Jul 5, 2020 @ 10:50
What’s the point of 24-day detention? Carpio says 36-hour jail after warrantless arrest is sufficient
Former Associate Justice Antonio Carpio thinks Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) is the “deadliest blow on fundamental constitutional rights.”
In his Inquirer column, Carpio sees no point in detaining a suspected terrorist for up to 24 days without any warrant or charges based on the explanation of its main author, Senator Ping Lacson, who cited Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court as basis for the 24-day detention, purportedly to gather more evidence against the suspected terrorist.
Lacson told the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that Section 29 did not add any exemptions to the warrantless arrests under Rule 113 which “apply only to lawful warrantless arrest by virtue of in flagrante delicto and hot pursuit rule—in such cases, an actual crime is being committed or has been committed.”
Carpio said that based on Lacson’s interpretations, “law enforcement agents and military personnel can never detain the arrested person for more than 36 hours.”
“In warrantless arrests under Rule 113, there is no need for additional time to gather more evidence to strengthen the case against the arrested person for purposes of denying bail,” said Carpio.
“The investigating prosecutor can immediately conduct an inquest and file the judicial charge within 36 hours, and the judge will deny bail because the evidence of guilt is obviously strong. Being under continued detention, the arrested person cannot commit further acts of terrorism,” he added.