The anti-terror act and the defense of the legal arts
The hand that strikes also blocks. -Wing Chun kung fu principle
WHEN I was asked to talk about how to protect members of the legal profession from violence committed against them in the line of duty, I first asked myself, “What makes lawyers such vulnerable targets in the first place?” Then it dawned on me: members of the legal profession are inherently busy people; we spend most of our day attending to our duties to clients and/or, in the case of judges/prosecutors/lawyers of quasi-judicial agencies, to the litigants appearing in their respective salas. Add to that our obligations to our families, and it seems that the 24 hours in a day are not enough.
The opposite is true, regarding vile individuals, who plan and/or commit atrocities against lawyers and other members of the legal profession: they have the luxury of time. They can spend weeks, if not months, surveilling their targets, striking at the perfect opportunity and then disappearing into the shadows.
The result is, thus, lopsided: 54 lawyers killed since 2016 but only five cases filed in court. And while there are strong reactions every time a lawyer, judge and/or prosecutor is killed, the public and, sadly, the authorities often lose interest once the initial outrage dissipates.
While the current proposals for the protection of the members of the legal profession special task forces, relaxing requirements for lawyers to obtain firearms, situational awareness training, hiring of bodyguards, relocation, etc. are laudable and should be pursued, I feel that these are still inadequate to address the bigger damage brought about by the unabated killing of lawyers: the atmosphere of fear.
A lawyer, according to the late senator Jose Diokno, “must work in freedom.” This includes freedom from fear. When a lawyer is, therefore, threatened and, thus, forced to secure a weapon, hire bodyguards or, worse, relocate, the enemies of justice, even without an actual killing, have already won. They have already created an atmosphere of fear in which no lawyer can be totally effective.
In order, therefore, to destroy this atmosphere of fear, we should bring the fight to these wicked individuals threatening our brood. As George Washington wrote, “Offensive operations, oftentimes, is the surest, if not the only [in some cases], means of defense.” For indeed, as Johnny Lawrence of Cobra Kai said, “The best defense is a strong offense.”
I am not suggesting that we lawyers create a militia and start hunting down these lawyer-killers ourselves; we neither have the time nor the expertise to do that. What we do know, however, is the law, and I believe that we have an effective remedy already on hand: Republic Act (RA) 11479 or the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.”
Section 4 of the anti-terror law defines a terrorist as “any person who,” among others, “engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or endangers a person’s life” when “the purpose of such act” is any of the following: 1) intimidate the general public or a segment thereof; 2) create an atmosphere or spread the message of fear; 3) influence, by intimidation, the government or any international organization or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic or social structures of the country; and 4) create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety.
When lawyers are killed in the line of duty, the killers are not just murdering individuals; they are sending a message to all the other lawyers: “Do not touch us or else you will suffer the same fate.” This betrays the actual intention of lawyer-killers: to intimidate the entire legal profession and create an atmosphere of fear among us. Lawyer-killers and anyone assisting or conspiring with them are, therefore, not just murderers; they are terrorists.
Accordingly, all the remedies under the anti-terror act should be unleashed against these people. Their phones and internet communications should be wiretapped under Section 16 of RA 11479. Those who threaten lawyers due to his/her work should be charged with threat to commit terrorism under Section 5. Those who conspire, plan or propose killing a lawyer should be prosecuted under Sections 6, 7 and 8; detained without a warrant under Section 29; and when they are proscribed under Section 26, their bank accounts frozen by the Anti-Money Laundering Council under Section 36.
I am aware that the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” is not a very popular topic nowadays and that even us lawyers remain divided about its merits. However, we also cannot deny that the remedies thereunder, if used properly, will not only help prevent sinister plots against members of the legal profession but, most importantly, deter individuals from even thinking about harming a lawyer. We lawyers have taken a beating for far too long, and thus, it is high time for us to hit back and send the message that there will be hell to pay the moment you threaten a lawyer.
Luis Karlo “Basco” Tagarda is a partner at the litigation law firm of Diaz, del Rosario and Associates. He obtained his Juris Doctor degree from the Ateneo School of Law in 2007 and his Bachelor of Arts from the Ateneo de Manila University. He was admitted to the Philippine bar in 2008 and has been involved in litigation ever since.