By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
THE ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020 APPLIED
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which most of its provisions upheld in a Decision dated
December 7, 2021, and Resolution dated April 26, 2022, of the Supreme Court, was tested when the
Anti-Terrorism Council, in its Resolution No. 43, declared as terrorists, the following: Congressman
Arnolfo “Arnie” Teves, Jr., Pryde Henry A. Teves, Marvin H. Miranda, Rogelio C. Antipolo, Rommel
Pattaguan, Winrich B. Isturis, John Louie Gonyon, Jr., Tomasino Aledro, Ningel Electona, Jomarie Catubay
and Hanna Mae Sumero Oray, for supposedly violating provisions of the Anti-Terror Law, including
committing terrorism; planning, training, preparing and facilitating the commission of terrorism;
recruitment to and membership in a terrorist organization; and providing material support to terrorists.
The designation of these individuals, collectively known as the Teves Terrorist Group, draws
basis from pars. 3 of Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which provides that the Anti-
Terrorism Council “may designate an individual, groups of persons, organization, or association, whether
domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause that the individual, groups of persons,
organization, or association commit, or attempt to commit, or conspire in the commission of the acts
defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12” of the law. What is the effect of such
designation? Par. 4, Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 provides that: “The assets of the
designated individual, groups of persons, organization, or association above-mentioned shall be subject
to the authority of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to freeze pursuant to Section 11 of
Republic Act No. 10168.”
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 10168, otherwise known as the Terrorism Financing Prevention
and Suppression Act of 2012, provides that: “The AMLC, either upon its own initiative or at the request of
the ATC, is hereby authorized to issue an ex parte order to freeze without delay: (a) property or funds
that are in any way related to financing of terrorism or acts of terrorism; or (b) property or funds of any
person, group of persons, terrorist organization, or association, in relation to whom there is probable
cause to believe that they are committing or attempting or conspiring to commit, or participating in or
facilitating the commission of financing of terrorism or acts of terrorism as defined herein.” Section 11 of
Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 provides that the freeze order shall be
effective for a period of twenty (20) days only, however, the AMLC, before the expiration of such period,
may apply for an extension for six (6) months before the Court of Appeals. The same provision provides
that the twenty (20)-day period shall be tolled upon filing of a petition to extend the effectivity of the
freeze order.
Essentially, the filing of the petition for extension before the Court of Appeals, which will receive
evidence to justify its basis, appears to be the battleground of facts. While the lawyer of the TTG, Atty.
Ferdinand Topacio, is expected to question the designation, lodging the same before the Supreme Court
on a Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Anti-Terrorism Council in issuing Resolution No. 43, it is most likely that
the Supreme Court will defer and refer the same to the Court of Appeals on the ground of hierarchy of
jurisdiction and to avoid the possibility of having conflicting findings of fact. Besides, the Supreme Court
is not a trier of facts. There is more to come on this saga of Negros Oriental politics.