The Philippines is among the top ten nations most affected by terrorism, according to the 2020

Global Terrorism Index. The Philippines has battled terrorism in a number of methods over the
years. It has reacted militarily, punished terrorists, prevented terrorist acts, put in place
defensive measures, and addressed some of terrorism's causes. All suffer from restricted
efficacy and application.

Distinguished guests, I am Giosyl Jance, good day! As a speaker tasked to defend the affirmative
side, I will discuss why there is a need for the anti-terror law to be abolished.

The anti-terrorism bill of 2020 is one of the most controversial legislations introduced by
Congress; many have been vocal in their opposition to the legislation, claiming that it breaches
the constitution and basic human rights. In which Section 29 of the bill is one of its most striking
features titled ‘Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest,’ it simply states that any law
enforcing agent or military personnel, who have been duly authorized are allowed to take
custody of a person “suspected of committing any of the acts defined under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, and 12” of the said law. Otherwise called as a warrantless arrest. It went on to say
that the law enforcement agent may detain such person for a period of 14 calendar days which
may be extended for another 10 days if it is established that (1) further detention of the person
is necessary to preserve evidence related to terrorism or complete the investigation; (2) further
detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of another terrorism; and (3)
the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay.

The Anti-terror law is contrary to the constitution because it permits for warrantless arrest to
be based on ‘suspicion.’ The law allows for arrest of persons ‘suspected’ to have committed
acts under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the law. The acts mentioned under these
sections are terrorism; threat to commit terrorism; planning, training, preparing, and facilitating
the commission of terrorism; conspiracy to commit terrorism; proposal to commit terrorism;
inciting to commit terrorism; recruitment to and membership in a terrorist organization, foreign
terrorist, and providing material support to terrorist.

This means that a person who is ‘suspected’ to have ‘threatened to commit terrorism’ can be
arrested and detained for a maximum period of 24 calendar days. Why is this significant? Our
legal system requires probable cause to grant a warrant for the arrest of a person, this is
significant because our laws and the Constitution uphold the value of the life, liberty, and
property of a person. A person's liberty should never be restrained unless it is legally required,
and he should be given due process before such a fundamental right is stripped away.

There is no need for the anti-terror law simply because there are laws already existing that
penalizes direct terrorist acts and conspiracy to commit terrorism and other related acts. These
includes (1) Human Security Act of 2007 - an Act to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism,
thereby repealing Republic Act No. 9372, (2) The Terrorism Financing Prevention and
Suppression Act of 2012 - Any financial support that is directly or indirectly extended to these
groups by any organization, association, group of persons or individuals shall be dealt with in
accordance with existing laws and regulations, and (3) The Revised Penal Code which
criminalizes a whole class of acts that are generally accepted as criminal, such as the taking of a
life whether through murder or homicide, rape, robbery and theft, and treason.

Considering all of these, we must take into consideration that shutting off terrorism does not
only rely on passing such laws, in order to halt the terrorist acts we must identify the basic
cause of the revolt, it is critical to address poverty, scarcity of resources, poor infrastructures,
lack of opportunity, and other fundamental political, economic, and social problems.