, ganito sa
proposal namin, we are already removing the predicate crimes kasi
mahirap pong mag-convict o mag-prosecute ng kaso na nagbe-base
tayo lagi sa predicate crimes. So at least in my bill, in my proposed
legislation, inalis na po namin iyong predicate crimes basta’t terrorist act
is a terrorist act.
31
MR. REYES. Opo kasi po under the present Human Security Act,
you should have to prove the elements of the predicate crime. And then
if the charge was in relation to Human Security Act, so it should also be
established…/rjo/alcc
32
MRCatadman V-1 August 13, 2019 10:03 a.m. 1
MR. REYES. …it should also be established that the acts in
committing the predicate crime should be iyong sowing or creating a
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear. But if all the elements
of the predicate crime were not satisfied, even if the acts in committing
that predicate crime sowed or created condition of this terrorism, we
cannot convict him for terrorism.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). Okay, Judge.
The Chair acknowledges the presence of the Senate President. He
is the principal author of this measure. Kaya pagka naipasa ito, “Sotto
Law” na naman.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. [Off-mike] Hindi. Sotto-Lacson.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Alex, would you like
to say something?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I just like to thank the Chair for this hearing.
The bill that is being passed, instead of citing a recommendation,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention instead the problems that the law
should respond to.
33
For instance, Mr. Chairman--this has been addressed I think in
some of the provisions--what do we do to a Filipino who joined the ISIS
abroad and is planning to come back here? I think we included in our
recommendation measures such as cancellation of passports so that we
have control and he should be held liable under our law. Otherwise,
even if he commits terrorism abroad and he comes back here and if he
is not held liable, then he can spread his ideology and even inflame
Filipinos to commit terrorism. So the law should answer that question.
What do we do with children who are age below—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Alex, how can we hold him
criminally liable for an act committed outside the jurisdiction of the
country?
MR. MONTEAGUDO. That’s why we recommended, sir, that any
Filipino who expresses support to a terrorist organization and proscribed
terrorist organization by the United Nation should also be liable under
our laws. So, meaning, even if you are abroad and you express support
or commit--or act acts which is in support of a terrorist organization,
then we should hold them liable here. That is our recommendation, Mr.
Chairman, because we have Filipinos abroad.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Judge, kindly educate us.
34
Kasi I will be sponsoring this measure. Ang problema ko lang, if
I’m asked, iyong issue ng jurisdiction. Because if he committed acts of
terrorism, say, in Syria, and then he comes back to the country, how
can we hold him liable for acts committed in a jurisdiction outside the
country?
MR. REYES. Actually po, when I attended the counterterrorism
subject in Malta, that was also one of the subjects. Because there were
a lot of different nationals that were arrested in Syria. With respect to
the other European countries—And the Syrian government, of course,
cannot prosecute all of them. So I understand that nationals of some
countries in Europe, so they were turned over to the country. So I just
do not know if there will be a Filipino caught during—and then I do not
know whether there was a United Nations provision on that. Because I
also understand that there were countries who refused. But, of course,
Mr. Chair, if you will ask on the—well, jurisdictions should always be at
the place where the crime is committed. Except only iyong under
Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code, iyong extra-territorial jurisdiction.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). The Chair acknowledges
the presence of Senator Bong Go.
I am not against your suggestion. In fact, I want to support it. But
I want it legally defensible. Pag umabot sa Supreme Court, thinking
35
ahead, baka diyan ma-technical knockout. Because ang basic question
is, how can you prosecute somebody who committed the crime outside
the country? Outside of our jurisdiction. Iyon lang naman ang concern
ko. So, probably we can couch it in a language na legally defensible,
kung aabot man sa Supreme Court. But I am in full support of your
proposal, as a matter of fact.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Mr. Chairman, one of the proposals we
submitted was that a Filipino, with the technology now, can post in his
Facebook or social media account, support for, say, the ISIS, or the Abu
Sayyaf, or the Maute group. So, if he posts his support, he is a Filipino,
but he is outside of the country, and he sends money or whatever
support to a terrorist organization here, that is why we are proposing
for a law so that it will become a crime. Because otherwise, I could be
abroad, I could be sending money, I could be promoting the ISIS
ideology, I could be spreading the ideology, I could be spreading the
ideology to fellow Filipinos, to children here through the internet and I
will not be held liable, then we will not be able to stop the problem of
the spread of the ideology and the support to this organization.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, I agree. But paano
kung hindi ganoon ang situation? He went there covertly on a legal visa,
passport. Pagdating doon he joined a terrorist group. Wala naman
36
siyang pino-post sa Facebook, wala naman siyang ini-express na
sentiment in support of the terrorist. Can we still go after him when he
comes back knowing that he joined a terrorist organization, say, in
Syria?
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Australia, for instance, sir, if I may just cite
a country, even removed the citizenship of their citizens. Cancelled the
passports of their citizens who are supporting terrorists. In that manner,
they do not just prevent them from traveling back—control them from
traveling back to their country, at the same time they prevent this
individual from moving to other countries because the passport is
already cancelled. And, therefore, they not only help themselves, but
they help the international community.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, but that’s
administrative. Hindi ito judicial.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Because we are tackling a
piece of legislation, so we are thinking judicial dito, hindi ba? Legal.
Iyong administrative, of course, iyong DFA can always cancel the
passport. Walang problema doon. So he cannot travel anymore. Pero
the aspect of holding him criminally liable for an act committed in
another jurisdiction, that’s the point that I’m raising.
37
MR. MONTEAGUDO. [Off-mike] Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). And, as I said earlier,
suportado ko naman iyong suggestion only kailangan hindi tayo magba-
violate din ng Constitution or kung ano iyong—
MR. MONTEAGUDO. We will do research—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, please.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. …and we will submit our position, sir.
MR. REYES. Mr. Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Judge.
MR. REYES. I think, Mr. Chair, under the principle of continuing
crime, so if a Filipino individual committed an act of terrorism in another
country and then he went home—well, I think terrorism is not only
purely action, it’s also in the mind. So by virtue of a continuing crime
so, meaning, his presence is--
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Judge, right now the only
continuing crime based on jurisprudence is rebellion, hindi po ba? Kasi
nagkaroon ng Supreme Court ruling. Pero can we incorporate in the
measure the nature of continuing crime on terrorism, puwede ba iyon?
MR. REYES. I think so. I think—well, according to Atty. Gwen—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Para lang ma-strengthen
iyong position ng security…
38
MR. REYES. Or we can possibly, as suggested by Attorney—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes.
MR. REYES. …the concept of extraterritoriality in the Anti-Human
Trafficking.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Secretary Año.
MR. AÑO. Sir, what about the principle of conspiracy? If the
terrorist is outside of the country and he has also a conspirator inside
the country. It so happened that he has the chance to do his act in that
particular part of the earth…/mrjc/mva
39
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY JOINT
WITH THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
MJPalaganas VI-1 August 13, 2019 10:13 a.m. 1
MR. AÑO. ...in that particular part of the earth, then maybe we
can invoke—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes. That is already
provided, iyong conspiracy, hindi ba, to commit terrorism.
MR. AÑO. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Ang iniisip ko, mas
matibay iyong posisyon ninyo kung ipasok natin as a continuing crime
iyong crime of terrorism.
Kasi nabasa ko po, Judge, iyong jurisprudence dito, iyong 14
days na after the commission of the crime, iyong Supreme Court held
na legal pa rin iyong arrest at saka legal pa rin iyong detention
because of its nature—of the nature of rebellion being a continuing
crime. I think it’s a Muntinlupa case.
Kasi, hindi ba, dapat iyong sa bagong rules, immediately—iyong
in the act of committing, about to commit, immediately after
committing, tapos in the presence or with personal knowledge.
Masyadong napakahirap iyong provision. Hirap na hirap iyong mga
pulis natin sa pag-aresto because of that amendments. I think this was
amended in 1985. Because prior to that, when we were still in the
service, hindi pa guma-graduate si Senator Bato, ang tinitingnan lang
namin reasonable ground to believe that the person has, in fact,
committed a crime. And we could already effect the arrest.
40
But in 1985, I think this was through the intervention of the late
Senator Raul Roco, naiba iyong rule. Sinabi doon—ang pinakamabigat,
iyong personal knowledge. Because iyong “has just been committed,”
pwede pang i-interpret iyon in such a way na has just been committed
after three days, hindi ba?
Yes. Iyong sa Rule 114. Naiba eh.
MR. REYES. Mr. Chair—okay. Baka po mas maganda if we will
apply this extraterritoriality principle under the Human Security Act.
This is extraterritoriality principle and international legal cooperation
rather than the principle of the continuing offense.
MS. GANA. Mr. Chair, it’s already in the Anti-Trafficking
Expanded Law. So maybe we can apply that there. And maybe also, a
suggestion would be since it is going to be a whole country approach,
in terms of entering into multilateral agreements with countries so it’s
easier for us to be able to extradite these people or convict them.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Well, iyong
extraterritoriality principle, nag-a-apply sa different jurisdictions. What
I am trying to point out, iyong nandito, within the country, pero
helpless iyong security officials—the policemen—dahil matagal nang
na-commit iyong act of terrorism. Kaya I am trying to find a way na
maisama iyong terrorism as a continuing crime. Instead of relying on
jurisprudence, isama na namin sa legislation. Para nang sa ganoon,
41
maski iyong terrorism was committed a year ago, it’s still a continuing
crime, they can still effect the arrest. Iyon po iyong point ko.
Kasi iyong extra extraterritoriality applies to different jurisdiction.
But in this case, I am looking at the period from the time the crime
was committed up to the time of the arrest. Hindi kami maku-question
diyan kung isama namin iyong terrorism as a continuing crime, as long
as it is legislated.
MR. REYES. Pwede naman po. Or kaya naman, even if the
terrorist act was committed a year ago, pero siguro po under the
principle of conspiracy, as co-conspirator, so he will not be charged for
what he committed a year ago but as co-conspirator under the
proposed provision in the—
May we hear from the executive director of the ATC?
MR. MANALASTAS. Mr. Chair, assuming that all others are
applicable, we may not worry about the prescriptive period because
since this is a grave offense, it will prescribe for a long time, 20 years
probably. So we could still—within that time, act and be able to
persecute the offender.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). I am not even thinking
of the prescriptive period. Kasi capital offense, 20 years talaga iyan.
Ang tinitingnan ko, iyong pag-aresto nila, pwede silang mag-arrest
42
even after two months, three months of the commission of the crime.
Kaya gusto kong maisama iyong terrorism or violation of the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2019, iyong continuing crime.
Mas magaang sa inyo iyon, hindi ba?
Nasaan ba iyong pulis dito? Ito.
Yes. What do you say?
MR. TAGRA. Sir, may I just input? I suggest that this could
be put in an exception to the rule of territoriality with regard to the
terrorism committed in other countries. We are dealing on international
terrorism so maybe he could—the suspect should be charged to protect
our interest as a country, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). These are two
different things, iyong reglementary period, iyan iyong period of
detention. Ang sinasabi ko, iyong pag-aresto even after the crime was
committed long time ago. Iyon ang point kong niri-raise.
Well, this will be a contentious issue, iyong issue ng
reglementary period. I am sure, many of my colleagues will question
this, iyong 14 days continuous detention without filing a case or
without referring it to the prosecutor. Medyo ano ito, mahaba-habang
debate iyon. And we must really justify why we should continuously
detain an arrested person for a period of 14 days without filing a case
against that person.
43
In Australia, because we had dinner with the Australian
ambassador and Ambassador Foley, iyong counterterrorism expert
nila. Hindi binibilang iyong visitation ng lawyer, kina-cut nila iyong
reglementary period pagka lawyer iyong kausap. Nagre-resume lang
iyong count, I think, four hours. And then, after that they will ask for
judicial authorization to extend it to 14 days, hindi ba? Iyon ang kanila.
Pero pag bumisita ang abogado, hindi binibilang doon sa count,
binabawas nila.
No. But if we succeed, you know, in including the 14-day
reglementary period, we’re okay. Because during the last hearing, sabi
ninyo, ito iyong period na you can get vital information. I don’t know
what kind of technique you will use in extracting information pero ito
iyong sinasabi ninyo na iyong two weeks is enough to get all the
evidence that you need and all the information to conduct follow-up.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. May I—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Senator Dela Rosa is
recognized.
SEN. DELA ROSA. Mr. Chair, I suggest that the security
community should refer to the administrators of the Guantanamo Bay,
how did they do that? Why until now, they are not charged? Anong
rason, bakit? Guantanamo Bay, sir, they detained them for a very long
time. And yet, wala namang nangyari, hindi pa sila kinasuhan.
44
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Sir, I think the Guantanamo Bay and
the extension that were recommended by the SND is not just to gather
evidence but primarily to prevent commission of a crime because if
they are released, they will pose a security threat to the public. And,
therefore, the safety and the security of the public supersedes the
detention of the suspected terrorists. Because terrorists, sir, are
extremists, they cannot be deradicalized in 14 days. They have
committed themselves to die for a cause, like suicide bombing.
We have already had three incidents of suicide bombing over a
period of 18 months. Almost every six months, we had one incident.
We pray that there will be—none will follow. But we are sure that there
will be because even now, sir, Mr. Chairman, the terrorists are training
and recruiting children as young as 10, 12 years old. And if we are not
able to address this, the terrorists and their radicalization and having
the power to detain, for instance, those—just radicalizing children,
then they will continue to radicalize children just like the case of the
LFS missing children.
Whose fault will it be if we fail to protect our children? ...mjp/jmb
45
MR. MONTEAGUDO. …to protect our children? Our future are
our children. We need to protect them from these extremist, radical
teachings. And terrorists have to be detained because if you let them
lose, they are going to infect the rest of the society, they are going to
radicalize children and, therefore, we need laws that will allow us to hold
them longer or the prerogative to even extend that period. Just like in
Singapore, that they can almost indefinitely hold individuals suspected
to be terrorists, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HONASAN. Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, sir.
MR. HONASAN. Mr. Chairman, the DICT department will always
subordinate itself to the competent lead of the other departments. So
what we tried to do was to simplify our approach to this. We looked at
the three proposed bills, and this is just a view which I humbly put on
the table of the Committee for your better judgment. Even by looking
at the title, are we penalizing the person or the act? So is it the terrorist
or terrorism as an act? It took us some time to come up with a universal
definition of terrorism. So it indicates to all of us, especially in the
Committee, a challenge before us.
Second po, we might have to coordinate to make our definition of
terrorism compatible with the definition of other countries because my
understanding is terrorism is a universal crime. You bomb and you come
46
up with a demand or you curse any government. That catch across the
political, economic landscape. It might also partly address the issue of
extraterritoriality.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as a last point, even from a purely
information, communications and technology approach, hindi ho ba
information now is the new oil? It’s a resource. So ang approach po
namin, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, is you
protect what you have, you protect the transmission, and you protect
the recipient. How you use that information will define where you are
in the political, ideological, economic and social landscape. You use that
information to bomb a mall, you are a terrorist by any language.
So, Mr. Chairman, we submit this to the better wisdom of the
Committee because, indeed, this will require a lot of effort to address
the intent of the proposed bills.
Salamat po.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Secretary
Honasan.
Actually, our definition, at least in our version, is culled from
several definitions from other jurisdictions, pinagsama-sama. We
consolidated, and most of them are similar naman in most aspects. So
we came up with our own definition of a terrorist act or terrorism based
on what we gathered from the definitions of other jurisdictions like
47
Australia, United States, France, Singapore, marami, even during
international conventions, and most of these inputs also came from the
security officials, so pinaghalo-halo namin.
MR. HONASAN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, if I may
add. Actually, the starting point, and I have listened to the comments,
the observation is we have one of the weakest anti-terrorism laws. So
that should be our reasonable starting point.
Now, if we go after—well, I was discussing this with Secretary Año
earlier. I have yet to see somebody who is in the official roster of troops
of any organization. The tendency is to straddle both the legal and the
system outlet. In fact, it has impacted even on the appointment, if you
remember, Mr. Chairman, of certain nominees for Cabinet positions.
Because, if you remember we are—nag-uusap tayo. The peace talks, I
understand, is not yet there. So nag-uusap tayo, “Bakit tuloy naman
ang atake ninyo?” So ang sagot sa atin is, “We have no control.” That
give us an indication of—“So if you have no control? Why do you not
condemn this publicly?” Walang sagot. That’s how it was resolved.
So my point, Mr. Chairman, is that is a reasonable starting point.
Last point po. Ang approach po ng department, as I said we are
subordinating ourselves to the better judgment and wisdom, is iyong—
let’s say, cyberattack lang po. A month ago, we had a series of
cyberattacks, pero kayang-kaya natin sanggain iyon. Ang problema
48
natin pag may na-recruit sa loob at binuksan iyong pinto, iyon po ang
medyo complicated. So that should be our focus if we are going to adopt
a proactive stance in this regard.
Thank you po.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). I may have to disagree
with you that ours is one of the weakest. It is the weakest, actually.
[Laughter]
MR. MADRIGAL. Mr. Chairman, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, the Chief of Staff.
MR. MADRIGAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My comment pertains to the proposal to transform the Anti-
Terrorism Council to a commission. We understand, of course, that the
agencies and officers that are supposed to be included in this whole of
nation anti-terrorism strategy are subsumed under different department
like, of course, Bureau of Immigration under Department of Justice,
Customs under the Department of Finance.
Now, the problem that we have encountered, sir, especially during
the Marawi campaign, sir, is the need to have officers or units a sort of
clearing house at the regional or at the tactical level, sir, to decide on
matters that need urgent action. Like, during the Marawi campaign, sir,
I was the one in charge, of course, in the area of Misamis Oriental where
Laguindingan is located. We had instances of foreign nationals coming
49
out of Lanao and about to board aircrafts but we do not have a Bureau
of Immigration official in Laguindingan because it is not an international
airport. And we have a hard time, of course, identifying persons or
officials to decide on whether we will be able to call this individual for
further questioning. But because he’s about to board the aircraft, as to
who will take charge or who will be—if ever we need to repay or pay the
airfare if ever he’ll be detained for a period of time, cannot be decided
because it takes time to coordinate at the national level, sir. So we
support, sir, to give more or to provide downline, sir, for the Anti-
Terrorism Council at the regional or tactical level para mayroon tayong
clearing house, sir, o ibig sabihin iyong isang office or unit, to decide on
terrorism issues encountered by law enforcement agency, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Before I recognize
Senator Go, may we hear from the ATC, your view.
MR. MANALASTAS. Mr. Chair, we have an existing mechanism,
the RATCCG which has been functioning in the past. However, because
of present developments, it has not been convened. However, we could
reconvene that.
We have also a liaison’s desk comprising representatives of
various agencies where we could meet, discuss matter and decide and
then our recommendation to be provided to the Anti-Terrorism Council,
through the council secretariat. So that mechanism is already covered.
50
We just have to, again, reactivate that and then function as such so that
we will be more effective…/cbg/alcc
51
MR. MANALASTAS. …so that we will be more effective. The good
thing is, now, we have existing already lead agencies to handle each and
every program of the council. So, we could utilize the structure and then
on our office we could give technical assistance and, of course, our
capability to coordinate with other agencies because we are acting in
behalf of the council.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Mr. Chair, may I add to the ATC?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Alex.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. As the secretariat of the ATC, I would like
to inform the Chair that the NSA and the NICA support the function of
the ATC establishing an information hub where we can address the
concerns of the different agencies involved in terrorism. Information is
key to fighting terrorism, the sharing of information, access to
information. And the NSA, the NSC is setting up this system to provide
information to big different agencies including the Bureau of
Immigration, NBI, members of the National Intelligence Council which is
chaired by the NICA.
We are hoping that in a few months this will be operational. We
have tested this, Mr. Chairman, and even now there is an ongoing
seminar for the full implementation of the project.
52
Aside from that, the ATC as a council, I believe, Mr. Chair, is more
appropriate in addressing terrorism because the members are the
members of the security sector, SND, NSA, AFP, PNP, DOJ, NPFA, NBI
and they are the agencies who are concerned. And therefore, being a
council, they can easily pass resolutions or amend resolutions, issue
policies that will be observed by the different agencies.
One of the most recent, one as a concern of the chief of staff, is
on foreigners. And we pass a resolution where foreigners, for instance-
-it used to be, Mr. Chairman, that foreigners who are arrested as
suspects or rescued after a terrorist incident are taken custody by
embassies immediately. So, the government can no longer investigate
or interrogate or conduct investigation. But now, under ATC resolution,
no embassy is allowed to intervene unless cleared by the council. So,
the security forces can detain him through the Bureau of Immigration
for as long as they want if they are foreigners so that the hands of justice
will be served.
These measures--right now, sir, the ATC is more active in
addressing all of these as mentioned by the PMC, and I think the council
will be able to respond more easily considering that terrorism is a
changing, morphing enemy. It transforms from one form to another
53
and if we are too rigid it in our structure and in our policies, we will not
easily respond to changes about the effect of terrorism, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Senator Go is recognized.
SEN. GO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to excuse myself kasi dadaan pa po ako sa Public Services
hearing. Allow me to make a short statement before I leave.
Secretary Honasan, palit muna tayo ng puwesto. Dito ka yata
noon. Puro nandito ang mga parati kong nakakasama.
I fully support the amendments of the Human Security Act
introduced by Senators Lacson, Sotto and Marcos. Dapat mas padaliin
natin ang paghuli ng mga law enforcers sa mga terorista. Dapat i-
address natin ang mga loopholes ng current Human Security Act tulad
nga itong P500,000 per day penalty sa mga false prosecution ng law
enforcers. Define nang maayos ang terrorist acts. Dapat masali rin po
iyong mga gumagamit ng social media para sa terorismo. At pag-aralan
nang mabuti ng mga ahensiya ng gobyerno itong--Anyway, alam naman
natin, kasama naman tayo noon, kasama tayo para labanan itong--it’s
been three years na natin nilalabanan itong terorista. So, suportado ko
po kayo dito.
Maraming salamat, Mr. Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Senator Go.
54
Yes, you would like to say something?
MR. CARLOS. Mr. Chair, I’d like to inform the body that as
practiced of other countries, I think the very basic question that we have
to answer is--for the terrorist is, what makes them do what they do.
First, they must have ideology and then--doctrine and ideology finding
the right condition for the ideology to flourish and this should be
addressed by pursuing a program, a robust program to prevent the
spread and development of violent extremism. And by prevention, we
have to develop soft approaches and whole-of-country, whole-of-nation
approach that’s why the council members are included and they, I think,
should make the necessary program in order to prevent terrorism and
then counterterrorism to address if the terrorist has morph from the
state of mind to the actual action.
The problem, Mr. Chairman, is this needs a 24/7 program of the
government for BCDE and likewise and most importantly if it is
transformed from covert to overt action. That’s why the need for a
regular committee or agency that will orchestrate the efforts of the
different agencies in overseeing, monitoring the different facets of
counter-terrorism, I think, is very much needed.
With the invention of the Internet and the worldwide web, the
virus for terrorism, both from the left and the right, I think, is fast
55
spreading and there must be some genius and creative ways to address
this menace.
That’s all, Mr. Chairman.
I just hope that we will not experience another Marawi siege or
another cathedral bombing or another suicide bombing in--Indanan ba
iyon? Iyong Filipino? We never experienced this before, that a Filipino
suicide bomber--hindi natin na-imagine ito before, hindi ba? If ever na
magkaroon ng suicide bombing mission, it would be by a foreigner. But
of late, how many Filipino suicide bombers have we experienced
already? Isa pa lang, iyong sa Indanan. And times have changed, iyong
radicalism, extremism, nandito na right in our shores. So I hope we
won’t experience another suicide bombing before we wake up to the
reality now. We really need a strong antiterrorism law in our country.
MR. REYES. Mr. Senator.
MR. REYES. If I may also contribute. The Global
Counterterrorism Forum, Your Honor, I think they have
this…/admasicap/mva
56
MR. REYES. …I think they have this Rabat-Washington Good
Practices on the Prevention, Detection, Intervention and Response to
Homegrown Terrorism. So I just do not know whether this will be the
function of the council. Because especially the intervention—for
example, I noticed that my son who I heard has been recruited by Abu
Sayyaf Group and I noticed that he has been radicalized already. So
what will I do to—of course, I do not want to surrender my son to the
authorities for him to be charged. I want him to deradicalize.
So it is the function of the council?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes. Who wants to
respond?
MR. CARLOS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
With the acceptance and approval of the National Action Plan for
Countering Violent Extremism, we have included that in our program.
The different agencies who are members of the ATC must come up with
their own program for radicalization of what we call the vulnerable
sectors, like those OFWs who are youth, those who are incarcerated or
detained in Philippine—in a jail system and students of Madaris and all
these sectors that we have identified to be vulnerable for recruitment.
From prevention to deradicalization, that’s the whole program of
the National Action Plan which needs to be institutionalized through the
programs by the different members of the Anti-Terrorism Council.
57
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Mr. Chairman, may I add?
MR. MONTEAGUDO. The NAP PCVE or National Action Plan for
Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism was approved by the ATC,
the lead agency is the DILG.
However, Mr. Chairman, this is an ATC resolution. If I may
recommend in the law that the law should include the Department of
Education be mandated to—
VOICE. [Off-mike] Kasama.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir. Kasama na naman yata iyon, sir.
Should be required to provide education, we believe, Mr.
Chairman, to prevent them from being radicalized, the best is the
educate them about extremism. It would immunize them or vaccinate
them from the influence of extremism. And the sooner that a law will
be passed, Mr. Chairman, the sooner the program can be started.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). How about DOLE? You
suggested that DOLE be also included. DepEd, I can understand. DICT,
I can understand. Iyong DOLE?
MR. CARLOS. Mr. Chair, DOLE has been included because we
considered the OFWs as one of the vulnerable sectors.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). For recruitment?
MR. CARLOS. For recruitment.
58
MR. REYES. But, Mr. Chair, the participation of the DepEd and
possibly DOLE only with respect to detection and prevention.
My question earlier is—Well, I notice that my son has already been
radicalized on the intervention aspect to deradicalize. So I think DepEd
has nothing to do with that. Just like rehabilitation of drug abuser, so
it’s either should be done by a psychologist or—I do not know what
expertise who can do that.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes. So who will put in
charge of deradicalizing a recruited homegrown terrorists?
Sinabi nga ni Judge nandoon na, nasa poder na ng magulang.
Pero it’s not enough. Because as we experienced, during our last
hearing, doon sa mga missing minors, hawak na ng magulang
nagpipipiglas pa, gusto pang bumalik doon sa Anakbayan or Kabataan
Party-List and rejoin. And these are minors—16, 17 years old.
So iyong tanong ni Judge, who will be in charge of
deradicalization?
MR. MONTEAGUDO. May I, sir?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Sige, Alex.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Based on our studies and observation
abroad, other countries who are implementing deradicalization program,
it is not a single entity that can conduct this. Like, for instance, in
Singapore, it’s the family and the government institution and some
59
NGOs funded by foreign or by the government who conduct
deradicalization and still it is not a 100 percent batting average for them.
However, Mr. Chairman, based on the experience of the security
sector in dealing with radicalized, communist terrorists, what we
observed is that, the best people who can help deradicalize them are
also the former rebels themselves because they can empathize with the
radicalized youth and they can present their testimony of how they were
deceived and how they were radicalized and, therefore, this enlightens
the radicalized youth.
Actually, it’s already being done by the DILG, by the AFP and other
members of the National Task Force jointly in dealing with former rebels.
There is a program to indoctrinate them.
And iyong question ni Judge, ang kailangan na lang, Mr. Chairman,
is if they refused, there has to be a mechanism to put them in a
controlled environment and be given the reeducation to enlighten them.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). The Chair recognizes the
presence of the Honorable Marcos. She is also one of the authors—
Senate Bill 630. And in her version, mayroon siyang na-introduce na
new feature which I already mentioned to her, I would subscribe to
support.
Kindly articulate some more?
60
SEN. MARCOS. Yes. Thank you very much to our good Chairman
Ping Lacson, who also attended my meeting to provide quorum. Thank
you.
It’s a busy morning for all of us. Thank you to the Cabinet
secretaries and the rest of the officials who are here.
I am, in fact, filed an anti-terrorism bill inasmuch as I chaired this
effort in the House long, long ago in Congress. It seems that there are
a number of venues that are still not included and clearly technology
and media seem to be part of that. And we’re grateful that Senator
Honasan is here with the DICT and the rest involved in cyber terror and
cybercrime. Kasi kulang na kulang ang budget diyan, building lang yata
ang naibigay.
And in addition, there are other venues and types of indoctrination
and participation that we had not anticipated in the past and this
involved naturally the Madrasah schools and other informal groupings.
Furthermore, I think that we did not anticipate as well our early
inclusion in the list for chemical, biological and nuclear warfare, which
was obviously not prophesied by the bill long, long ago.
Finally, the Philippines’ compliance and cooperation in so many
international agreements needs to be reiterated in a municipal law. And
we tried as best as we could to include those with the blanket provision
61
at the end, that all other international intelligence and other cooperation
should be encouraged.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Senator
Marcos.
Anyone else?
MR. LORENZANA. Mr. Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, SND.
MR. LORENZANA. Mr. Chairman, I believe we should treat
terrorism as a special crime, way above the ordinary crimes that we are
dealing with. A while ago, Atty. Pimentel-Gana mentioned about a
balance between security and human rights. I would suggest that if we
are made that choice—if we are given the choice, I think we will treat it
towards security because of the dire consequences to our community.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Because you are dealing
with the rights of humanity after all, hindi ba? Against human rights or
individual human rights.
Yes, Atty. Gana.
MS. PIMENTEL-GANA. Well, I don’t think it’s the proper forum
to debate that. But, at least, what we should do…/mpm/peg
62
MS. PIMENTEL-GANA. …what we should do is to ensure that
there are safeguards indeed in the law. That there will be no abuses
that will result from such security protection.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Our basic reference
should be the Constitution, hindi ba? Mayroong mga guaranteed rights
under the Constitution and we should not go below the threshold of
those rights. But, yes, coming from the law enforcement sector myself,
I am inclined to support the statement of SND Lorenzana.
MS. PIMENTEL-GANA. Mr. Chair, I would like also to—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Ang sa akin lang,
pwedeng isagad natin pero huwag tayong bababa pa doon sa nasa
guaranteed sa Constitution.
MS. PIMENTEL-GANA. Kailangan ho i-insert iyan. Pero I would
like to commend Senator Marcos in what she said that this should
actually be the international agreements and conventions that we did
sign should this be supported in our domestic laws.
SEN. MARCOS. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect, the bill of rights covers political rights. There
are other rights that need to be covered over and above those in the
Constitution. The freedom from fear, for example, and the need for
63
peace and security. The freedom from hunger, freedom from ignorance,
hindi po nilalagay diyan pero may economic rights rin naman.
MS. GANA. Thank you, Madam Senator, because we have
indeed economic, social and cultural rights.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Senator Honasan.
MR. HONASAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as a partial response to the point raised by Judge
Reyes, actually ho, Mr. Chairman, ang frontline organization talaga natin
dito is the local government units. It’s ably led by Secretary Año. But
our most fundamental basic and strongest political, social and economic
unit is the family. So the family if it will find its way into the schools--
Judge, if I may address, Mr. Chairman, whether it’s the drug problem or
radicalization, the usual response in most of the debates we have, I
personally attended, is good parenthood. So one approach, Mr.
Chairman, is connectivity. In fact, this is incorporated in the marching
orders of the President to almost every line department: connect
government to other governments, domestic or global; connect
government to business; connect government to the citizens and
everybody to each other. If we are able to do this with instruments like
a mechanism which is familiar to the Chairman, the National ID System,
maybe we are on our way towards seamlessly connecting everybody
para we can monitor each other. Ang ayaw lang noon iyong criminal at
64
saka iyong terrorists. Katulad ho noong the resistance we met with the
National ID System. And I think we are equipped to do that, that’s the
reason for convergence, private-public partnership. And maybe this is
one approach we can—which we may suggest to the Committee to take
as we put our heads together and come up with a more responsive law.
Salamat po.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Incidentally, it will start
its full implementation next January, hindi ba, January next year. And
the timeline I think is three years. Before 2022, all of 110 or 115 million
Filipinos will be covered. Because during the debates, we learned from
PSA, the measure of the success of the National ID System is the number
of Filipinos to be covered. Kasi bahala na silang mag-purge later on,
mag-filter but iyong initial measure nila is for all Filipinos to be covered
by the National ID System.
MR. HONASAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may add very quickly?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Sige, please.
MR. HONASAN. Para hong national security ito. I think
national—ang tendency ho national security, DND lang iyan or DILG.
Hindi ho. National security is everybody’s business. Counterterrorism is
also everybody’s business.
Thank you po.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, DND Usec.
65
MR. DAVID. Sir, with your indulgence. Sir, there is a
recommendation that we submit that whenever there is—this is special
case, for example, operations in Marawi or in Zamboanga. The
detention of those suspects should not only include or should not only
be limited to 30 days or so for 14 days. They may be detained during
the durations of the operations. There are some people who can help
the military or security sectors for this particular sample, sir. So there
are special situations that we can detain.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Your concern will be
addressed, mayroon namang tinatawag na judicial authorization. So
they will be held without bail, so you can continue naman, of course,
without encroaching on the sub judice rule of the court, you can still
conduct further intelligence gathering without jeopardizing iyong case
na hawak na ng court. May mga mechanism naman iyong judge, hindi
ba? Basta’t as long as there is judicial authorization granted by the court,
I don’t see any problem. But ang pinag-uusapan lang natin as far as
itong measure is concerned, iyong reglementary period. Kasi dito iyong
critical. If you can hold him or the terrorist suspects for only 36 hours
or three days, mukhang bitin na bitin. That’s why we will try our best
to convince our colleagues in both Houses to accede or allow us to
extend the reglementary period to 14 days, extendible further to another
15 days. Iyon ang nasa bill natin.
66
Yes, ATC.
MR. MANALASTAS. Mr. Chair, regarding the CBRN mentioned
by Senator Marcos, I would like to apprise the Committee that along
with the NAP PCVE, NAP CBRN has already been approved during the
last meeting of the Anti-Terrorism Council. So we are in the process of
actually formulating the implementing plan of that NAP CBRN. What we
need actually is a strong law supporting our effort to deprive the non-
State actors of access to weapons of mass destruction. We filed a bill, a
Chemical Weapons Convention bill during the last Congress. And I think
also there—a bill on biological weapons convention was also filed. So
we are requesting the lawmakers to support this because while this will
be very beneficial to our country to support our CBRN effort, it will also
help us comply with the requirement as to compliance with our
international obligation. We are one of the 12 countries in this region
which has not complied yet with the enactment of a Chemical Weapons
Convention Law. So we need that. In fact, we have been revising the
draft of the Chemical Weapons Convention bill. And so we will be
submitting that, of course, after the approval by the Anti-Terrorism
Council of its content. So we are actually telling that to you in advance
so that we will be able to facilitate the approval of that.
SEN. MARCOS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
67
If the executive director would allow. Please review Section 13 in
my draft, baka sakaling iyong CBRN madagdagan at ma-enhance po
ninyo. Nandoon iyong iba’t ibang modes of manufacture, acquire,
possess, develop, transport, transfer and reuse nuclear and radiologal,
chemical or biological methods. At 10 years and one day to 12 years po
ang imprisonment. Kung gusto ninyo, pag-usapan po natin kapag
nagbuo ng TWG ang ating Chairman.
MR. MANALASTAS. Yes, maám, we will study this and make our
recommendation, submit to you our recommendations.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Senator Dela Rosa,
is recognized.
SEN. DELA ROSA. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to
manifest my support to that extension of the reglementary period even
up to one month. Because per experience, Mr. Chairman, when I was
the city director of Davao City, may nahuli kami na foreign—mayroon
kaming na-neutralize na suicide bomber. Then one of his visitors sa
kanyang hotel room was foreign-looking, parang Middle Eastern. Pag
labas sa room, Mr. Chairman, sinabihan ako noong military intelligence,
“Sir, hulihin natin…/rjo/imjv
68
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY AND JOINT
SEN. DELA ROSA. … “Sir, hulihin natin ito dahil foreign terrorist
ito.” Hinuli namin. Pag huli namin, dinitain (detained) ko. Then because
of the reglementary period, I told the military intelligence, “Please help
me. Provide me with the sufficient evidence to indict this foreign
terrorist.” Sabi pa nga niya sa akin, “Sir, foreigners lang nga iyan. Punta
tayo sa BI.” Mga taga-Bureau of Immigration. Sabi ko, “Foreigner ka
ba?” Sabi niya, “Pilipino ako.” “Sir, nandito, mayroon akong passport.
Kumpleto.” Sabi ko, “Kantahin mo nga iyong Bayang Magiliw, kung
Pilipino ka.” So, kumanta siya, sir, hanggang natapos niya iyong Lupang
Hinirang. So, sabi ko sa military intelligence, “Wala tayo. Reglementary
period is fast approaching. Release natin ito.” Wala tayong magawa,
sir, so ni-release ko. After one year, bumalik sa akin iyong military
intelligence sabi, “Sir, tingnan mo iyong ni-release mo. Kung hindi mo
ito ni-release hindi sana ito makapagpugot ng ulo ng mga westerners
doon sa Syria.” Pinakita sa akin, sir, YouTube. Sabi ko, “Ayan. Ayan
iyong tao na iyan ang hinuli natin. Gigugulgulan iyong leeg ng German
journalist, ba iyon, doon sa Syria,” sabi ko.
Sana ma-revisit itong reglementary period, lalong-lalo na for
terrorist offenses. Kung binigyan kami doon na kahit na one week lang,
sir, I am sure we can come up with solid evidence against him. Pero,
wala, 36 hours lang. After 36 hours release ko, otherwise liable kami
69
for arbitrary detention. So kung wala sana—Sabi ng military intelligence
sa akin, “Sir, tingnan mo, itong-ito iyong mukha ng hinuli natin na ni-
release mo. Ilang foreigners na ang pinugutan ng leeg doon sa Syria.”
Doon sa video talaga ng YouTube, sir, kitang-kita ko pati iyong kanyang
pag-alawakbang. Iyon talaga iyong boses na iyon na andoon sa opisina
ko. Sabi ko, “Sayang, we could have saved more lives kung itong batas
na ito naayos natin noon.”
Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Sen. Dela Rosa for
sharing.
This is actually one actual experience that could help enhance or
enrich this measure on anti-terrorism. Kasi ito iyong nangyayari sa
ground talaga na hindi natin na-a-appreciate masyado. So, along that
line, maybe we can put up something to address that particular concern,
that particular experience.
SEN. MARCOS. Mr. Chair, I just like to mention also na may
dinagdag po akong ganoon, iyong Section 15 po sa akin, may
glorification of terrorism and the role of the media. I think iyong
glorification of extreme violence, iyong pugutan ng ulo sa YouTube, at
iyong iba pang ginagamit nilang propaganda, pati iyong role ng media.
70
Naaalala naman po natin iyong Luneta siege ay talagang kinakailangan
siguro ay may say din ang ating mga law enforcers.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). Senator Dela Rosa.
SEN. DELA ROSA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to iyong
deradicalization lalong lalo na iyong mga convicted natin na mga
terrorists. Kasi my experience sa BuCor, when I was director general
ng BuCor, lahat kasi ng mga hardcore terrorists, at saka iyong mga big
time drug lords, pinaghalo-halo doon sa Building 14, sa super maximum
facility ng BuCor. Nandoon sila—ito ma-share ko lang. Kinausap ko
iyong terrorista, iyong convicted na terrorista, sabi ko, “Ang problema
natin ngayon talaga dito iyong patuloy na transaksyon ng droga nitong
mga drug lord na kasama mo dito sa loob. Puwede bang i-radicalize mo
sila para mawala iyong utak nila sa droga, mapunta sila sa terrorism?”
So, sabi sa akin, “Sir, pareho tayong Pilipino. Ito mga Chinese man ito.
Mas loyal ako sa iyo dahil pareho tayong Pilipino. Tulungan kita i-
radicalize ko ito.” Sabi ko, “Sige nga, tingnan natin para mawala iyong
orientation nila sa droga.” After one month, binalikan ko, sir. “Kamusta,
Commander? What happened to your deradicalization efforts dito sa
mga Chinese drug lords na ito?” Sabi sa akin noong terrorista, “Sir,
mukhang ako man ang na-shabulized nila. Mas masarap pala ang buhay
ng drug lord kaysa ng terrorista.”
71
So, ito, nakakatawa. But my point is, sana iyong ating magiging
deradicalization efforts, ito kung sino man ang mag-handle nito, DSWD
man or AFP or PNP, sana idagdag talaga dito para hindi tayo lalabas na
puro pambobola sa ating deradicalization efforts lagyan talaga natin ng
economic factors. Malaking bagay iyong economic factors, lalo na kung
bigyan mo ng livelihood itong mga tao na ito. Dahil kaya nga nag-
rebelde ito dahil sa hirap. Kung bigyan ito ng economic factors,
economic considerations, iyong ating programa i-incorporate doon, mas
magiging epektibo. Kasi nga sabi ko hardcore ito na terrorista. Gusto
kong ma-convert iyong mga drug lord maging terrorista, pero baligtad.
Siya ang nagiging drug lord, “Masarap pala mag-drug lord, sir.” So,
economics pa rin ang isang factor diyan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). Thank you.
Kung pinakinggan mo iyong advice ni Senator Honasan noon na
faulty wiring, wala kang problemang ganyan. [Laughter]
MR. AÑO. Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). Secretary Año.
MR. AÑO. Sir, I support the statement of Senator Dela Rosa, not
only in BuCor, but also in BJMP. Yes. All our terrorist suspects are
housed in special intensive care area, but they are all together. And it
72
turned out to be a university for terrorists. So, instead of
deradicalization, I think they are becoming more radical. They are
planning and doing terroristic plans, as well as from those from the
outside. So I’m glad that in the law there is a provision for the special
detention area. Dito mas lalong magagawa natin iyong deradicalization
if they are segregated and the families are given access for them
separately, and involving a whole-of-nation approach. So that would
actually address deradicalization.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). There is one feature that we
will include, sa Australia tawag nila, “Supermax, ” super maximum
detention center. Talagang isolated.
MR. REYES. Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). Judge.
MR. REYES. If we will consider terrorism as a continuing crime,
meaning, acts committed a year ago, we can effect warrantless arrests
and we can bring him for inquest proceeding. I think one possible
justification of prolonging the period of detention is because it will be
hard to gather evidence of a crime committed a year ago. So I think
that can be a possible justification, unlike in a case that has been just
committed and brought to inquest proceedings, so that’s one.
73
On the earlier statement of Sec. Honasan, I subscribe to his
statement. Because in the seminar which I attended, we are all in one
agreement that with respect to the detection and prevention, the family,
the community, and the local government unit play a major role on that,
Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Judge.
MR. LORENZANA. Mr. Chair, Judge Reyes brought up a very
important matter a while ago, iyon bang how to deradicalize these kids
or people who have not yet gone to iyong next stage of going to a
terrorist group. I think we can take a lesson from the Singapore
experience, wherein they put up this Committee on Religious Harmony
and Understanding. And I was told by the Home Minister, he said that,
“They found somebody. He was being deradicalized through internet,
or everything.” Kukunin nila iyon. Tapos i-under nila doon sa body na
iyon, and they started to slowly deradicalize him. Example was that
they found out through the Internet that one girl, Singapore girl was
communicating with Syria and she was actually planning to go there and
get married to an ISIS fighter so that she will be also a martyr. So
kinuha nila iyon, nilagay nila under the care of this committee, and she
was deradicalized eventually.
74
Siguro ang gagawin natin is to put up also a similar body in the
south especially because it is there that this radicalization is
happening…/mrjc/jmb
75
MR. LORENZANA. ...this radicalization is happening, so that
we can focus this attention to this problem of the deradicalization.
Again, Secretary Honasan has another suggestion to more
effectively deradicalize terrorists—disabuse their minds. Hindi totoo
iyong 72 virgins, ang totoo raw doon 72-year old virgin.
[Laughter]
Anything more?
SEN. MARCOS. Mr. Chair, I just like to highlight also the most
extensive and lengthy experience in reorientation, debriefing, and
deradicalizing is probably in the United Kingdom. I suggest that the
Committee also look into the British experience as their experience
with extreme violence and terrorism has been so long standing.
MR. REYES. Mr. Chairman.
MR. REYES. Well, I notice that one of the controversial
provisions in the present HSA and in the proposed is the wiretapping.
And I think there was additional provision by the Senate President on
the consensual recording. Because in the present setup of the HSA,
there was a provision to wiretap, so only you will need the judicial
approval of the Court of Appeals. And I think in the proposed bill, it
76
now includes the judges of the regional trial court. I do not know
whether there was already an application before made to wiretap.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). ATC, have you applied
for wiretapping in relation to the Human Security Act? No, you have
not exercised that—?
MR. MANALASTAS. So far, no actual record on that, Mr. Chair,
on the application.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). The prevailing
sentiment, at least in the Senate, is to elevate from RTC, gawing CA.
Kasi we learn from the experience of—iyong sa Leyte na issue nang
issue ng search warrant, iyong kay Superintendent Marcos. Tapos mali
iyong—kaya na-sanction iyong judge.
So at least, from the point of view of Senator Drilon, ang sabi
niya, “I won’t be a problem in the passage of this measure. But ito
lang ang gusto ko i-emphasize, baka pwedeng sa Court of Appeals
(CA) natin ibigay iyong authority to issue judicial authorization instead
of the RTC.” He is just worried na iyong issue ng jurisdiction would be
abused.
MR. REYES. At saka po, Mr. Chairman, under the present
HSA, pagka—since we have predicate crimes. And then iyon lang,
mayroong acts to constitute act of terrorism. So dapat when you apply
to wiretap, you have to establish probable cause doon sa predicate
77
crime. And then, iyon nga, there are acts to constitute. Para ho iyong
understanding ...
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Then it becomes very
tedious. That is the reason why we are already excluding predicate
crimes in the amendment that we are introducing. Wala na pong
predicate crimes. A terrorist act is a terrorist act.
MR. REYES. So pagka na-amend ho ito, wala nang predicate
crime, so the applicant should establish probable cause on the
commission of these terrorist acts.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). That is correct, Judge.
Iyon po.
MR. REYES. Eto naman po, how if in the process of
wiretapping, nalaman mo rin na mayroong commission of a predicate
crime?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Then—that is under
study po because iyong sa amendment namin sa 4200, this has
become an issue. My contention is that parang pwedeng i-apply iyong
plain view principle. In the United States, mayroon silang tinatawag
yatang plain hearing, kasi it’s as if a crime is being committed right in
your presence and you are not doing anything about it. So ito iyong
pinag-uusapan pa namin dito with our colleagues na kung pwedeng i-
apply iyong plain view principle pagdating sa wiretapping.
78
Because, for example, we have a judicial authorization to wiretap
based on our application doon sa violation ng Anti-Terrorism Act. But
then, in the course of the conversation, we discovered na may pinag-
uusapan silang ibang crime na kinomit (commit) nila. Since we are
covered by a judicial authorization, can we use that piece of
information as evidence?
That is an issue that we have to resolve with our colleagues here
in the Senate. Ang sabi nila, hindi raw pwede. My contention is, pwede
because it’s akin to being present during the commission of a crime,
actual commission. So nandiyan na iyong information, binoluntir
(volunteer) na nga noong iyong nag-engage sa conversation. And yet,
we will not use that piece of evidence, which mayroon naman tayong
pinanghahawakang court order, bakit hindi natin pwedeng gamitin iyon
as evidence? Sayang naman.
Your thoughts, sir.
MR. REYES. Mayroon po tayong proposed violation of material
support or a financial support. Papaano nga po kung ang narinig niya,
“Oh, i-deliver mo iyong shabu na iyon. And iyong collection, ibigay mo
sa terrorist.” Can you also charge him for—transporting or selling of—
under the plain hear doctrine?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes. Or violation of the
comprehensive—
79
MR. REYES. Or public corruption po.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes. Or public
corruption, tama po, Judge. So this will be a long discussion during the
plenary debates. But, you know, I subscribe to the idea na bakit hindi
mo pwedeng gamitin iyon. Nandiyan na nga iyong crime being
committed right in your presence or, at least, narinig mo. And you
have naman the judicial authorization to hear those pieces of evidence,
whatever it is, outside of the commission of a terrorist act, hindi ba?
Kasi nag-usap na sila na nag-deliver ng shabu, pwede mo na siyang i-
charge doon ng violation ng Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Or
nag-uusap sila na may ni-rape siya, in-identify naman properly sino
iyong victim. Bakit hindi mo siya pwedeng kasuhan for the crime of
rape considering na sa kanya naman nanggaling iyong information?
And, of course, this should be supported by other circumstantial
evidence, not just—baka mamaya nagyayabang lang. Sabihin niya sa
depensa sa court, “Nagyayabang lang naman ako. Hindi naman totoo.”
But if it is supported by other independent evidence, I think you should
be able to use that piece of evidence that you gather from wiretapping
sa prosecution, hindi po ba, Judge?
MR. REYES. Iyon nga po, if we will allow same principle of
plain view doctrine doon sa plain hear doctrine so that it will be
allowed.
80
Iyon naman po, Mr. Chairman, sa consensual recording, as
proposed by the Senate President, so iba naman po iyong sa anti-
wiretapping.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Alam ninyo po, Judge,
sa Amerika, hindi lang consensual, one party consent. Iyon, hindi na
uubra iyon dito. Tiyak na magagalit sa atin ang Commission on Human
Rights. One party consent is being allowed in the United States.
Hindi ba, pinag-usapan natin last time during our hearings?
One party consent is already sufficient to wiretap. I don’t think it
will be adopted here. Iyong consensual—
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Sir—
MR. REYES. But, Mr. Chairman, pero iyon po yatang court
ngayon is already admitting the CCTV footages with video and audio.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Iba naman po iyon.
Iyon iyong Ople Versus Torres yata iyon, iyong parang reasonable
expectation of privacy test. There are two tests involved: iyon iyong
the individual has already expected that he would lose his privacy in
the public place, for example; and that society has also conceded that
that individual is supposed to lose his privacy. So it has to pass the
two reasonable expectation of privacy test. Mayroon pong
jurisprudence.
81
MR. REYES. Pero, Mr. Chairman, there is this argument that
when you converse with somebody, you already waived your right to
privacy. In fact, we have already—consensual recording. Whenever
you talk with somebody, the audio is the ears; the video is the eyes;
the mind is the recorder. Only, this is consensual recording using
gadget. That’s why the problem—and then, if you converse with
somebody, you cannot prevent him to testify on what you converse.
The problem is if he testify and I will testify, we are prone to tell a lie.
But if it’s a gadget, nobody can tell a lie.
And well, I was so concerned about this because in the case
which I decided, only if the army-sergeant was able to use consensual
recording and he was able to record the several meetings he had with
this rebel, it’s very easy for me or the prosecution to prosecute and for
the judge to decide based on this recorded conversation.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes. Thank you, Judge.
As long as the other guy or the other party is informed that their
conversation is being recorded. Pero kung hindi, kung surreptitiously
ni-record, I don’t think it will pass the consensual consent principle
...mjp/peg
82
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). …it will pass the
consensual consent principle, hindi ho ba, Judge? Halimbawa, kausap
ko si Senator Bato, gusto ko lang malaman ilan ang girlfriend niya.
Pagkatapos, nagtago lang ako rito ng cellphone na naka-on iyong mike.
SEN. DELA ROSA. [Off-mike] Ni-report mo sa asawa ko, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Oo, ni-report ko sa misis
niya, puwede niya akong habulin ng violation ng RA 4200, wiretapping,
because I wiretapped him without his knowledge.
MR. REYES. I understand in the US it is allowed, Your Honor.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). In the US, one party
consent nga.
SEN. MARCOS. [Off-mike] FBI.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Iyong FBI, tama.
SEN. MARCOS. [Off-mike] Always.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Always.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Sige.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Mr. Chairman, I just like to express our
concern about the wiretapping procedures for application. The Chair
mentioned that it would be elevated to the Court of Appeals, to the CA.
Honestly, Mr. Chair, the process, the tedious process elevating it
to CA may just be a stumbling block for the effective comeback of
83
surveillance. We recommended earlier that for purposes of
surveillance—Surveillance pa lang muna, Mr. Chair, before evidence.
Yeah. Not for evidence, but for surveillance because the idea is to
prevent—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). When you secure a court
order, you’re gathering evidence…
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). …not just information.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir. That’s another team.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Kasi if you are covered
with a judicial authorization, by all means, evidence iyong maga-gather
mong information.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir. Ang point ko, sir, is the intelligence
community needs to conduct surveillance on many targets to be able to
prevent a crime.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). You’re doing it anyway
without court order.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir. We do not want to violate—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). And—[Laughter]
MR. MONTEAGUDO. We do not want to be violating a—Nandito
iyong human rights, Mr. Chairman, I refuse to acknowledge—but ang
akin, Mr. Chair, is we recommended earlier that probably, just for giving
84
the semblance of due process, for instance, the ATC, be given the
authority to allow certain agencies to conduct surveillance on particular
targets. The ATC is composed—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). At the ATC level?
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Yes, sir. If—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). I don’t think so.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Whatever—
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Kasi court iyan.
Jurisdiction ng court iyan because that’s a judicial authorization. And a
unit under the Executive branch cannot exercise the authority that’s
given to the court.
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Kasi, sir, number one is secrecy.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). No. Alex, take life na
lang kayo. [Laughter]
MR. MONTEAGUDO. Alam naman, sir, ni Senator Bato iyan.
Pero—yes, sir. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Sabi mo nga, information
gathering lang naman, hindi ba?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Surveillance lang. But
kung gusto ninyong i-extend hanggang sa gamiting ebidensya, mas
85
maganda na rin iyong talagang may judicial authorization. Pero for
surveillance purposes, just take life.
MR. AÑO. Mr. Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Secretary Año.
MR. AÑO. Can the law provide provision, not just for CA, but
another special court? So may choice po. You can go to the CA or the
special court to be constituted.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yeah. Well-taken. Thank
you. Thank you for the suggestion.
MS. GANA. Mr. Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Gwen.
MS. PIMENTEL-GANA. Mayroon lang akong question kasi the
way the discussions are going on, parang the law really protects and
gives more power to the ATC to come up with the prospect of really
zooming in on who the terrorists are. So I was just asking, in relation
to the detention period, the extension, could it be possible if the building
of the case can actually be done before the arrest? So, iyon. I mean,
I’m not a law enforcer so I don’t really know what’s happening on the
ground. But if we give powers to the ATC to really be able to build a
case, is it possible?
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yeah, it’s possible, but
it’s on a case-to-case basis. Because there are some cases na magbi-
86
build up ka pa lang ng kaso pero nandiyan na iyong suspect, naaresto
mo na. Say, for example, an actual bombing, mayroong naaresto. They
need to hold that person or persons in custody for an extended period,
not just 36 hours, because they need to follow up more leads. Iyon ang
point. But iyong kaso na they have all the time to gather intelligence,
iyon iyong puwedeng mag-apply na sa buildup ng kaso, doon na sila ga-
gather ng lahat ng ebidensya that they need.
So I think we have covered—
MR. REYES. One more thing, Mr. Chairman. Huli na lang po.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Judge. We’re
learning from you, by the way. And thank you very much.
MR. REYES. Opo.
Iyon pong issue of hierarchy of rights—security and human rights.
I think, in the proposed amendment, we should also be guided with the
provision of the International Human Law, of the IHL. Actually, I also
made a first conviction on that. It’s a good thing that it was the rebel
who committed violation of the IHL, not the military.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Judge. Well-
taken.
And I would suggest that ATC consolidate all these suggestions
when you submit your position paper para ma-incorporate natin.
Because I want this measure to be the first to be tackled on the floor
87
para maipasa natin. And I would like to ask you if your commitment to
recommend to the President the immediate lifting of martial law once
this measure is passed. Hindi ba you made that commitment last year?
MR. LORENZANA. [Off-mike] Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). And this is much, much,
much stronger than the martial law that you are using now, hindi ba?
Which, of course, we all know, is a toothless martial law. Panakot lang
naman kayo doon sa Mindanao. Psywar lang. Wala naman din kayong
magawa, nandoon pa rin iyong 36 hours, nandoon pa rin iyong
warrantless arrest provision na actually being committed and has, in
fact, been just committed, and so forth and so on, hindi ba? Wala naman
talagang ano, panakot lang ang ginagawa ninyo doon. Niloloko ninyo
lang iyong mga terrorists doon. [Laughter]
Sige, Ronald.
MR. TAGRA. Mr. Chair, permission to make a statement.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yeah. Yes.
MR. TAGRA. Actually, the DI-PNP has adopted Senator Lacson’s
version as our working draft, Mr. Chair. I suggest also that we should
enhance multi-cooperation or bilateral cooperation between countries to
fast-track or speed up the collection of information with regard to
reported foreign fighters who are here in the Philippines and those who
are arrested, sir, in order not to unnecessarily prolong also the arrested
88
person, their detention. So with that, to sustain that program, Mr. Chair,
we need to have enough or sufficient fund for that, this Anti-Terrorism
Law, to strengthen this weakest terrorism law worldwide, Mr. Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Don’t worry, dala-dalawa
na kami ngayon ni Senator Bato na magdagdag noong budget ninyo,
pati doon sa AFP. Lagi na lang namin kayong dinadagdagan taun-taon.
So that’s it. In the meantime, we’ll just suspend the hearing, but
if we won’t call anymore for any public hearing to tackle this measure,
then we’ll just submit the committee report based on your further
submission.
So, Mistah, thank you very much.
Thank you to all.
[THE HEARING WAS SUSPENDED AT 11:32 A.M.]/cbg/imjv
89

Defense - 19!08!13 Org Mting. Anti Terrorism Act

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defense - 19!08!13 Org Mting. Anti Terrorism Act

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY

Date : Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Time : 9:30 a.m.

Venue : Sen. Ambrosio B. Padilla Room

Agenda : PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT, AMENDING R.A.

SENATE BILL NO. 6 - AN ACT AMENDING R.A. 9372

ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2019:

SENATE BILL NO. 21 - AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN

SENATE BILL NO. 630 - AN ACT TO COMBAT

HON. PANFILO M. LACSON - Chairperson, Committee on

Hon. Delfin Lorenzana - Secretary, Department of

Ms. Charlyne Claire Fuentes-Olay - Committee Secretary,

(For complete list, please see attached Attendance Sheet.)

AT 9:23 A.M., HON. PANFILO M. LACSON,

THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Good morning, ladies and

gentlemen. This meeting is hereby called to order.

VOICE. Good morning, sir.

THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Included in today’s

agenda are the following: the organizational meeting of the Committee

on National Defense and Security; and a hearing to discuss the different

measures pertaining to the amendments of the Human Security Act of

For the information of everybody, the following are the members

of this Committee: this representation is the Chair; Vice Chairpersons:

Rosa, Senator Christopher Lawrence Go, Senator Gordon, Senator

Pacquiao; and the members are Senator Lapid, Senator Villanueva,

Senator Marcos, Senator Binay, Senator Angara, Senator Revilla,

Senator Gatchalian, Senator Villar, Senator Hontiveros, Senator

Pangilinan, Senator De Lima; ex officio members are Senators Recto,

Zubiri and Drilon.

Now, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the Vice Chair

of the Committee, Senator Francis “Tol” Tolentino and, of course,

Senator Dela Rosa.

Thank you, sirs, for attending this meeting and hearing.

Comsec, can you acknowledge the presence of our resource

THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY (MS. OLAY). Good morning.

Let me acknowledge the presence of our resource persons for this

We’ll start with Secretary Delfin Lorenzana of the Department of

National Defense, Secretary Eduardo M. Año of the Department of the

Interior and Local Government; Secretary Gregorio Honasan of the

Department of Information and Communications Technology; Director

General Alex Paul Monteagudo from the National Intelligence

Coordinating Agency; General Hermogenes Esperon Jr. from the

National Security Council; General Benjamin Madrigal of the Armed

Forces of the Philippines; Executive Director Florentino Manalastas Jr.

from the Anti-Terrorism Council Program Management Center;

Commissioner Gwen Pimentel-Gana from the Commission on Human

Rights; Police Brigadier General Elmedio Tagra from the Philippine

from Branch 272 of RTC Marikina City.

THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Comsec.

The Chair manifests that the Committee is adopting and

subscribing to the pertinent provisions of the Rules of the Senate, Rule

10, Section 13, paragraph 13, Committee on National Defense and

Security, we have 19 members, “All matters relating to national defense

military retirees; citizens army selective service; forts; arsenals; military

camps and reservations; coast, geodetic and meteorological surveys;

procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation. These rules shall

guide the operation and conduct of the meetings, hearings and

investigations of the Committee.”

Do I hear a motion to adopt the rules?

SEN. TOLENTINO. I so move, Mr. Chair, that we adopt Section

5 of the Rules of the Senate for purposes of guiding the proceedings of