There are sacrosanct provisions in our Constitution and they are enshrined in the Bill Of Rights (Article III, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines). It’s a set of rules that guarantees civil and human rights and liberties to individuals who live in a democratic society. It is the centerpiece of the fundamental law of the land, which is cherished by its freedom-loving citizens. The first two sections of the Bill of Rights pertain to: firstly, the requirement of due process before anyone can be deprived of life, liberty or property and, secondly, the inviolability of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches. Furthermore, Section 2 guarantees that “no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce…”.
Every Filipino who treasures liberty can sleep well at night comforted by the thought that he cannot be deprived of liberty, among others, and his personal security cannot be violated subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Well, not anymore, it seems, if the critics of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Law are to be believed. The bill sanctions the police authorities to wiretap suspects, arrest them minus any warrant and detain them without filing the appropriate charges for a period of 14 days, which is extendible by another 10 days. It aims to strengthen the Human Security Act of 2007 and punishes those who will propose, incite, conspire, participate in the planning, training, preparation, and facilitate the commission of a terrorist act, including those who provide material support to terrorists and recruit members in a terrorist organization. Defenders of the bill claim that there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent excesses and abuses by the police authorities, but the critics doubt them. Under the Constitution, only a judge may issue a search warrant or warrant of arrest. Opponents of the bill claim that the bill is a step back to the dark years of Martial Law when warrantless arrests were systematically made. If this measure is enacted into law, law enforcers out of misguided zeal may commit abuses and violate individual liberty in the dubious guise of national security. This law may extend a patina of legality to an illegal arrest, which constitutes a travesty of our Constitution. There should be no constitutional shortcuts in enforcing the law.
As affirmed by the US Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan, “(T)he Constitution is a law for rulers and people, … and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.” Thus, at no instance should the police authorities disregard the strict letters of the Bill of Rights. Every person, even a suspected terrorist, is entitled to due process and the protection of the Bill of Rights. No arresting officer can bypass the court and disregard due process and dismiss the requirement of a probable cause. All police actions are regulated by the limitations prescribed in the Bill of Rights. An ordinary law cannot countermand the Constitution. The law enforcer should be the first to respect the force and rule of law. No one is above it.
Probable cause is to be determined personally by the judge. It is not a call to be made by a police officer except when effecting a legitimate arrest as when a crime is being committed or before or just after its commission. It is tragic when the law enforcer in the name of national security violates the law and destroys our democratic way of life, which he is sworn to protect. We are no longer living under a Martial Law regime when individual liberties were trampled upon. As observed by SC Justice Isagani A. Cruz in the case of People v. Amminudin, 163 SCRA 402, “(N)ow that we have succeeded in restoring democracy in our country after 14 years of the despised dictatorship, when anyone could be picked up at will, detained without charges and punished without trial, we will have only ourselves to blame if that kind of arbitrariness is allowed to return, to once more flaunt its disdain of the Constitution and the individual liberties its Bill of Rights guarantees.” Let us hearken to his voice.
The intention of the law is noble and salutary but it should not curtail fundamental rights of the citizens. Should individual rights yield to the exigency posed by the threat to national security? In Olmstead v. US, 277 US 438, the revered Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ruled: “We have to choose, and for my part I think it is less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part.” Dissenters are worried that warrantless arrest and dispensing the judicial requirement of a probable cause will open the floodgates wide to erosion of our freedom. Any attempt to derogate the individual rights of the people, which shield them against trespasses by the authorities, will be met with stiff opposition, as what we are witnessing now. People are zealous of their rights and vigilant to resist any incursion which threatens their liberties. As Thomas Jefferson has pointed out, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”