Issue No. 26, June 30, 2020

Volume 6 Issue No. 26 map.org.ph June 30, 2020

“MAPping the Future” Column in the INQUIRER

MODERN CAPITALISM: Where Lies Its Genius? June 22, 2020

Mr. ANTONIO “Tony” T. HERNANDEZ

The Capitalist ideology is founded on private or corporate ownership of capital goods and where products, prices, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

In effect, society’s means of production are not held by government but by private persons (distinct from cooperatively-owned or state-owned capital goods) who have the prerogative over their productive use. And this prerogative provides the incentive to maximize profit and fire-off material progress which is said to be the upside of Capitalism.

However, it is the same prerogative that provides the downside: the temptation to exploit and yield to man’s baser desires for inordinate wealth accumulation.

Hence, the thinking that wealth accumulation and worship of the bottom line is the central principle of Capitalism; and the enforcement of private property rights is sine-qua-non for success. That explains Capitalism’s predilection for liberal political order where property ownership is protected and exchanges are free from governmental interventionism.

Idealism, pride, fame

Capitalism is said to have been coined in the mid-19th century when the first Industrial Revolution was in full swing. Individual innovators were creating new inventions to better people’s welfare. While motivated partly by profit, “more significant was the romance of patriotism, technology and the desire for fame.

In a famous example, writes Prof. Gregory Clark of the Univ. of California, the miner’s safety lamp which greatly expanded the coal seams in which miners could work was developed as a humanitarian venture by Sir Humphry Davy, Inventor- Chemist. He refused to take any profit from the innovation. However, he did squabble furiously and selfishly with George Stephenson, Father-of-Railways, as to who deserved the glory of the innovation.” A sterling stroke-of-policy where self-interest served the wider interest!

“The first hundred years of the Industrial Revolution produced extraordinarily little in terms of profits for the inventors who created the modern world. Even most of the innovators whose names we know --- James Hargreaves, Samuel Crompton, Edmond Cartwright (change-makers in the spinning industry which ushered in the factory system) --- gained little”, says Clark.

Clearly, wealth creators at the heart of the industrial revolution “depended as much on idealism, pride of craft, and sense of social usefulness as they did on the desire to make money” --- reflective of that early Anglo-American value system when Puritan ethics (the belief and practices of rigorous moral code and religious rules) was alive in the early capitalist period.

And value-creation was regarded a moral act: an article-of-belief linking human activity to the biblical concept of Stewardship which, in the gospel of creation, means the responsible management of “God’s holdings” entrusted to man’s care, and for which he will make an accounting one day of how faithful he was to the rules during his limited existence.

The mention of “Stewardship” raises the point that we all play a role connected to something more than ourselves --- to a web of relationships where economics, work and faith intersect --- an interdependency that demands relational responsibility.

Coincidentally, today’s deadly “COVID-19 Pandemic” dramatizes that interdependency! Could this Pandemic be the crucible to test our moral compass in a play that looks like a rehearsal of a terrifying crisis?

Capitalistic drift

But do those deep structures of moral values and beliefs that drove the capitalist ideology in its early advocacy years (which became the negation of communism) still holds, or has drifted with the onslaught of globalization?

There is no denying that Capitalism has brought material progress to the world. We have seen much miracles in new inventions --- from nuclear energy, to bio- nanotechnology and more! But what from the moral sphere of socio-economic affairs, from the art of peaceful, fair and beneficent human relationships?

Has Capitalism kept faith with the value system of the Pioneers…“doing-well-by- doing-good” as the pilgrim Quakers put it? Are the communities where Capitalism makes its fortune, better off today? --- i.e., a lot more peaceful, wholesome, undecayed 2 and secure? Or are more exploited, polluted and, stressed out with mushrooming shantytowns or urban slums? Would today’s global wealth distribution be redemptive of Capitalism? Or will it be its own embarrassment?

The global inequality of wealth distribution has been a universal issue in years. The top richest 9% owns more than 85% of the world’s wealth, while the poorest 70% own just about 3% of the global wealth. (Credit Suesse 2017 Global Wealth Report).

This implies that the world’s top richest households possess more than what the 70% of the world’s poorest (approximately 3.47 billion people) have. This financial inequality translates to worldwide social inequity, creating dehumanizing social conditions.

As Bill Gates puts it, “while the world is comparatively getting better, it's not getting better for everyone. The great advances in the world (in science, technology and medicine which have brought us to a high point in human welfare) have often aggravated the global inequities. The least needy gets the most improvement, and the most needy gets the least.”

“There are roughly over a billion people in the world who don't get enough food, who don't have clean drinking water, who don't have electricity --- the things that we take for granted. Diseases like malaria that kill over a million people a year get far less attention than drugs to help with baldness.”

Yet today’s Capitalism goes unfettered in its profit maximization drive, oblivious of “the external cost in terms of pollution, environmental destruction, depleted natural resources, and climate change --- lowering the quality of life of the majority in the affected areas who have done the least to cause it”!

Profit is king

Has the value-empty discipline of economics (“reconstructed in the academic cloister describing wealth-creation after they were accomplished elsewhere by persons sans the discipline”), undermined the Puritan ethics embedded in the early industrial revolution “which upholds goodness and worthiness as things worthwhile in themselves”?

Or has the raging competition between rival cultures of capitalism, set to naught business ethics altogether? For competition can be double-edged, depending on the moral compass of who applies it. It may bring out the best in products and the worst in people, says David Sarnoff, founder of RCA.

For example, while competition spurs innovation to improve products, it also lures competitors to break moral values and collude to limit markets leading to oligopoly, or use their power to "rig the system" by creating barriers to entry (“…like donating to officials sponsoring laws that benefit their industry.”) Eventually embracing pseudo-competition --- undercutting product innovation and service improvement --- to maximize profit as the “be all”!

“In today’s business world,” notes “Soul of Business” author Tom Chappell, “the right move” is weighed only according to how well it maximizes profits. If using cheap materials increases profit, if polluting the air and rivers increases profit, if squeezing wages or laying off loyal hard-working employees increases profit, then so be it.

By today’s norm, “Profit is King!” But is this where the genius of Capitalism should excel?

Values versus numbers trade-off

Is self-interest designed to optimize profit, regardless of how the means impact the common good? Should values be traded off to make the numbers?

“Moral values out, Material values in” seems to capture the sentiment of transactions resulting in today’s income inequality. A distribution imbalance (private capital gets greater rate of return than the overall growth of the economy) widening the gap between the rich and the poor. To quote Prof. Oded Izraeli of Oakland Univ., Michigan, it “threaten(s) to create an underclass whose members’ inadequate education and low skills leave them with poor prospects for full participation in the economy as earners or consumers --- causing political instability.” And as Gates notes, “Capitalism doesn’t promote equality of opportunity and/or outcome despite the idea of a level playing field. Those without good nutrition-support and education may never make it to the playing field. Neither does Capitalism provide for those who lack competitive skills --- the elderly, children, the developmentally disabled.” It brings to mind Social Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest” and the biblical quip: “Am I my brother’s keeper?

Numbed by the science of economics, Capitalism has ostensibly overlooked the one component, almost immeasurable, that makes all economic activity possible: “human relationship” --- the dignity of people behind every economic transaction: customers, suppliers, workers, even host communities --- to whom it has obligations entwined with those relationships, and the responsibility to fairly give something back to them.

The question: Do stakeholders get to share fairly enough in the success of industries? Do workers get something back, say a commensurate pay and/or healthy workplace? Do customers get something back, say better quality and innovations delivered? Do suppliers get the worth of what they supply? And the society that provides services and opportunities, does it benefit too, say in unpolluted air and waterways? As the saying goes: “Do good to society and society will return the favour!”

Bent of greed

But the fact remains that the obtaining economic inequity enlarges the rift between classes… giving rise to anti-elitism and conversely, to populist themes. A trend disputing today’s Capitalism as that “robust system… enhancing quality of life!” Yet, capitalist practitioners seem blind to this insidious run of things! Fascinated by the magic of numbers deep in the study of transactions, (the desiccated bits and pieces of the productive mix), the integrity of the enterprise --- the respect for 4 stakeholders --- gets side-tracked in favour of the logic of money, i.e., how people utilize money to optimize return, not in how improvements are applied to reduce inequity. And “…the logic of wealth-creation is swamped in the politics of profit maximization, yielding to the bent of greed which only aggravates social inequities.”

The problem of extreme profit maximization is that it abets social inequity and conflicts with values of greater humanitarian importance --- the regard for the welfare of others. Unregulated, such mantra of extremes becomes “the chief supreme index of business virtue” which eventually leads to embracing wrongful means! And virtue descends into a self-seeking game of “Winner-Takes-All” --- I, Myself and Me! Couldn’t the genius of Capitalism chart a “Middle Way” that harmonizes the conflict between profit maximization and social responsibility; that private good advances the common good… and make society even a more hospitable and fruitful place for Capitalism?

Certainly, to be in business is to make money and optimize gain for shareholders. But to make money as the only goal, “strips away that part of ourselves that needs to thrive. Something in us that wants to endure beyond retained earnings” --- the aspiration for social usefulness; the fulfilment and joy of a life well lived… having been a blessing to others!

Unfortunately, business doesn’t lend itself so easily to talks about values and goodness. It is a constant tug-of-war between self-interest and social responsibility. Not until it realizes, late in the game, the emptiness of having done nothing but make money! And in the rush to find meaning, wades into the philanthropic pond and snaps at CSR (corporate social responsibility) options! But again, as Clive Crook of Financial Times and Atlantic Monthly observes: it is “not to bring philanthropic ideas to business, but to bring business ideas to philanthropy… just another outlay for another kind of business investment.”

In the case of CSR, Crook notes, “it is the tribute that capitalism everywhere pays to virtue… but it is at best a gloss on Capitalism.”

“Consultancies have sprung up to advise companies on how to do CSR, and how to let it be known that they are doing it.” But “plenty of CSR policies smack of tokenism and political correctness more than of a genuine concern to “give back to the community. (Judge companies by their actions and CSR enthusiasts will be disappointed.)”

Do good, do well

Capitalist practitioners will have to rethink the priorities that guide everyone in the system --- from entrepreneurs/investors to regulators. The ghastly tracks left behind by the inordinate acquisitive desire for wealth, is a letdown to the capitalist ideology! It has forgotten that “CSR is more about how companies conduct themselves in relation to stakeholders (the workers, consumers, the broader society in which firms operate and, as is often argued, future generations) than about straightforward gifts to charity. Donations, large or small, are not the main thing,” says Crook.

It is actually in integrating CSR into the business strategy that makes real contribution to society (a straight-forward drive, allowing the robust break in the economy to filter down to stakeholders thereby giving substance to “inclusive growth.”)

To quote Elizabeth Stuart, Sr. Policy Adviser, Oxfom International, Washington, D.C.: “CSR should not just be in a Company’s PR department. It should be central to its core business functions… which would mean innovation and new working relationships.” The better in fact for the enterprise to take the initiative at self- regulation and keep wealth-creation within society’s ethical values, than wait for external regulators to step in (as happens in mix economies) with some unsavories to boot. “Doing good is within every Company’s grasp”, adds Chappell. “Consenting to it is the first step at putting values back into the driver’s seat. All it requires is trusting in it, persevering in it, believing that your own good intentions will be met with goodness in return --- i.e., to have faith in the good turning up. Faith is a word rarely used in the vocabulary of business. But it too, has its place!”

The learning from history is this: The principle of doing good enhances an enterprise’s reputation and appeals to customers; it attracts good people to the organization than would enterprises that wheedles to man’s baser desires. Conversely, doing what hurts others will hurt society and, what hurts society will eventually hurt ourselves!

(This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or the MAP. The author is management and development finance consultant; Past President & Advisory Council member of the Government Association of CPAs; past Director of PICPA; and former senior officer of Land Bank of the Philippines. Feedback at and . For previous articles, please visit )

“MAP Insights” Column in BUSINESSWORLD

THE MORNING AFTER

June 30, 2020

Mr. JOEY A. BERMUDEZ

When business owners ask for help in clawing their way out of this pandemic-turned- economic crisis, they are making a very reasonable request.

The best way to appreciate their predicament is to understand the revenue cycle of a typical enterprise. I call it the “cash to cash” cycle.

Every enterprise starts with a certain amount of assets. These assets are then deployed in production or service delivery to create more valuable assets. If you are a restaurant, you use cash to buy fish, meat, vegetables, ingredients and cooking supplies to create meals that you can price at reasonable profit. If you are a tour bus operator, you use cash to hire bus drivers and intelligent guides to conduct tours that make the bus ride interesting. Along the way, the cash assumes other asset forms – from raw materials to goods in process to finished products to receivables – until they get converted back to cash, hopefully at amounts greater than the cash with which you started.

The length of this cash cycle depends on the type of enterprise. If your enterprise is a wet market stall, your cash to cash cycle is probably one day. If your enterprise is housing construction, the cash to cash cycle is way longer than a year.

When you are prevented from carrying out your business, as in an abrupt lockdown, your cash to cash cycle is interrupted. There is damage arising out of the business interruption. The amount of damage depends on the stage at which you are in the cash to cash cycle just before the interruption. If the cash cycle was interrupted before you could commence a new production or service delivery cycle, you are stuck with cash which you cannot deploy. If the cash cycle was interrupted before your production or service delivery cycle was completed, you are stuck with an unfinished contract which may never get completed. If the cash cycle was interrupted after you have delivered to your customer but before you could collect payment from him, you are stuck with a receivable which is at risk of not getting collected.

What happens when the cash cycle freezes? I cringe whenever non-entrepreneurs and armchair analysts oversimplify the problem. They naively argue that when the business stops for two months, the revenue lost is just 2/12 or 16.7%% of its annual revenue. They’re missing the point. Whenever the cash cycle is interrupted for a significant length of time (and two months is definitely “significant”), the entire working capital of the business is put at risk. There emerges the possibility that the entrepreneur might lose the entire business. 7

What happens when you stop a business or even an economy in the middle of its production cycle? The assets stranded in the production process can become totally worthless. If you were in the catering business and had procured supplies to prepare an exquisite dinner for a 200-person convention and the event gets cancelled at the last minute because of the lockdown, would those supplies be worth anything at all by the time you resume operations? When the economy reopens, do you think it will be business as usual for businessmen? Of course not. Re-starting a business is often many times more difficult than starting a new one because you are carrying baggage from the past.

When the economy reopens, the big task for the entrepreneur is to assess the damage. It is like inspecting your house the morning after a very strong typhoon.

Take a look at the symbolic representation of a typical company in the illustration below. This company is leveraged 4x which means that it uses Php4.00 of borrowed money for every Php1.00 of capital that the owner put in. The green boxes represent the assets that continue to be of value to the business: cash, good receivables, and realizable assets including inventory. The peach boxes represent the assets that have lost their value: the bad receivables from customers who probably ran into extreme difficulties themselves during the crisis and unrealizable assets including inventory that may have become worthless in the new production cycle (for example, inventory that could have been used only for a very specific order that was cancelled, inventory that perished during the company’s temporary closure, etc.).

On the other side of your balance sheet are your payables and capital: the yellow boxes. You can see from the illustration that the good assets (the green boxes) are no longer enough to settle the liabilities (the light yellow box) because some assets became uncollectible or unrealizable. The light blue box on the right tells you the extent to which the entrepreneur can re-start the business. The dark blue box represents the working capital that has become stranded because it is no longer supported by good assets.

It is obvious that the amount of cash that will re-circulate in the business after the crisis has considerably shrunk. It is also obvious that the entrepreneur needs to deal with payables that cannot be settled in the current operating cycle because of the shrinkage of the business. Again, the dark blue box represents the baggage that the entrepreneur has to carry going forward.

What should the entrepreneur do with this dark blue box?

He needs to engage with his creditors. He has four options.

Firstly, he can convince his creditors to stretch out the repayment of these liabilities (represented by the dark blue box) over a longer period, hopefully long enough for the business to generate surplus profits annually that can go into repayment of this debt. Secondly, he can ask for full or partial debt forgiveness. Is this an unusual request? Yes, it is. But remember that the COVID-19 crisis is an unusual event that has brought about an extraordinary situation. Extraordinary problems call for extraordinary solutions. Countries and nations have asked for, and were granted, debt forgiveness in 8 various forms. I recall that in the aftermath of the 1998 crisis, some of the country’s largest conglomerates defaulted on their debt and later, using conduits, bought back these debts at deep discounts. That is debt forgiveness no matter how you look at it. These companies continue to exist today and they continue to enjoy the respect of the business community.

Thirdly, he can get rid of the problem once and for all by drawing on his personal resources to infuse more capital into the company and liquidate the dark blue box. Only a small number of business owners have this capability today.

Fourthly, there are options that might open up to him if and when the stimulus programs being discussed today at executive and legislative levels see the light of day. How successful the entrepreneur will be in pursuing these options will depend on his relationship with his creditors. From my experience, it is important for the entrepreneur to make the bank understand that the latter is better off keeping the enterprise alive by bending over during these extraordinary times than killing the business altogether by tightening the noose. Trite as it may sound, the saying that one should not kill the goose that lays the golden egg was probably never truer than today.

(This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or the MAP.) ------JOEY A. BERMUDEZ is the Chair and CEO of the Maybridge Finance and Leasing, Inc. and past President of MAP. [email protected] [email protected] http://map.org.ph

AAMO’s Asian Management Game 2020

Dear MAP Member:

The Asian Management Game (AMG) is one of the annual activities of Asian Association of Management Organisations (AAMO) (https://aamo.network/) of which MAP is a member.

The AMG is currently organized by Macau Management Association, which aims at connecting different national management organizations (NMO) in the Asian Pacific region. For the past two decades, AMG has successfully served as a platform for young managers in the region to learn and exchange from each other.

The AMG will be played over internet in either English or Chinese version. Each NMO will nominate up to 2 teams each consisting of 3 – 5 young managers. The registered teams will be allocated into groups by draw. Each team will in each round be assigned a company for managing its operations and making strategic decisions for a period of five financial quarters. The team that has achieved the best investment performance shall be the winner.

The AMG comprises of trial round, semi-final and final. Each team is required to download from AMG website the background information of the assigned company, which records its past performances and its present position. Decisions surrounding marketing, finance, production and human resources are entered online according to the Game Calendar schedule. At the end of each financial quarter, team will receive a management report from the Game Administrator detailing the latest economic environment and the company’s performance reflecting the team’s decisions.

This year, the AMG will be held during July to August, 2020. Below please find the competition calendar for your reference.

Date Timeline June 1 – July 10, 2020 Registration July 31 – August 7, 2020 Trial Round August 14 – 21, 2020 Semi-Final August 29, 2020 Final

The champion team in the final round will be sponsored a free trip to Macau and join young managers from other AAMO countries for a study visit in November 2020.

For more information about AMG, kindly visit our AMG website: http://www.gmc- asia.com/en/aamo_contestant.html

Please let us know quickly if you want to nominate a team for the AMG.

Should you have any query about the AMG, please feel free to contact Ms. Zoe Lau at [email protected].

Thank you. 10

June 5, 2020 Joint Statement on the Anti-Terrorism Bill

Speech of former Senior Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO at the

June 17, 2020 MAP Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill

[ANALYSIS] The Anti-Terror Act is worse than Martial Law ANTONIO T. CARPIO Rappler Published 3:07 PM, June 18, 2020 '[The Anti-Terror Act] is authorized to order the arrest of any person even if he or she has not committed any crime of terrorism'

I am objecting to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) because of several provisions in the Act that are unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution, the right against unreasonable arrests is an “inviolable” fundamental right. The Constitution uses the word “inviolable.” The ATA demolishes this “inviolable” fundamental constitutional right. (READ: [OPINION] Martial rule without martial law: An anti-terror bill subtext)

The Constitution declares that the right of the people “to be secure in their persons xxx against unreasonable xxx seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose” shall be “inviolable.” Seizures include arrest. So, it means that in arrests of whatever nature and for any purpose – whether it is arrest for ordinary crimes or for serious crimes, the right of the people against unreasonable arrest is “inviolable.”

To guarantee this inviolability against unreasonable arrest, the Constitution erected two fortresses: the first fortress is that only a judge can issue warrants of arrests; the second fortress is that warrants of arrest must be issued only upon probable cause.

Let us go to the first fortress – only a judge can issue warrants of arrest. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that “no xxx 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.”

Under the 1935 Constitution only judges were authorized to issue warrants of arrests. The 1973 Constitution changed this and authorized executive officials to issue warrants arrest. The result was the notorious ASSOs issued by the Secretary of National Defense during Martial Law. The framers of the 1987 Constitution vowed never again, and reinstated the provision in the 1935 Constitution that only judges can issue warrants of arrests. There is no doubt whatsoever – under the present Constitution only a judge can issue a warrant of arrest. This first fortress must be “inviolable.”

What has the ATA done? The ATA has demolished the first “inviolable” fortress and reinstated the ASSOs of the Martial Law era. Section 29 of the ATA, with the tell-tale heading “Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest,” provides: “any law enforcement agent or military personnel who, having been duly authorized in writing by 12 the ATC has taken custody of a person suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4 to 12” of the ATA shall not be liable if he or she detains a person for a total of 24 days without filing a judicial charge.

Section 29 obviously refers to warrantless arrests outside of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because any law enforcement agent or any citizen for that matter can effect a warrantless arrest under Rule 113 without written authority from anyone. If the law enforcement agent still needs a written authority from the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to effect a warrantless arrest under Rule 113, then that will defeat the purpose of a warrantless arrest where time is of the essence. Under Rule 113, the crime is already being committed in the presence of the law enforcement officer and if he still has to secure a written authority from the ATC to arrest the offender then that would be senseless. Clearly, the written authority referred to in Section 29 is not for the purpose of effecting a warrantless arrest under Rule 113.

The written authority of the ATC is necessary to arrest a person suspected of terrorism outside of the situations where warrantless arrests are already allowed under Rule 113. This was explained clearly by the principal author of the ATA, Senator Panfilo Lacson, as I will elaborate shortly. The ATC is, of course, a purely executive body under the control of the President – composed of 8 Cabinet secretaries and the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. This is obviously unconstitutional since under the present Constitution only a judge can issue a warrant of arrest.

Let us go to the second fortress – warrants of arrest must be issued only upon “probable cause,” the term used in the Constitution. The ATA has also demolished this second fortress.

“Probable cause” means the judge has reasonable grounds to believe, based on the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, that a crime has been committed and the person to be arrested probably committed the crime. In short, if the judge believes that no crime has been committed, he cannot and should not issue a warrant of arrest.

During the Senate deliberations on the ATA, Senator Lacson, the principal author of the ATA, explained:

“Hindi na rin po natin pinapalitan iyong provision sa citizen’s arrest in this case. Kaya lamang, ang in-expand natin ay iyong period. In ordinary vbgr crimes, hindi puwede iyong nasa planning stage, hindi naman niya ginawa, hindi naman siya nag-commit ng crime. Pero dahil iyong tinatawag nating inchoate offense, hindi pa nangyari, nasa simula pa lamang, puwede na nating arestuhin because we want to be proactive because this is a new phenomenon.”

In short, under Section 29 the ATC is authorized to order the arrest of any person even if he or she has not committed any crime of terrorism. In the exact words of the principal author of the law, even if “hindi naman siya nag-commit ng crime xxx hindi pa nangyari xxx puede na nating arestuhin.” The justification, according to Senator Lacson, is “we want to be proactive.” Section 29 does not provide standards or limitations on the power of the ATC to issue arrests orders, just like the ASSOs of the Martial Law era. Section 29 does not require “probable cause” before the ATC can issue an arrest order.

Clearly, the ATC can issue an arrest order even without “probable cause,” demolishing completely the second fortress erected by the Constitution to insure that the guarantee against unreasonable arrests is “inviolable.” The House of Representatives adopted en toto the Senate version authored by Senator Lacson, and thus the House is deemed to have adopted also the intent and interpretation of the Senate on Section 29. Obviously, any arrest order not founded on probable cause is unconstitutional.

Under Section 25 of the ATA, the ATC is authorized to designate an individual or organization as a terrorist or engaged in terrorism. Section 25 provides: “The ATC may designate an individual, groups of persons, organizations or associations whether domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause, that the individual xxx commit, or attempt to commit or conspire in the commission of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4 to 12” of the ATA. Clearly, the ATC has the power to designate an individual or organization as a terrorist or engaged in terrorism. (READ: [ANALYSIS] The Anti-Terrorism Act: Duterte will have all dissenters’ necks)

Once so designated, the individual can now be arrested upon order of the ATC because the individual is engaged in terrorism. Likewise, any and all members of the organization so designated can also be arrested upon order of the ATC because under Section 10 mere membership in such organization is a criminal offense. Section 10 provides: “Any person who shall voluntarily and knowingly join any organization, association or group of persons knowing that such organization is xxx organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years.”

The penalty for mere membership in an organization designated by the ATC as engaged in terrorism – 12 years imprisonment – is bailable but the accused can be placed under “house arrest” instead, negating his constitutional right to bail. However, for those who recruit members to such an organization, the penalty is life imprisonment, a non-bailable offense if evidence of guilt is strong. Life imprisonment means you remain in prison throughout your physical life, and under the ATA there is no possibility of parole. This life imprisonment is different from the reclusion perpetua in the Revised Penal Code, the duration of which is 20 years and one day to 40 years, after which you are released from prison.

The question is, how will the ATC make such designation? Is a hearing required where the individual or organization is represented? The only requirement under Section 25 is “upon probable cause,” which means that the ATC must have reasonable grounds to believe, based at least on affidavits of government witnesses, that the individual or organization is engaged in terrorism. However, “probable cause” does not require a hearing where the individual or organization can be heard to rebut the government witnesses. Thus, under Section 25 the ATC can make the designation ex parte, without hearing the person or organization to be designated as engaged in terrorism.

Is this constitutional? Of course this is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides that “the right of the people xxx to form associations xxx for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.” This is the freedom of citizens to join any association of their choosing, provided the purpose of the association is not contrary to law. The Constitution also provides that “no person shall be deprived of xxx liberty without due process of law.” Putting these two provisions together, before the ATC can designate a person or organization as engaged in terrorism and arrest that person and members of the 14 organization, there must be due process because a person can immediately be arrested and deprived of liberty if he or his organization is designated as engaged in terrorism.

“Due process” means a hearing where the individual or organization can present their side to rebut the allegation that they are engaged in terrorism. Absent this due process, the designation of the individual or organization as engaged in terrorism will result in the deprivation of liberty of the individual and members of the organization. In short, since Section 25 allows the ATC to designate an individual or organization as engaged in terrorism without a hearing thus resulting in deprivation of liberty without due process of law, Section 25 is unconstitutional. (READ: Close to home: Daughter of slain activist warns anti-terror bill will 'normalize' killings)

Let me give a graphic example of the application of Sections 10 and 25 of the ATA. Suppose there is a former Senator, let us call him Mr X, who is designated by the ATC as a terrorist under Section 25 because he allegedly engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage to public places or private properties for the purpose of creating an atmosphere of fear. This is an act of terrorism under Section 4(b) punishable with life imprisonment. The ATC orders his arrest and he is taken into custody by military personnel.

Mr X’s relatives file a petition for the writ of habeas corpus before the RTC on the fourth day of his arrest. The judge will issue the writ and require the custodian of Mr X to bring Mr X to the court on the 8th day of the arrest. When the judge asks the custodian why he is detaining Mr X, the custodian will produce the written authority from the ATC designating Mr X a terrorist and ordering his arrest. Unless Section 25 of the ATA is declared unconstitutional, the judge will have no recourse but to dismiss the petition for habeas corpus because Mr X is being detained pursuant to law and the government custodian has still 6 days to detain him before filing a criminal case in court, or even 16 more days if the ATC determines that law enforcement agents or military personnel need more time to gather evidence against Mr X.

On the 24th day the ATC, through the prosecutor’s office, files a criminal case against Mr X for terrorism. The judge issues a commitment order because the judge finds probable cause to the non-bailable charge. Mr X can file a motion for reconsideration or motion to quash, appeal to the Court of Appeals and all the way to the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, as long as the warrant of arrest is not lifted, Mr X remains in detention, just like Senator Leila de Lima. That is the effect of Sections 10 and 25 of the ATA.

Let me go to another topic. Senate President Vicente Sotto III recently said "Hindi na kailangan ng Martial Law kapag napasanamin itong anti-terror bill." I agree with Senator Sotto that upon the enactment into law of ATA, Martial Law will be superfluous.

Under the Constitution, the President can declare Martial Law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus for not more than 60 days. Congress by majority vote can revoke such declaration within 48 hours from its declaration. In contrast, the ATA once enacted into law remains in the statute books forever until repealed by Congress or invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Under the Constitution, when Marital Law is declared and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, a person arrested for rebellion must be charged in court within 3 days from arrest, otherwise he shall be released. When he is judicially charged within three days, he can ask for bail if he is charged for an offense not punishable with reclusion perpetua, or if he is charged for an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua, he can ask for bail if evidence of guilt is not strong.

Under the ATA, a person can be arrested for terrorism and detained for a total of 24 days before a judicial charge is required to be filed, whether he is charged for an offense punishable with life imprisonment or not. He can file a petition for habeas corpus right after the arrest, but once the custodian shows the written authority from the ATC, the judge will have to dismiss the petition because the person is being detained upon lawful order pursuant to law.

In short, with the ATA as part of the law of the land, the Philippines will be permanently under a situation worse than Martial Law.

My last point is the effect of the ATA on the presidential elections in May 2022. The ATA punishes speech, whether written, verbal or visual, that incites others to commit terrorism. The ATC, without a judicial warrant, can order the arrest of anyone for inciting to terrorism even before the incitement is made because the ATC is a “proactive” body as explained by Senator Panfilo Lacson, the principal author of ATA. The arrested person can be detained for a total of 24 days. He can be released on the 25th day without any judicial charge.

However, the released person can again be arrested after a few days and the 24-day cycle will start all over again, unlike in habeas corpus where under Rule 113 the person released by the court cannot be re-arrested again by law enforcement officers for the same charge unless by order of the court. Under the ATA, there is no prohibition on the ATC to order another re-arrest of the same person for the same offense.

The ATA will have a devastating effect on freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the May 2022 presidential elections. The Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA) is automatically suspended one month before and two months after the holding of any election. In contrast, the ATA, which repeals and replaces the HSA, is not suspended during any election.

In conclusion, if we do not want to experience a permanent contraction of our civil liberties, we must all work to have the objectionable provisions in the ATA invalidated by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress. Vigilance is the price of freedom. – Rappler.com

Antonio T. Carpio is a retired Supreme Court senior associate justice.

Speech of Senator PANFILO “Ping” M. LACSON, Chair of Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, Peace, Unification and Reconciliation, at the June 24, 2020 MAP 2nd Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill

The Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) President Francis Lim, National Issues Committee Chair Rizalina Mantaring, respected members of this great association, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

When two great legal minds clash, not symmetrically, nor tangentially, but squarely, as in head- on, what do laymen like me and probably some of you in this virtual gathering, do?

I am referring to your last week’s guest, retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio on the one hand, and on the other – an equally eminent legal eagle, a former Justice Secretary, and also my colleague in the Senate – Minority Leader Franklin Drilon. Let me explain.

The records of the Senate archives will tell us that the phrase “having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council…” under Section 29, which is now being challenged as unconstitutional by Justice Carpio as well as IBP President Domingo Egon Cayosa, was actually Senator Franklin Drilon’s amendment in the Human Security Act of 2007, later accepted by another giant in the legal profession, the sponsor of the Human Security Act of 2007, former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, and is merely being retained in the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The legislative intent of the bill is clearly to premise Section 29 on a valid warrantless arrest, as also lawfully allowed in other crimes that are not related to terrorism. The provision is compliant with Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court. Under the proposed Anti-Terrorism Law, a warrantless arrest is allowed under the same circumstances as in any other crime, by virtue of: (a) in flagrante delicto arrest; and (b) a hot pursuit arrest.

It was never the intention of Congress to amend the rules on warrantless arrest or what we also refer to as a citizen’s arrest.

The same phrase contained in Section 18, (entitled “Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack”) of the Human Security Act of 2007 and which has the same language of Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, was voted favorably by a number of distinguished legal experts and luminaries, among others, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Without taking anything away from the honorable Justice Carpio, who I respect and admire, I would prefer to go along with my former and present colleagues in the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, not only because of the power of overwhelming numbers, but more so, I am absolutely certain these legislators as well as their respective legislative staffs and legal researchers had diligently studied, researched, and scrutinized a landmark measure like the Human Security Act of 2007 before casting their affirmative votes, as this is the usual and time- honored practice in legislative work. Nothing less could be said of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as proposed.

I must tell you this: my own legislative staff – all six of them, lawyers in their own right, and in further consultation with counter-terrorism experts both local and foreign, notably from Australia and the United States, unarguably countries with strong democracies – burned the proverbial midnight oils to help me ably defend this measure on the Senate floor for seven straight session days of intense interpellations and three days of back-and-forth period of amendments by many of my colleagues, including such distinguished members of the Bar as eminently qualified as Justice Carpio and Atty. Cayosa, such as Senators Drilon, himself a Bar placer; Koko Pimentel, a Bar topnotcher; Francis Tolentino, Richard Gordon, to name some of them.

Justice Carpio has acknowledged that Section 18, similarly worded as Section 29 of the Anti- Terror Bill, has NOT been ruled unconstitutional by the High Court. Sadly, he said it in another way, the reason of which he alone would know.

For the life of me, I could not understand why the honorable Justice thinks this argument works for his cause when the Supreme Court is clear on the matter of “presumption of constitutionality.” To underscore, the Supreme Court, in Tano vs Socrates, GR No. 110249 dated August 21, 1997 ruled, and I quote: “It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. In short, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Where doubt exists, even if well-founded, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain.” It is difficult to understand why a former justice would not know such basic and significant jurisprudence.

Anyway, to allay any fears, Section 29 ensures safeguards to avoid abuses by requiring a written notification to be immediately given to the judge of the court nearest to the place of arrest, with copy furnished to the Anti-Terrorism Council. We have proposed that the same notification be also provided to the Commission on Human Rights – a requirement not present under the Human Security Act of 2007.

On its face, it may appear downright stupid and a virtual disaster to be locking horns with a recently retired justice of the Supreme Court, hailed by some of his colleagues in the bench as “the best Chief Justice they never had,” and the incumbent president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty. Cayosa, especially on legal matters, even touching on some very delicate constitutional issues. Worse, it is not a three-cornered debate, but two against one who is not even a lawyer.

But why am I doing this, and gamely at that? My explanation is simple enough. Somehow, I have this habit of standing my ground when I am backed by hard facts to argue my case. I don’t stand down when I know I am right.

In the same talk during a webinar last June 17, the honorable Justice Carpio emphasized the inviolable fundamental rights that no less than the Constitution has clearly expressed: first is that only a judge can issue warrants of arrest; and second, that warrants of arrest must be issued only upon probable cause.

I have no argument on this. Neither is there anything in the Anti-Terrorism Bill that says otherwise. But what I will argue, is his averment that the proposed measure blatantly transgresses such fundamental rights.

Let me be clear at the outset: the Anti-Terrorism Bill does not allow encroachment by the executive (particularly the Anti-Terrorism Council) on the court’s exercise of judicial powers, such as the issuance of warrants of arrest; nor does it propose to amend Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court by adding another circumstance in the conduct of a valid and lawful

18 warrantless arrest. This is contrary to Justice Carpio and other critics’ oft-repeated claims that Section 29, which I think is the most assailed provision of the proposed measure, allows the Anti- Terrorism Council, a body composed of officials from the Executive Department to give a written authority to police and military personnel to arrest without warrant any person on mere suspicion of being a terrorist. Nothing can be further from the truth. I will belabor these points later on.

As we have anticipated, the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill stirs heated debates. Rightly so – we encourage public discourse, especially among the Filipino masses, for a proposed measure as important as the Anti-Terrorism Bill. But unfortunately, the course of the opposing views and opinions unfairly devalues the measure on many fronts, largely because of the various misconceptions, disinformation and misinformation.

Hence, as the principal sponsor and one of the authors of the bill, it is incumbent upon me to take every available platform to shed light on the legislative intent and merit of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, and how it is fundamentally founded on the rule of law and protection of basic civil rights, contrary to the massive disinformation which has already gained traction especially on social media.

Allow me to debunk these false claims against Section 29 of the bill, by stating these facts:

* First, a law enforcer cannot arrest or detain a person on mere suspicion alone.

Justice Carpio has stretched his qualms over the bill by citing my statement during a Senate deliberation. He said, and I quote: “In the exact words of the principal author of the law, even if hindi naman siya nag-commit ng crime, hindi pa nangyari, puwede na natin arestuhin.”

Unintentionally or not, he ignored the context of my response to the interpellation of Senator Gordon. The statement nitpicked by Justice Carpio was in reference to acts preparatory to the commission of terrorism.

As we deal with the crime of terrorism, we need to adopt proactive measures that will prevent even the planning phase of the crime. Thus, I explained that under the proposal, we included the proposition to penalize INCHOATE OFFENSES, or preparatory acts that are deemed criminal even without the actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent, such as terrorism. Preparatory acts, as a rule, are not punishable unless – I repeat, UNLESS – these acts are punishable in themselves as independent crimes. It is for this reason that the Revised Penal Code specifically provides that conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, treason, insurrection and coup d’etat are indeed, crimes.

We added planning, training, preparing and facilitating the commission of terrorism under Section 6 as INCHOATE OFFENSES punishable under the bill pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1373, which states that planning and preparation, among others, are established as serious criminal offenses in domestic laws, and that the punishment should duly reflect the seriousness of such terrorist acts. In these enumerated acts, an inchoate offense is being performed towards the accomplishment of the desired purpose that is — terrorism. Hence, these acts are criminal in nature. It does negate Justice Carpio’s assertion that under the bill, one can be arrested without doing any criminal act.

Let me ask you: When one lays out the plan when and where to detonate a bomb, trains youngsters how to use guns against our uniformed men as well as unarmed civilians and facilitates the conduct of coordinated attacks without being present in the actual ‘act’ of terrorism, and which has not occurred yet, and with a clear intent or purpose as enumerated under the definition of terrorism, are they not considered criminals? Do you honestly think people responsible for preparing the grand, vicious acts of terrorism do not deserve to be behind bars?

Kapag nakita ng mga pulis habang nagpapatrolya, in plain view sa isang liblib na lugar sa kagubatan ng Sulu o Basilan na may mga nagtitipon-tipon at nagsasagawa ng pagsasanay at pagpaplano ng sabay-sabay na pagpapasabog ng iba’t-ibang pasilidad ng irigasyon at tore ng linya ng kuryente, pati ang ilang simbahang Katoliko at mga palengke – kumpleto ang mga sketches sa mapa kung saan ang mga lokasyon ng targets nila, kasama na ang improvised suicide vests at detonating devices – ang gusto bang mangyari ng butihing dating mahistrado ay maghintay muna ang mga pulis na may mangyaring aktwal na pagsabog at pagkikitil ng buhay ng maraming inosenteng sibilyan bago nila isagawa ang panghuhuli sa mga taong halos nasa harapan na nila? Hindi ba krimen nang maituturing ang ganung gawain kahit hindi pa nagaganap ang malawakang pagpapasabog? Yan po ay isa lamang halimbawa ng INCHOATE OFFENSE na hinahangad na maparusahan sa ilalim ng panukalang batas na Anti-Terrorism Law.

Kayo na po ang humusga.

Moving on. If the ATC has no authority to order an arrest based on suspicion, it clearly has no authority to detain suspected terrorists and much more, fix the period of detention to 14 days, extendible to another 10 days.

The proposed period of detention of up to 14 days, provided in the bill itself, and its extension to another 10 days is to be treated as a policy decision of Congress after considering the unique nature and effects of the crime of terrorism.

To emphasize, the allowable periods of detention are determined by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, a general law which can be amended by Congress. Looking back at the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission in 1986, records would show that the ConCom delegates did not have any intention of restricting the powers of Congress to fix the allowable period of detention arising from an arrest.

Clearly, the three-day limitation to deny a person the privilege to file a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was incorporated in the provisions of Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution as a “safeguard” in case the President, in the exercise of his powers, suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code mandates the law enforcer to deliver an arrested person to the proper judicial authorities through the inquest prosecutor within the allowable period of detention.

Why do some lawyers insist that Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code are the same?

Applying the theory of strict construction, we should follow the word of the law to its strictest sense when technical terms have been used and there should be no room for further interpretation. The express mention of the crimes of rebellion and invasion, qualified by the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, clearly excludes all other crimes from Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution on detention pursuant to the age-old legal maxim, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (When one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned, others of the same class are excluded). Simply stated: What the law does not include, it excludes.

* Secondly, the Anti-Terrorism Council’s “written authority” under Section 29 is NOT AN AUTHORITY to order an arrest.

As I have mentioned, the Anti-Terrorism Bill strictly complies with lawful warrantless arrest by virtue of the in flagrante delicto and hot pursuit rule under the Revised Rules of Court – in both cases, the arrests are immediate in nature. That said, it is illogical, inconsistent and even absurd

20 to think that the ATC will issue a “written authorization” to an arresting officer before effecting the warrantless arrest granting the immediacy and spontaneousness of the circumstances leading to the arrest.

Further, when we asked Director General Alex Monteagudo of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), which is the Secretariat of the ATC, he said that never since the passage of HSA in 2007 has the agency released a “written authority” to law enforcers to arrest or detain suspected terrorists. Isn’t that enough proof that the written authority mentioned in Sec. 18 of the Human Security Act of 2007, as similarly written in Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, is never intended to authorize the ATC to order an arrest?

In actual fact, the written authority issued by the ATC under Section 29 of the ATB is to be directed to its duly designated deputies such as law enforcement agents and military personnel specially tasked and trained to handle the “custodial investigation” involving violations of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as proposed, considering the complexities and nature of terrorism. Not all police officers are trained interrogators and investigators, especially involving a crime as complex and complicated as an act of terrorism. These specially trained law enforcement officers and military personnel shall need a written authority to be deputized by the ATC to perform such tasks.

Atty. Cayosa, in his letter-reply to this representation, stated that “Section 29 could not refer to allowable warrantless arrest under Rule 113 because anyone can actually effect a warrantless arrest under Rule 113 without any need for any written authority from anyone.” While it is true that anyone can effect a warrantless arrest – in fact, even a civilian can effect a warrantless arrest – not everybody is trained to properly conduct a custodial investigation particularly of a crime as complex as terrorism. Atty. Cayosa remains adamant in his own interpretation of Section 29 of the ATB, notwithstanding receipt of my letter addressing his concerns.

The term “custody” in Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill pertains to the lawful custody after a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court. It is only after a valid warrantless arrest that the law enforcement agent or military personnel, authorized in writing by the ATC, may conduct a custodial investigation. Section 29 does NOT amend the Rules on Warrantless Arrest. Section 29 seeks to provide an exception to the periods stated in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code with regard to the crime of terrorism.

* Third, the Anti-Terrorism Council CANNOT order a law enforcement agent or military personnel to conduct electronic or technical surveillance of suspected terrorist groups or individuals.

Another misinformation is the proposition that the Anti-Terrorism Council shall be the sole arbiter in determining “terrorists” based on their assessment of “suspicious” activities like the expression of dissent against the government.

Please note that the ATC is not a creation of this legislative measure as it has been existing since the passage of the Human Security Act of 2007 and still functions to this day as a policy-making body. Moreover, by express provision of Section 45, particularly the last paragraph thereof, it is expressly stated that: “Nowhere herein shall be interpreted to empower the ATC to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial power or authority.”

Thus, under the bill, it is not the ATC but the Court of Appeals that grants judicial authorization for the conduct of electronic and technical surveillance of suspected terrorist groups or individuals. A look at Sections 16 and 17 of the proposed measure would show that the only duty of the Anti-Terrorism Council in this regard is to authorize a law enforcement agent or military personnel TO FILE an ex parte application with the Court of Appeals to conduct electronic and

21 technical surveillance of suspected terrorist groups or individuals, the reason being, again, to prevent possible indiscriminate filing of the ex parte application for such judicial authorization.

* Lastly, the Anti-Terrorism Council’s authority to “designate” terrorist individuals and organizations does not authorize arrest and detention.

On the provision for “Designation of Terrorist Individual, Group of Persons, Organizations or Associations” under Section 25, Justice Carpio argues that, and I quote: “once so designated, the individual can now be arrested upon order of the ATC because the individual is engaged in terrorism.”

This is not only inaccurate. This is plain and simple wrong.

Arrests, same as detention, are not intended consequences of “designation.” Designation is purely an executive and administrative process intended to trigger the issuance of a “freeze order” of properties and assets of designated terrorist individuals or terrorist organizations or associations. In fact, not a single mention of the word “arrest” is found under Section 25 of the bill. A thorough reading and analysis of the provisions in the proposed measure will prove former Justice Carpio dead wrong in his assertion.

Designation serves as a mechanism to trigger the enforcement of targeted financial sanctions currently lacking in our present law. This mechanism, made possible only through an order issued by the Anti Money Laundering Council (AMLC), not the Anti-Terrorism Council – I repeat, not the Anti-Terrorism Council – could stop the flow and use of funds or assets to terrorist organizations or associations.

As businessmen, you all know how important accessible and easy financial transactions are in our day-to-day functions. Terrorism in the Philippines works the same way, with financing as the lifeblood of their terrorist operations and networks.

More so, “freezing of assets” under this proposed measure is not a new feature under the bill. As mentioned by President Lim in his opening statement, the proviso is also actually consistent with the existing provision of Section 11 of RA 10168, known as the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012.

We deemed it important to include “designation of terrorists” under the bill to comply with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and for the purpose of preventing designated terrorists from accessing their funding by freezing their accounts so the same cannot be used to carry out a terrorist attack.

Contrary to claims that the bill does not expressly provide a remedy for persons or groups whose accounts were frozen, a designated person is allowed under this measure to question the freeze order by filing the necessary petition with the Court of Appeals. We even added a provision under this bill, not present under the HSA of 2007 to allow partial withdrawal of frozen funds/assets for humanitarian reasons as well as for reasonable family needs and sustenance of the designated person. Ano pa ba ang gusto nila, Mr. President?

With respect to Justice Carpio, he must have confused “designation” with “proscription” of terrorist groups, organizations or associations. Designation is administrative and not criminal in nature. To effect an arrest, a designated terrorist group or organization must first be proscribed. Proscription under Section 26 requires court intervention where a full-blown hearing will take place before a group or organization may be considered a terrorist organization. It may be done only upon an application filed by the DOJ before the Court of Appeals, with due notice and opportunity to be heard given to the suspected terrorist groups or organizations or associations.

Even membership in a proscribed terrorist organization goes through the same due process of law where the burden is on the DOJ to prove.

As a legislator who has advocated accountability and transparency through and through, I have personally valued public discourse and critical thinking to all the matters of the State. This is, after all, the cornerstone of democracy.

Lest we forget, as we speak, our country ranks 9th among countries in the world that were most negatively impacted by terrorism based on the Global Terrorism Index released in 2019.

Needless to say, terrorism generates a circle of fear that broadens and widens through time and across borders. When a church or a building or a public transport system blows up, killing tens and hundreds of unknowing passers-by, everyone shares the sense of “It could have been me.” It sows fear and violence so broad and indiscriminate that everyone, literally you and I, could fall prey to these heinous acts of terrorism which are bound by a single, evident truth: Terrorism puts innocent lives in peril.

Hence, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as a proposed bill has one clear message: To “terrorists” who commit crimes against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the Law of Nations, our policy will be one that is swift, effective and constitutional.

In conclusion, let me leave you with a simple quote from British philosopher John Stuart Mill: “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”

Again, I wish to thank all the officers and members of the Management Association of the Philippines for this opportunity. I am now ready to answer questions from the members.

*****

News articles about the June 24, 2020 MAP 2nd Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill with Senator PANFILO “Ping” M. LACSON, Chair of Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, Peace,

Unification and Reconciliation

1. “Lacson: Proposed anti-terror law 'one of the kindest' in the world” by Isay Reyes ABS-CBN News June 25, 2020

MANILA - Sen. Ping Lacson said Wednesday the proposed anti-terror law is "one of the kindest in the world," allaying fears it would infringe on civil and political rights.

“We are very kind. Ours is one of the kindest,” he said in a webinar organized by the Management Association of the Philippines.

The lawmaker, who sponsored the proposed measure in the Senate, said the bill contains safeguards against abuse.

“Section 29 ensures safeguards to avoid abuses by requiring written notification to be immediately given to the judge of the court nearest to the place of arrest with a copy furnished to the Anti-Terrorism Council,” he said.

“We have proposed that the same notice be provided to the Commission on Human Rights. A requirement which is not present under the Human Security Act of 2007,” he added.

Lacson said the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) would issue an authority to properly trained individuals to conduct an investigation because any policeman on his own discretion may interpret a person to be committing acts of terrorism.

Uniformed personnel making wrongful arrests can face imprisonment of up to 10 years and absolute perpetual disqualification from public office, he said.

IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR ANSWERABLE

“If the arresting officer cannot be found, the immediate superior will be answerable,” Lacson added.

The senator stressed that a law enforcer could not arrest or detain a person on mere suspicion alone.

However, he said the bill also aimed to thwart "the planning phase of the crime."

“With this, the proposed law includes penalizing inchoate offenses or preparatory acts that are deemed criminal even without the actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent such as terrorism,” he said.

“Preparatory acts, as a rule, is not punishable unless these acts are punishable in themselves as independent crimes,” he added.

14-DAY DETENTION

Holding a suspect for 14 days is to be treated as a policy decision of Congress after considering the unique nature and effects of terrorism, Lacson said.

The allowable period of detention is determined by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, a general law that can be amended by Congress, he added.

Lacson said the Anti-Terrorism Council’s written authority under Section 29 of the bill is not an authority to order an arrest.

“It is inconsistent and totally absurd to think that the anti-terrorism council will issue a written authorization to an arresting officer before effecting the warrantless arrest,” Lacson said.

The written authorization, he said, is to be issued only to duly designated deputies such as law enforcement agents and military personnel especially tasked and trained to handle the custodial investigation involving terrorism.

“Personnel shall need a written authority to be deputized by the anti-terrorism council to perform such tasks,” Lacson said.

CUSTODY

It is only after a valid warrantless arrest that the law enforcement agent or military personnel, who is authorized by the ATC, can start a custodial investigation.

“The ATC cannot order a law enforcement agent or military personnel to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorist groups or individuals,” Lacson said.

He said there was also no truth to concerns that the ATC shall be the sole group who will determine terrorists based on their assessment of suspicious activities like an expression of dissent against the government.

Only the Abu Sayyaf has been labeled as a terrorist but several groups are being studied, he said.

Asked about why the bill is being given priority during the COVID-19 pandemic, Lacson said terrorism knows no borders and the hearing of the bill dates back to 2018.

Despite public scrutiny, the senator said he wouldn't back down.

"Somehow, I have this habit of standing my ground when I am backed with hard facts when arguing my case. I don’t stand back when I know my ground," he said.

Critics have raised concerns on the proposed law due to its supposed vague and dangerous provisions such as prolonged detention without charges and the designation of any person or group as terrorists.

If the bill becomes law, the government will be allowed to wiretap suspects, arrest them without a warrant, and hold them without charge for at least 14 days, among other provisions.

The proposed legislation awaits President Rodrigo Duterte's signature after Congress transmitted its copy to Malacañang on June 9.

2. “Lacson rejects ‘unconstitutional’ tag on warrantless detention in anti-terrorism bill” by Kristine Joy Patag Atin Ito Philippine News Feature June 25, 2020

MANILA, Philippines — Sen. Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday again defended the controversial anti-terrorism bill, which he authored and sponsored through Senate debates, from criticisms of unconstitutionality from retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio and Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Egon Cayosa.

In a webinar hosted by the Management Association of the Philippines, Lacson said that the provision of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 on detention without judicial charges up to 24 days is actually Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon’s amendment.

Drilon is a lawyer and a former justice secretary.

This was contained in Section 29 of the proposed measure, which is now waiting for President Rodrigo Duterte’s signature.Under the proposed measure, a person suspected of terrorism may be detained, without judicial charge, up to 14 days, and authorities may ask for another 10-day extension from the court.

Carpio and Cayosa, along with several lawyers’ group, have flagged this as unconstitutional. On warrantless 'arrest'

Lacson also asserted that the “legislative intent” of the assailed provision was premised on valid warrantless arrests, under Rule 113 Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Under the rules, a warrantless arrest may be done if a person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; if a crime has just been committed; or if the person is an escaped prisoner.

Lacson stressed: “It was never the intention of Congress to amend the rules on warrantless arrest or what we also refer to as citizen’s arrest.”

He also said that Section 29 of the anti-terrorism bill had the same wording as Section 18 of the Human Security Act of 2007—the law that the looming anti-terrorism bill will replace—that he pointed out the Supreme Court did not strike down as unconstitutional.

“The 14-day period is a policy decision of Congress and it is not within the powers or authority of the [Anti-Terrorism Council] to order the detention of an arrested suspected based on valid and lawful warrantless arrest to be detained for 14 days,” Lacson answered when asked at the forum.

"Nothing in this measure says that we are adding another exception or other circumstances, that is the main misconception, because of massive misinterpretation," the lawmaker also said. Longer period of detention

But legal experts have been pointing out that the looming new law is unconstitutional for allowing warrantless detention for up to 24 days.

Cayosa said that even when martial law is declared, law enforcers are required to bring an arrested person before a court within three days.

Carpio, who was MAP’s resource person in a webinar last week, meanwhile said that the provision “would defeat the purpose of warrantless arrest where time is of the essence and in Rule 113 (on warrantless arrest) the crime is already being committed in the presence of the law enforcement agent and if he still has to secure the written authority from the anti-terrorism council to arrest the offender then that would be senseless.”

The retired SC justice also said: “With the anti-terrorism act as part of the land, it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law.”

Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque on Wednesday said President Rodrigo Duterte sees nothing wrong with the provision on pre-trial detention.

He added: “Barring constitutional infirmities, he is inclined to sign it but he wants to see the bill want to make a personal determination.

The window time for veto on the bill will end on July 9, or 30 days from when the proposed measure reached Duterte’s desk.

If the president does not veto the bill, it would automatically lapse into law. — Kristine Joy Patag

Credit belongs to : www.philstar.ca

3. “Lacson refutes Carpio, IBP head, on anti-terrorism bill’s provisions” by Butch Fernandez BusinessMirror June 25, 2020

SEN. Panfilo Lacson, speaking before the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), shot down apprehensions by former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio and Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, over the Congress-approved Anti-Terror Bill (ATB) awaiting President Duterte to sign it into law.

Lacson informed the MAP forum that “records of the Senate archives will tell us that the phrase ‘having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council…’ under Section 29, which is now being challenged as unconstitutional by Justice Carpio as well as IBP President Domingo Egon Cayosa, was actually Senator Franklin Drilon’s amendment in the Human Security Act of 2007, later accepted by another giant in the legal profession, the sponsor of the Human Security Act of 2007, former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, and is merely being retained in the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.”

Lacson clarified that the legislative intent of the ATB is clearly to premise Section 29 on a valid warrantless arrest, as also lawfully allowed in other crimes that are not related to terrorism.

He said the provision is compliant with Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court, noting that under the proposed Anti-Terrorism Law, a warrantless arrest is allowed under the same circumstances as in any other crime, by virtue of: (a) in flagrante delicto arrest; and (b) a hot pursuit arrest.

“It was never the intention of Congress to amend the rules on warrantless arrest or what we also refer to as a citizen’s arrest,” Lacson affirmed, noting that the same phrase contained in Section 18 (entitled “Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack”) of the Human Security Act of 2007 has the same language of Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, voted favorably by a number of distinguished legal experts and luminaries, among others, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives.” 31

While affirming his “respect and admiration” for Carpio, Lacson added, however, that he would “prefer to go along with my former and present colleagues in Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, not only because of the power of overwhelming numbers, but more so, I am absolutely certain these legislators, as well as their respective legislative staffs and legal researchers had diligently studied, researched, and scrutinized a landmark measure like the Human Security Act of 2007 before casting their affirmative votes, as this is the usual and time- honored practice in legislative work. Nothing less could be said of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as proposed.”

Lacson recalled that apart from his legislative staff, six of them lawyers, he also consulted counterterrorism experts both local and foreign, notably from Australia and the United States, noted to be countries with strong democracies “to help me ably defend this measure on the Senate floor for seven straight session days of intense interpellations and three days of back-and-forth period of amendments by many of my colleagues, including such distinguished members of the Bar as eminently qualified as Justice Carpio and Atty. Cayosa, such as Senators Drilon, himself a Bar placer; Koko Pimentel, a Bar topnotcher; Francis Tolentino, Richard Gordon, to name some of them.”

Lacson clarified that the legislative intent of the ATB is clearly to premise Section 29 on a valid warrantless arrest, as also lawfully allowed in other crimes that are not related to terrorism.

The senator assured that the Anti-Terrorism Bill does not allow encroachment by the Executive (particularly the Anti-Terrorism Council) on the court’s exercise of judicial powers, such as the

issuance of warrants of arrest; nor does it propose to amend Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court by adding another circumstance in the conduct of a valid and lawful warrantless arrest.

“This is contrary to Justice Carpio and other critics’ oft-repeated claims that Section 29, which I think is the most assailed provision of the proposed measure, allows the Anti-Terrorism Council, a body composed of officials from the Executive Department to give a written authority to police and military personnel to arrest without warrant any person on mere suspicion of being a terrorist. Nothing can be further from the truth,” Lacson said.

4. “Lacson says he’s open to amendments in anti-terror bill once enacted into law” by Katrina Hallare Cebu Daily Inquirer June 25, 2020

MANILA, Philippines — Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Wednesday said that the Senate is open to introducing amendments to the anti-terror bill once it is enacted into law.

“Definitely. We can introduce amendments or further amend the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 once it is enacted into law,” Lacson, who is one of the principal authors of the Senate version of the bill, said in a webinar organized by the Management Association of the Philippines.

“Nothing can prevent a senator or congressman to file a bill to amend, immediately upon its effectivity,” he added.

The anti-terror bill, which is now up for President Rodrigo Duterte’s signature, has been met with widespread opposition from various groups who fear that the measure could spur human rights violations, as well as suppress dissent against the government.

Lacson said that if anybody wants to file for amendments to the measure, he and his colleagues are open to them.

However, he did not concede to the concern of various groups that the measure has “constitutional infirmities.”

“If somebody wants to file, we’re open to further improving without admitting there are constitutional infirmities,” he said.

“If the purpose is to further enhance the measure by way of its implementation and the safeguards, then we’re willing, we’re open to that,” he added.

5. “Anti-Terrorism Council won't be 'sole arbiter' in tagging, arresting suspected terrorists – Lacson” by CNN Philippines Staff CNN Philippines June 25, 2020

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, June 24) — It is incorrect to say that the anti-terrorism bill gives the Anti-Terrorism Council the power to tag terrorists and order the surveillance and arrest of suspects, Senator Panfilo "Ping" Lacson said Wednesday.

Lacson, principal sponsor and one of the authors of the controversial bill, said the highly contested Section 29 of the measure does not grant the council the authority to order an arrest.

It only gives selected law enforcers the authority to conduct "custodial investigation," he said.

"Not all police officers are trained interrogators and investigators, especially involving a crime as complex and complicated as an act of terrorism. These specially trained law enforcement officers and military personnel shall need a written authority to be deputized by the ATC to perform such tasks," Lacson said during a webinar hosted by the Management Association of the Philippines.

When asked if the bill should be more clearly worded to explain this, Lacson said that once the law is passed, the implementing rules and regulations would "fine-tune" certain provisions.

"Another misinformation is the proposition that the Anti-Terrorism Council shall be the sole arbiter in determining 'terrorists' based on their assessment of 'suspicious' activities like the expression of dissent against the government," Lacson said.

He said it will still be the Court of Appeals that will allow the conduct of electronic and technical surveillance of suspected terrorists.

"The only duty of the Anti-Terrorism Council in this regard is to authorize a law enforcement agent or military personnel to file an ex-parte application with the Court of Appeals to conduct electronic and technical surveillance of suspected terrorist groups or individuals," he said.

Critics say the measure relaxes safeguards on human rights and is open to abuse, but Lacson said it would go after violators and would even require reporting to the Commission on Human Rights.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Caprio said the constitutionality of the measure can be challenged immediately at the Supreme Court the moment it is signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte.

6. “Ping Lacson to Carpio: Designation, proscription two different things in anti-terror bill” by DONA MAGSINO GMA News June 25, 2020

Senator Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday said retired Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio may have confused "designation" with "proscription" of terrorists under the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act.

During a webinar, the principal sponsor of the controversial anti-terror bill, said Carpio was wrong when he argued that an individual "designated" as terrorist can be arrested upon the order of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC).

"This is not only inaccurate. This is plain and simple wrong. Arrests, same as detention, are not intended consequences of designation," Lacson said.

"Designation is purely an executive and administrative process intended to trigger the issuance of a 'freeze order' of properties and assets of designated terrorist individuals or terrorist organizations or associations," he added.

Only the Anti Money Laundering Council can order the said financial sanction which will be triggered by ATC's designation, according to Lacson. 34

Section 25 of bill states that "the designation shall be without prejudice to the proscription of terrorist organizations, associations, or groups of persons."

"With respect to Justice Carpio, he must have confused 'designation' with 'proscription' of terrorist groups, organizations or associations," Lacson said.

"Proscription under Section 26 requires court intervention where a full-blown hearing will take place before a group or organization may be considered a terrorist organization," he added.

Carpio previously said the ATC's power to "designate" an individual as a terrorist under the bill violated a constitutional right.

“Once so designated, the individual can now be arrested upon order of the Anti-Terrorism Council. Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the penalty is life imprisonment. You will be imprisoned throughout your physical life," Carpio warned.

"'The question is, how will the Anti-Terrorism Council make such designation? How will it designate you a terrorist or [determine that] your organization is engaged in terrorism? Is a hearing required where the individual or organization is represented? The only requirement under Section 25 is upon probable cause. Probable cause doesn’t require a hearing," he added.

Lacson reiterated that the ATC does not have any judicial or quasi-judicial authority to order arrests.

"Proscription requires court intervention. It is not discretionary on the part of the ATC to proscribe an organization or association as a terrorist organization," he said.

Further, Lacson said that the "written authority" to be issued by the ATC, as provided in the bill, is not an authority to order an arrest.

"In actual fact, the written authority issued by the ATC under Section 29 of the ATB is to be directed to its duly designated deputies such as law enforcement agents and military personnel specially tasked and trained to handle the custodial investigation involving violations of the Anti- Terrorism Act of 2020 as proposed, considering the complexities and nature of terrorism," Lacson said.

"These specially trained law enforcement officers and military personnel shall need a written authority to be deputized by the ATC to perform such tasks," he added.

Lacson said it may seem stupid for him to lock horns with a recently retired SC justice, whom he respects and admires, as he is not even a lawyer.

But he added that he has a habit of standing his ground when he is "backed by hard facts" to argue his case.

The anti-terror bill is still awaiting President Rodrigo Duterte's approval or veto after it has been transmitted to Malacanang on June 9. It may also lapse into law within 30 days from the Palace's receipt if left untouched. -NB, GMA News

7. “Lacson open to anti-terror bill being amended, enhanced after passage” by DONA MAGSINO GMA News June 24, 2020

Additional safeguards and amendments to the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act can be accepted after its passage, according to prinicipal sponsor of the bill Senator Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday. advertisement

During a webinar of the Management Association of the Philippines, the senator was asked if he would sponsor further amendments to the anti-terror bill to prevent possible abuses of the executive department.

"Definitely. We can introduce amendments or further amend the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 once it is enacted into law. Nothing can prevent a senator or congressman to file a bill to amend, immediately upon its effectivity," Lacson answered.

Lacson, however, underscored that this does not mean he is conceding that the proposed law is constitutionally weak.

"If somebody wants to file, we’re open to further improving without admitting there are constitutional infirmities. If the purpose is to further enhance the measure by way of its implementation and the safeguards, then we’re willing, we’re open to that," he said.

The anti-terrorism bill—which drew opposition from various groups for concerns that it may be used to gag dissenters of the administration and stifle activism—is now up for President Rodrigo Duterte's signature.

Among the several provisions of the measure that are being questioned by critics is the 14- to 24-day detention period for suspected terrorists who are arrested without warrant.

The Palace said Duterte believes in the legality of the said provision.

The timing of the Congress' passage of the controversial bill has also been questioned after the President certified it as urgent in the middle of a health crisis.

Lacson, on the other hand, reiterated that terrorism knows no timing.

"'Di naman pwedeng sabihin sa terrorist, 'Hoy may COVID-19 huwag muna kayo mambomba. And on the part of the Senate, we passed this measure on third reading last February," he said.

Malacañang said Duterte is expected to receive the opinions of various agencies on the legality of the anti-terror bill this week. — BM, GMA News

8. “Lacson: I don't think Sister Mananzan is a terrorist” by DONA MAGSINO GMA News June 24, 2020

Senator Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday said he does not believe that activist nun Sr. Mary John Mananzan is a terrorist after an official of the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) recently alleged that the latter has "a place of honor in a communist terrorist organization." advertisement

"First, personally I don’t believe that. I marched with Sr. Mananzan in the streets before," Lacson said during a webinar hosted by the Management Association of the Philippines.

Last week, PCOO Undersecretary Lorraine Badoy posted on social media that Mananzan was "a long-time ally of the National Democratic Front" and emeritus chairperson of GABRIELA, which she called an "an above-ground organization of the terrorist group" Communist Party of the Philippines.

Badoy is an outspoken supporter of the Anti-Terror Bill. However, Lacson said he does not agree with her opinion.

"This measure and myself, we’re not bound by the opinion of Usec. Badoy. Anyone can express his or her opinion," he said

"Ang question, is it binding on myself as principal sponsor? No. I don’t believe Sr. Mananzan is a terrorist," he added.

The Palace has earlier said that Badoy's Facebook post against the nun is covered by freedom of expression under the Philippine Constitution.

Badoy's social media post came amid fears from critics of the bill, including retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, over a provision that allows an executive body made up of Cabinet secretaries to proscribe a group for involvement in terrorism, the definition of which under the bill some said is "very broad." -MDM, GMA News

9. “Lacson refutes allegations Anti-Terrorism Bill blatantly transgresses citizens’ rights” by Mario Casayuran Manila Bulletin June 24, 2020

Senator Panfilo M. Lacson, author of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB), refuted on Wednesday the claims of former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio that the measure, among others, blatantly transgresses fundamental rights of a citizen.

Lacson’s rebuttal was made in a virtual gathering sponsored by the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP).

Human rights advocates, among others, have denounced the ATB as a means to violate a citizen’s right despite Lacson’s appeal that they read the bill first before criticizing it.

“When two great legal minds clash, not symmetrically nor tangentially, but squarely, as in head- on, what do laymen like me and probably some of you in this virtual gathering do?” Lacson asked.

The senator was referring to Carpio, MAP’s guest last week, on the one hand, and on the other – an equally eminent legal eagle, a former Justice secretary, and also his colleague in the Senate – Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, also a former Senate President.

Lacson, chairman of the Senate national defense and security committee, is not a lawyer. He is a former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief.

“The records of the Senate archives will tell us that the phrase ‘having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council…’ under Section 29, which is now being challenged as unconstitutional by Justice Carpio as well as IBP president Domingo Egon Cayosa, was actually Senator Franklin Drilon’s amendment in the Human Security Act of 2007, later accepted by another giant in the legal profession, the sponsor of the Human Security Act of 2007, former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, and is merely being retained in the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020,” Lacson said during the virtual MAP gathering.

“The legislative intent of the bill is clearly to premise Section 29 on a valid warrantless arrest, as also lawfully allowed in other crimes that are not related to terrorism. The provision is compliant with Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court. Under the proposed Anti-Terrorism Law, a warrantless arrest is allowed under the same circumstances as in any other crime, by virtue of: (a) in flagrante delicto arrest; and (b) a hot pursuit arrest. It was never the intention of Congress to amend the rules on warrantless arrest or what we also refer to as a citizen’s arrest,” he stressed.

“The same phrase contained in Section 18, (titled “Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack”) of the Human Security Act of 2007 and which has the same language as Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, was voted favorably by a number of distinguished legal experts and luminaries, among others, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives,” he said.

“Without taking anything away from the honorable Justice Carpio, who I respect and admire, I would prefer to go along with my former and present colleagues in the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, not only because of the power of overwhelming numbers, but more so, I am absolutely certain these legislators as well as their respective legislative staffs and legal researchers had diligently studied, researched, and scrutinized a landmark measure like the Human Security Act of 2007 before casting their affirmative votes, as this is the usual and time- honored practice in legislative work. Nothing less could be said of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, as proposed,” he added.

Lacson emphasized that his own legislative staff – all six of them lawyers in their own right, and in further consultation with counter-terrorism experts both local and foreign, notably from Australia and the United States, unarguably countries with strong democracies – burned the proverbial midnight oils to help him ably defend this measure on the Senate floor for seven straight session days of intense interpellations and three days of back-and-forth period of amendments by many of my colleagues, including such distinguished members of the Bar – as eminently qualified as Justice Carpio and lawyer Cayosa – such as Senators Drilon, himself a Bar placer; Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, a Bar topnotcher; Francis Tolentino, Richard Gordon, to name some of them.

“Justice Carpio has acknowledged that Section 18, similarly worded as Section 29 of the Anti- Terror Bill, has NOT been ruled unconstitutional by the High Court. Sadly, he said it in another way, the reason of which he alone would know,” he said.

“For the life of me, I could not understand why the honorable Justice thinks this argument works for his cause when the Supreme Court is clear on the matter of “presumption of constitutionality.” To underscore, the Supreme Court, in Tano vs Socrates, GR No. 110249 dated August 21, 1997 ruled, and I quote: “It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. In short, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Where doubt exists, even if well-founded, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain.”

“It is difficult to understand why a former justice would not know such basic and significant jurisprudence,” Lacson added.

“Anyway, to allay any fears, Section 29 ensures safeguards to avoid abuses by requiring a written notification to be immediately given to the judge of the court nearest to the place of arrest, with copy furnished to the Anti-Terrorism Council. We have proposed that the same notification be also provided to the Commission on Human Rights – a requirement not present under the Human Security Act of 2007,” he stated.

“On its face, it may appear downright stupid and a virtual disaster to be locking horns with a recently retired justice of the Supreme Court, hailed by some of his colleagues in the bench as “the best Chief Justice they never had,” and the incumbent president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Atty. Cayosa, especially on legal matters, even touching on some very delicate constitutional issues. Worse, it is not a three-cornered debate, but two against one who is not even a lawyer,” he added.

In the same talk during a webinar last June 17, Lacson said Carpio emphasized the inviolable fundamental rights that no less than the Constitution has clearly expressed: first is that only a judge can issue warrants of arrest; and second, that warrants of arrest must be issued only upon probable cause.

“Let me be clear at the outset: the Anti-Terrorism Bill does not allow encroachment by the executive (particularly the Anti-Terrorism Council) on the court’s exercise of judicial powers, such as the issuance of warrants of arrest; nor does it propose to amend Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court by adding another circumstance in the conduct of a valid and lawful warrantless arrest,” he said.

“This is contrary to Justice Carpio and other critics’ oft-repeated claims that Section 29 – which I think is the most assailed provision of the proposed measure – allows the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), a body composed of officials from the Executive Department, to give a written authority to police and military personnel to arrest without warrant any person on mere suspicion of being a terrorist. Nothing can be further from the truth. I will belabor these points later on,” he said.

Lacson said the course of the opposing views and opinions unfairly devalues the measure on many fronts, largely because of the various misconceptions, disinformation, and misinformation.

He debunked these false claims against Section 29 of the bill.

“Justice Carpio has stretched his qualms over the bill by citing my statement during a Senate deliberation. He said, and I quote: “In the exact words of the principal author of the law, even if hindi naman siya nag-commit ng crime, hindi pa nangyari, puwede na natin arestuhin.”

“We added planning, training, preparing, and facilitating the commission of terrorism under Section 6 as INCHOATE OFFENSES punishable under the bill pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1373, which states that planning and preparation, among others, are established as serious criminal offenses in domestic laws, and that the punishment should duly reflect the seriousness of such terrorist acts. In these enumerated acts, an inchoate offense is being performed towards the accomplishment of the desired purpose that is – terrorism. Hence, these acts are criminal in nature. It does negate Justice Carpio’s assertion that under the bill, one can be arrested without doing any criminal act,” he explained.

“Let me ask you: When one lays out the plan when and where to detonate a bomb, trains youngsters how to use guns against our uniformed men as well as unarmed civilians and facilitates the conduct of coordinated attacks without being present in the actual ‘act’ of terrorism, and which has not occurred yet, and with a clear intent or purpose as enumerated under the definition of terrorism, are they not considered criminals? Do you honestly think people responsible for preparing the grand, vicious acts of terrorism do not deserve to be behind bars?” he asked.

Lacson stressed that if the ATC has no authority to order an arrest based on suspicion, it clearly has no authority to detain suspected terrorists and much more, fix the period of detention to 14 days, extendible to another 10 days.

10. “Law enforcers must report to CHR on arresting ‘suspected terrorists’ — Lacson by Katrina Hallare Philippine Daily Inquirer June 24, 2020

MANILA, Philippines — Law enforcing officers who will arrest suspected terrorists must report to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) under the anti-terror bill, Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said Wednesday.

In an online forum by the Management Association of the Philippines, Lacson added that it is the only law where arresting officers need to report to the CHR.

Lacson said that under the proposed measure, the CHR is included in the reportorial requirement, meaning “they will have full access, full visitation privileges or rights dun sa (with the) suspect na na-arrest (that has been arrested) based on the warrantless arrest.”

“Where can you find a law that requires reporting to the CHR? So the CHR can inspect, visit, investigate,” Lacson said, as he answered a question regarding the concern raised by human rights groups that the proposed measure may lead to an increase of extrajudicial killings, and may discourage the public to air sentiments on the country’s pressing issues. 40

“Ordinary crimes like murder, the police [are] not required to report to the CHR in writing,” he added. “Ito lang yung namumukod tanging batas na ipapasa natin na yung arresting officer should immediately notify, among others, the Commission on Human Rights.”

(This is the only law that we will pass where an arresting officer should immediately notify, among others, the Commission on Human Rights.)

The anti-terror bill, which has Lacson as one of the principal authors in the Senate version, is now up for the signature of President Rodrigo Duterte.

However, this bill has met widespread opposition from various groups pointing out that the measure could lead to more cases of human rights violations.

Even the CHR said that the measure’s vague definition of terrorism could open avenues for abuse, adding that even the bill’s implementing rules and regulations cannot fix the bill’s flaws.

And when asked about his opinion about the Philippines’ current law against terrorism compared to other countries, Lacson said: “We’re very kind, ours is one of the kindest.”

11. “Lacson rejects 'unconstitutional' tag on warrantless detention in anti-terrorism bill” by Kristine Joy Patag The Philippine Star June 24, 2020

Drilon is a lawyer and a former justice secretary.

Carpio and Cayosa, along with several lawyers’ group, have flagged this as unconstitutional. On warrantless 'arrest'

Lacson also asserted that the “legislative intent” of the assailed provision was premised on valid warrantless arrests, under Rule 113 Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Lacson stressed: “It was never the intention of Congress to amend the rules on warrantless arrest or what we also refer to as citizen’s arrest.” 41

But legal experts have been pointing out that the looming new law is unconstitutional for allowing warrantless detention for up to 24 days.

Cayosa said that even when martial law is declared, law enforcers are required to bring an arrested person before a court within three days.

The retired SC justice also said: “With the anti-terrorism act as part of the land, it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law.”

Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque on Wednesday said President Rodrigo Duterte sees nothing wrong with the provision on pre-trial detention.

He added: “Barring constitutional infirmities, he is inclined to sign it but he wants to see the bill want to make a personal determination.

The window time for veto on the bill will end on July 9, or 30 days from when the proposed measure reached Duterte’s desk.

If the president does not veto the bill, it would automatically lapse into law. — Kristine Joy Patag

12. “Lacson says he’s open to amendments in anti-terror bill once enacted into law” The World News June 24, 2020

“Nothing can prevent a senator or congressman to file a bill to amend, immediately upon its effectivity,” he added.

Lacson said that if anybody wants to file for amendments to the measure, he and his colleagues are open to them. However, he did not concede to the concern of various groups that the measure has “constitutional infirmities.”

“If somebody wants to file, we’re open to further improving without admitting there are constitutional infirmities,” he said.

“If the purpose is to further enhance the measure by way of its implementation and the safeguards, then we’re willing, we’re open to that,” he added.

Articles/Papers from MAP Members

1. “Prerequisites for meaningful agriculture growth” from MAP Member ERNESTO M. ORDOÑEZ’s “Commentary” in the PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER on June 27, 2020

Two things are needed before we can achieve significant agriculture growth: a po•licy to identify agriculture as one of the top two priorities to survive and grow during this COVID-19 crisis (the other being construction) and the inclusion of private sector mechanisms to support Agriculture Secretary William Dar in his agriculture mandate.

Agriculture has grown by an average of 1.6 percent from 2011 to 2017, then 0.6 percent and 0.7 percent in the following two years. This disappointing performance has been caused partly by a poor understanding of Philippine agriculture in the global context.

On June 22, the heads of 48 agri-based organizations issued a statement decrying faulty government direction. Coordinated by chair Gregorio San Diego, Jr. and president Elias Jose Inciong of the United Broiler Raisers Association, it said in part: “The government acts with alacrity when supply is short by resorting to importation …The DA through the Bureau of Animal Industry, like all the past administrations, has again invoked our WTO (Wprld Trade Organization) commitments to feign helplessness.”

Because the DA has not given enough attention to international agriculture trade, we have not used the creative strategies of other countries to support their farmers. The DA does not have the competently formulated road maps and management systems in the way the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has. The consequence is agriculture growth lagging significantly behind industry’s.

In addition, agriculture smuggling in cases like rice, poultry and livestock is rampant. This is again partly because DA does not have the access to international data that the DTI has. If you take the export volume of products reported by the exporting countries and compare that to the volume recorded as our import volume by the Bureau of Customs, the discrepancy is due to outright or technical smuggling. This results in lost jobs and income for our agriculture stakeholders.

In the area of agriculture mechanisms to support Dar, the glaring gap is the inadequate role of the private sector in governance. This is happening in spite of Dar’s advocacy for more private sector involvement. 43

Ironically, the Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries Council, which institutionalizes private sector participation in governance through the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (Afma), or Republic Act No. 8435, got a 50-percent budget cut for this year. Worse, critical private sector committees like international trade, climate change, mechanization, budget review and monitoring, as well as several key commodity cluster groups were abolished.

These public-private committees, chaired by an elected private sector representative, meet regularly every quarter. Private sector participation includes farmers, fisherfolk, food processors, traders, consumers, and other agriculture stakehol•ders. Ever since these committees were terminated last Jan. 27, former committee members have been uninformed on critical events in their respective areas.

These committees make policy and program recommendations, suggest resource allocations and monitor budgets. This important role has disappeared. The largely underutilized provincial and municipal agriculture and fisheries councils, similarly mandated by the same Afma law to perform similar functions, should now be reenergized. It is at the local level where agriculture policies and programs can be made most suitable to actual community needs, and budgets best utilized and monitored.

Because of COVID-19, it is specially important now that these local councils be empowered to help reinvent the new agriculture approaches needed to address our crisis. But certain selfish forces still inside the DA are stopping Dar from fully reali•zing his private sector advocacy.

These are rapidly changing and challenging times. Dar must be supported fully by a government that makes agriculture a top priority for us to recover and grow. In addition, strong private sector mechanisms should be put in place to support agriculture policies and programs, needed now more than ever. With these two prerequisites met, we can achieve a more significant agriculture growth.

The author is Agriwatch chair, former secretary of Presidential Programs and Projects, and former undersecretary of the DA and DTI. Contact is [email protected].

2. “Top Ten (1)” from former MAP Governor PETER WALLACE’s “Like it is” Column in the PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER on June 25, 2020

Early on in this administration, I came up with what I thought should be the top 10 things the Duterte administration should do that would really make a difference in the way we live. I’d like to look at them now while there’s still time to achieve what’s not yet finished, in the hope they will be.

1) First on my list was peace with the Moros and the NDF/NPA. After four decades of fighting and after five presidents who couldn’t achieve it, now was the time. An agreement with the Muslims has been achieved, with the autonomy demanded granted. But the communists remain elusive. In part because they are not one coherent group, in part because the fodder for them isn’t (a discredited) ideology, but lack of anything else to do for young men. Giving young people jobs will reduce this problem. Beyond that, it’s proving intractable with an elderly leadership stuck in a world that no longer exists—except in North Korea, a known model of success!

2) The Constitution has been in need of change for a long time. Designed at a time of upheaval, it now has notable flaws. The principal one for us is the economic restrictions. They have no role to play in a country that wants to employ its people and be an active partner in the world. They need to be deleted. On the political side, a shift to a parliamentary structure would better suit the 44 culture of the Filipino. Donald Trump has certainly highlighted the flaws of a presidential system. In a parliamentary system, peers choose the leader, who must perform if he/she is to remain in power. Whether to go federal or not needs far more discussion. But if the shift is agreed to, there should be only four states (Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, BARMM), not an unmanageable 17. The Constitution is important enough to need discussion and resolution within this administration.

3) Solving the drug problem is a worldwide problem and sadly destroys too many lives. Wiping it out by making it a crime and throwing people in jail hasn’t worked anywhere, including here. It has only overfilled jails. I would consider legalizing and controlling the less dangerous drugs while continuing to be ruthless on those drugs that do great harm. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, and it’s working. An article published by Time in August 2018, “Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer,” noted that in Portugal, “the drug-induced death rate has plummeted to five times lower than the E.U. average and stands at one-fiftieth of the United States’.” Surely that makes it worth looking into.

4) Agriculture, I’ve raised innumerable times, and no doubt will again until it’s in the preeminent position it should be, and has to be. The production of food efficiently and cheaply must be of highest priority. The failures in developing agriculture are well known: lack of infrastructure, farm-to-market roads, irrigation. Inefficient processes are all still extant. Add to that lack of mechanization, insufficient use of fertilizer, poor seed selection, and so on. But there’s also the problem of too many middlemen doing little but capturing the bulk of the profits because the logistics is not there. Then there’s CARP, one of those nice ideas that hasn’t worked. The five hectares allowed have been divided and divided to where the average plot size is only about two to three hectares. Farmers earn too little from such a small plot.

The Philippines should not only be supplying all the food Filipinos need, but also be a major supplier to the world. It has the fertile land, it has the climate to be able to produce crops competitively. One thing the Duterte administration has done that deserves high credit is the freedom to buy rice at competitive prices. The hugely costly (P140.5 billion in debt as of end- 2018 we’ve still yet to pay with our taxes) and hugely inefficient NFA no longer controls the market.

5) Up there with agriculture is information technology. The world is going digital at a rate that is almost frightening, a rate accelerated by COVID-19. Everything we do today is digitized. So I consider the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), as with the Department of Agriculture, the most important departments in government today. Paper has to go as an electronic world takes over. The preeminence the Philippines has attained with call centers can be expanded into more sophisticated services and production of the hardware, and make the country a leader as we have the skills. But not much, it seems, is being done to take advantage of this. Let’s hope it soon will be. A key subsector for the DICT to concentrate on with some urgency is digitizing all government services into a holistic system, not different departments introducing different systems such as what’s happening now. Mind you, the Anti- Red Tape Act has stepped in on the processes of government transactions with considerable success. Processes are being simplified, streamlined, and sped up to a point where you’ll actually be able to transact business needs with government simply.

The other five next week.

Email: [email protected]

PICTURES uploaded in the MAP Facebook account

June 24, 2020 MAP 2nd Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill with Senator PANFILO “Ping” M. LACSON

https://www.facebook.com/mapphilippines/media_set?set=a.2672352989705744&ty pe=3

Links to Video Recordings of MAP GMMs

1. June 9, 2020 Online MAP General Membership Meeting (GMM) on “MAYORS ENVISION A POST-COVID FUTURE”

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cBXr7rVG4GyFs8EFZRfl_le54SCSxrUd

2. May 20, 2020 Online MAP GMM on “Leveling the Playing Field amid the COVID-19 Pandemic” with PCC Chairman ARSENIO M. BALISACAN

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1421EkKb2v-4MNIuj1Ehf2ec7AXMoo_B1

3. April 14, 2020 Online MAP GMM on "Leading Through COVID-19"

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDc-UsY8JjBlgj1hJEpTB0YNk4X27l4i

Links to Video Recordings of MAP Webinars

1. June 26, 2020 MAP Webinar on “DIVERSITY & INCLUSION AGENDA: Does it Matter during the Pandemic?”

https://web.facebook.com/map.org.ph/videos/319773105700240/UzpfSTQwMTY2O TMwMzU3ODY2MTo5MjkxNTU5MzQxNjMzMjY/

2. June 24, 2020 MAP 2nd Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill with Senator PANFILO “Ping” M. LACSON, Chair of Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, Peace, Unification and Reconciliation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxubUC_vTq8

3. June 17, 2020 1st MAP Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill with former Senior Associate Justice ANTONIO “Tony” T. CARPIO!

https://www.facebook.com/map.org.ph/videos/595019701134645/ 46

4. May 8, 2020 MAP Webinar on “Helping the MSMEs Survive the Pandemic”

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1y6nO1ADqxt4vupCYTyQ22cAfhVVT_xhe

5. April 24, 2020 (Friday) MAP Webinar on "Developing Health Protocols for Workforce Re-Entry"

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FkaCfuEZljgWby_LLuTbz1ElYeIfMLcS

6. April 17, 2020 MAP Webinar on "Managing the Workforce Today and Preparing them for the New Normal"

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AZ-Sk1Xv0qrosfo2V1rPdcxFeLGr_1JQ

7. April 2, 2020 First MAP Webinar on “Responding to COVID-19”

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ksosIhf8J8iUfmvIyWNErsX8BBYWnwuH

“MAP Talks” on YouTube

The following videos are available under “MAP Talks” via the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMAPph

1. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring “MAP Management Man of the Year (MMY) 1992” ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO

2. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring “MAP MMY 1996” DAVID M. CONSUNJI

3. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring Mr. WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP as “MAP MMY 1967”

4. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring Dr. GEORGE S.K. TY as “MAP MMY 2006”

5. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring Mr. HENRY SY, SR. as “MAP MMY 1999”

6. The MAP Lifestyle Masters on Living Well and Aging Well

Happy Birthday to the following MAP Members who are celebrating their birthdays within July 1 to 31, 2020

July 1 1. Atty. ELAINE MARIE “Elaine” M. COLLADO, Country Director (Philippines) and Executive Committee (Singapore), Vriens & Partners Pte Ltd

July 3 2. Mr. SANJIV VOHRA, President and CEO, Security Bank Corporation

July 4 3. Mr. JOHN PATRICK “Patrick” Y. CHAN, General Manager, The Bellevue Manila 4. Mr. JUNIE S. DEL MUNDO, Chair and CEO, The EON Group 5. Mr. JOSELITO “Lito” G. DIGA, SVP and CFO, UNILAB, Inc. 6. Mr. ELMER “Jojo” M. MALOLOS, President and CEO, JG Digital Equity Ventures Inc. 7. Mr. DELFIN “Ding” J. WENCESLAO JR., Chair and President, ASEANA Holdings, Inc.

July 5 8. Mr. ANTONIO “Tony” T. HERNANDEZ, Consultant, Management and Development Finance 9. Mr. CARLO F. MATA, Director of Philippine Operations, White & Case LLP

July 6 10. Mr. BENEL D. LAGUA, EVP and Chief Development Officer, Development Bank of the Philippines 11. Atty. GIOVANNI “Vanni” H. MELGAR, Chair, Wizard Manpower and Allied Services, Inc. 12. Mr. ERNESTO “Ato” TANMANTIONG, CEO, Jollibee Foods Corporation 13. Dr. BENITO “Ben” L. TEEHANKEE, Professor for Management and Organization, De La Salle University (DLSU)

July 7 14. Mr. ANTONIO “Jim-Jim” N. CHIU, President, Coastal Highpoint Ventures, Inc. 15. Mr. ALFREDO “Fred” E. PASCUAL, Special Adviser, University of the Philippines (UP) 16. Mr. HANS BRINKER “Hans” M. SICAT, Managing Director and Country Manager, ING Bank N.V. Manila

July 8 17. Mr. GAVIN D. BARFIELD, Chief Information and Technology Integrator, Ayala Corporation 18. Mr. VICTOR “Vic” L. MAGDARAOG, Senior Business Adviser, Advisory & Insights (A&I) 19. Mr. HERNANDO “Hernan” M. VITAS, Chair and CEO, Alta Vitas Land and Holdings, Inc. 20. Ms. JOLI “Joli” CO WU, CUO, Paramount Life & General

July 9 21. Ms. MA. KARENINA “Karen” M. CASAS, COO, Sun Life of Canada (Philippines), Inc. 22. Mr. EDWARD “Ed/Eddie” S. GO 23. Mr. JOSE ANTONIO “Tony” U. GONZALEZ 24. Mr. CESAR MARIO “Mario” O. MAMON, Chair and President, Enchanted Kingdom, Inc.

July 10 25. Mr. OSCAR “Oskie” C. DE VENECIA, Chair, Basic Energy Corporation 26. Ms. ROSANDREA “Rhea” GADDI, Managing Director, Development Dimensions International (DDI) Philippines 48

27. Mr. RAFAEL “Raffy” C. HECHANOVA JR., VP for Sales and Marketing, Concepcion-Carrier Air Conditioning Company 28. Ms. ELAINE KUNKLE, President and General Manager, Henkel Asia Pacific Service Centre 29. Mr. PONCIANO “Chito” C. MANALO JR., President and CEO, SM Retail, Inc. 30. Mr. ROMAN FELIPE “Manny” S. REYES, Chair, Reyes Tacandong & Co. (RT&Co.) 31. Ms. PATRICIA “Trixie” L. WHYTE, President and CEO, Q2 HR Solutions July

July 11 32. Engr. EULALIO “Euls” B. AUSTIN JR., President and CEO, Philex Mining Corporation

July 12 33. Mr. ROMAN V. AZANZA III, First VP, Aboitiz InfraCapital, Inc. 34. Mr. FELIPE U. YAP, Chair and CEO, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company

July 13 35. Mr. MIGUEL ANTONIO “Miguel” C. GARCIA, President and CEO, DTSI Group

July 14 36. Mr. CHITO S. MANIAGO 37. Mr. MANUEL “Manny” V. PANGILINAN, Chair, PLDT Group

July 15 38. Mr. ALEJANDRO G. COGOLLOS, Strategic Planning VP, Cemex Holdings Philippines 39. Mr. DANILO “Danny” R. DEEN, Senior Partner, ACCRALAW 40. Ms. AURORA “Baby” C. IGNACIO, President and CEO, Social Security System (SSS) 41. Ms. CAMILA “Camil” G. KITANE, President, CGKformaprint, Inc.

July 16 42. Amb. JOSE “Joey” L. CUISIA JR., Chair, The Covenant Car Co. Inc. (Chevy Phils.) 43. Cong. JUAN “Jack” C. PONCE ENRILE JR., Vice Chair, JAKA Investments Corporation 44. Atty. JOSE RONALD V. “JRVV” VALLES, VP and Head for Regulatory Management, MERALCO

July 17 45. Ms. CELINA “Celine” SALDANA BAUTISTA, President, CNM Properties & Holdings, Inc. 46. Dr. JESUS “Jess” G. GALLEGOS JR., Emeritus Professor, Asian Institute of Management (AIM) 47. Ms. RUTH YU OWEN, President and CEO, Upgrade Energy Philippines, Inc. 48. Mr. CESAR L. SISON 49. Mr. RAMON “Mon” L. ZANDUETA, President and CEO, Marsh Philippines, Inc. (MPI)

July 18 50. Mr. LUCIEN “Luc / Lucien” C. DY TIOCO, EVP, Philstar Media Group 51. Dr. LYDIA B. ECHAUZ 52. Mr. NATHAN WANG, President and CEO, Asia-Crossing, Inc. 53. Don JAIME ZOBEL DE AYALA, Chair Emeritus, Ayala Corporation

July 19 54. Mr. RAMON “Mon” D. DEL ROSARIO 55. Mr. BERNARD VINCENT “Bobby” O. DY, President and CEO, Ayala Land, Inc. 56. Mr. JOSE ARTURO “Jay-Art” M. TUGADE, President - Products and Services, Perry's Fuel Distribution Inc.

July 21 57. Mr. REUBEN “Beng” SAN JOSE PANGAN, Chief Commercial Officer, Lina Group of Companies

July 22 58. Arch. CARMELO “Meloy” T. CASAS, President and CEO, Casas+Architects, Inc.

July 23 59. Mr. VIRGILIO BRIGIDO “Nonoy” G. ESPELETA, President, Famcor Franchise Management and Executive Development Corporation 60. Mr. MEDEL “Ding” T. NERA, Chair, Namit Kag Sulit, Inc. (NKS)

July 24 61. Mr. VICENTE “Jess” C. DINGLASAN, Executive Director, IDS Medical Systems Philippines, Inc.

July 25 62. Mr. REYNALDO “Ronnie/Rey” A. DE DIOS, Risk Management Consultant, R. A. de Dios & Co. 63. Mr. ANTONIO JAIME JOSE “JJ” V. FERNANDEZ, COO, Menarco Development Corporation 64. Mr. RAMON FERNANDO “Raymond” D. RUFINO, CEO, NEO

July 26 65. Dr. MARY ANN P. SAYOC, Lead Public Affairs, East-West Seed Group 66. Mr. ENRIQUE MIGUEL “Rikks” C. VALLÉS, President and COO, Mida Food Distributors, Inc. 67. Mr. JAY YUVALLOS, President, YZ Global Resources, Inc.

July 27 68. Dr. FIORELLO “Toto” R. ESTUAR, President, F. R. Estuar and Associates Development and Management Co., Inc. 69. Ms. MARITA REGINA “Reg” L. LAQUINDANUM, General Manager, Cristina Travel Corporation 70. Mr. MANUEL “Manny” D. RECTO, Nominee, MDR Securities, Inc. 71. Mr. ROLAND U. YOUNG, Chair, RUY Corporation

July 28 72. Mr. EDWIN LL. UMALI, President and COO, Mabuhay Vinyl Corporation 73. Mr. WINSTON P. UY, President, Universal Leaf Philippines, Inc. 74. Mr. VICTOR “Vic” B. VALDEPEÑAS

July 29 75. Mr. JOSE “Nono” C. IBAZETA, Consultant, A. Soriano Corporation 76. Mr. EMILIANO “Third” LIBREA III, Partner, Punongbayan & Araullo

July 30 77. Mr. SENEN C. BACANI, President, ULTREX Management and Investments Corporation 78. Mr. EDUARDO “Ed” L. BAÑAGA, President, Design Ambience, Inc. 79. Mr. BENEDICT S. CARANDANG, VP for External Relations, First Circle 80. Mr. PHILIP “PG” A. GIOCA, Country Manager, Jobstreet.com Philippines Inc. 81. Mr. HIGINIO “Joey” O. MACADAEG JR., President, United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) 82. Mr. SENEN “Bing” L. MATOTO, Consultant, Capital Markets Specialist 83. Mr. ANTHONY “Tony” K. QUIAMBAO, President and CEO, STRADCOM Corporation

July 31 84. Ms. MICHELLE CHAN, VP for Finance, VP for Support Operations and VP for Export, Mega Fishing Corporation 85. Mr. LORENZO “Larry” T. OCAMPO, President and CEO, City Savings Bank, Inc. 86. Mr. ISMAEL “Mike” R. SANDIG, Director, AIMS Realty Development and Leasing Corporation 50

Condolences to the bereaved family of the following:

MAP Member MABINI “Mabs” L. JUAN, Chair and CEO of Actuarial Advisers, Inc., who passed away on June 26, 2020 at the age of 75.

Please like MAP on Facebook by clicking the following:

https://www.facebook.com/map.org.ph/