THE Department of Justice yesterday said it sees no problems in the simultaneous implementation of amnesty for former rebels with the anti-terrorism law.
DOJ Assistant Secretary and Spokesperson Jose Dominic Clavano made the remarks after state prosecutors sued 11 alleged members of the communist New People’s Army in Occidental Mindoro for their involvement in an ambush against Army soldiers in May last year.
The 11, according to Clavano, have been arrested.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is set to be fully implemented on January 15 after the Supreme Court approved the procedures and rules guiding petitions and applications related to the law.
“These two can go on simultaneously. The two are mutually exclusive,” Clavano said.
“The current decision to resume peace talks with the National Democratic Front which has been opened up by the administration has nothing to do also with the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, especially now that it has been fully operationalized by the operative fact that the SC issued the guidelines,” he added.
Clavano said if rebel groups are willing to come forward to talk and agree to a ceasefire, they have nothing to fear from the controversial anti-terror law.
“However, if they come forward and represent themselves as in good faith, and yet continue activities that would fall under the coverage of the anti-terror law, then they can also be prosecuted,” he added.
The SC, in a statement issued last January, 1 said the rules will cover all applications and petitions related to detention without warrants of arrest, surveillance and freeze orders, travel restrictions, designations, proscriptions and other court issuances meted out in the application of the anti-terror law.
It said the rules will also apply to all individuals or groups who seek judicial relief from their designation as terrorists or terrorist groups by the Anti-Terrorism Council and freeze order by the Anti-Money Laundering Council on their respective bank accounts.
Before its passage in 2020, the anti-terrorism law was widely contested by civil society, human rights and media groups largely due to its loose definition of terrorism, raising fears that dissent and legitimate expression of opposition could be unjustly labeled as terrorism by law enforcement authorities.
But the High Court upheld its constitutionality after being challenged by 37 petitions questioning its legality.
