SunStar
+ February 05, 2021 NEWLY assumed Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Cirilito Sobejana said military officials are not supposed to threaten people in order to gain their trust and be effective in their mandate.
“The reason for our existence is to serve the people and securing the land, no threatening among our constituents kasi paano kami magiging effective public servant if we threaten (them).Unless they are identified as enemies of the state,” he said in an interview on Thursday afternoon, February 4, 2021, when he took the helm of the AFP.
Sobejana was asked for his reaction to the threat issued by Southern Luzon Command (Solcom) commanding officer Antonio Parlade Jr. to file charges against an Inquirer.net reporter.
Published February 5, 2021, 10:49 PM
The issues surrounding the controversial Anti-Terror Law of 2020 were brought to the fore once again as the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday started hearing oral arguments concerning it. One of the main concerns was the reported vagueness of the law, which gives authorities a wider scope on how to interpret it.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra (TOTO LOZANO/PRESIDENTIAL PHOTO /MANILA BULLETIN)
But for Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra, the issue of vagueness concerning the law has already been resolved.
“Ambiguity in the law itself… [has been] given remedy by the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) that was crafted by inter-agency group led by the DOJ,” he said during the Laging Handa public briefing on Friday.
Battle Over Anti-Terror Law Opens at the Philippines’ Top Court
Critics argued for the repeal of terror law at the Supreme Court in oral arguments starting February 2.
By
February 04, 2021
People protest outside the gates of the Supreme Court as oral arguments start in a case against the Anti-Terror Law.
Credit: Michael Beltran
Advertisement
On February 2, the Supreme Court in Manila held oral arguments on the whopping 37 petitions filed by various civil society groups against the controversial Anti-Terror Law. The end of the session was inconclusive and is set to continue on February 9.
Since the inception of the law and its passage in July 2020, rights groups have been up in arms about what they see as draconian provisions and intentions. Attorney, law professor, and former dean Tony La Viña explained to The Diplomat the law’s most contentious provisions: “One is the definition of terrorism, which is made very general, drawing no lines bet