Lacson says IRR provision on publication of suspected terrorists’ names may serve a ‘purpose’

Senator Panfilo Lacson said on Tuesday expressed belief that the publication of suspected terrorists’ names, as provided under the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, has its purpose.

Lacson said that while the provision can be subject to questions regarding data privacy, the publication of names can help suspected terrorists prepare for any legal action that may be taken against them.

“Wala kasi sa batas yan, sa IRR lumabas ang publication (It’s not part of the law, but the requirement for publication came out in the IRR). And anybody can question. Kasi baka ang Data Privacy Act may implication, baka may violation (Because there could violations under the Data Privacy Act). I don’t know,” Lacson explained during an interview on CNN Philippines.

“Pero ang sa batas mismo, walang sinasabi na ipa-publish (But under the law, there’s nothing that said there is a need to publish). But we gave the ATC (Anti-Terror Council) that authority under certain conditions within some parameters to designate individuals or persons. Ang proscription ang judicial),” the senator added.

“Sa akin may purpose yan. I can only guess na ang (that the) purpose ng (of the) ATC na mag-publish, ay para i-defend o makapag-ready ang (is to defend, or to ready the) designated person on whatever prospective action could be taken against him, like freezing of accounts,” the former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief pointed out.

“(But) let’s see how it shapes up later. May pending petitions sa SC (Supreme Court) and I’m sure this will be tackled among others,” the principal sponsor of the law, further said.

Last Saturday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly released the IRR for the Anti-Terrorism law, which defines terrorism as an act committed by a person s that causes death of serious bodily injury to any person or endangers a person’s life and or causes extreme damage or destruction against the government or public or private property.

However, critics claimed the new law endangers basic rights and could legitimize alleged attacks against activists. A total of 37 petitions have been filed against the law before the Supreme Court.