by Hu Yu Hai Ding » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:31 am
BERNABE RESPONDED TO DIOKNO'S ARGUMENT NA ANTI-TERRORISM ACT DAW FAILS IN "COMPLETENESS AND VAGUENESS"
Bernabe started with a question to Diokno.
"Is the definition of terrorism a novel creation of Congress or patterned or inspired after existing international instruments?"
Diokno referred to some documents submitted by India to the United Nations. Then he said, when they compared our ATA with (was it the one presented by India?! Di ko na gets kung saan nila kinompare. Basta. They compared it with some conventions.)
It has significant differences, daw. Yong dun daw sa Convention, mentioned acts that caused death, damage to properties, and so forth. Kaso daw, it does not include the terms “acts intended to.” In other words, daw, it requires ACTUAL DESTRUCTION.
WAIT! His position is the same as that of Colmenares! Kasi nga, sabi ni Colmenares, ATA daw penalizes intentions! Kaya yong Probable cause is based on allegations. Mali daw yon. Dapat an act has been committed na muna?!
So pag pinakinggan mo si Colmenares saka si Diokno, kailangan Vumbahin mo muna para meron kang actual probable cause for Colmenares, at saka meron kang actual damages hindi “intended cause” for Diokno!
Hahahaha! Salbakuta uu!
So, ang ginawa ni Bernabe, she mentioned several international instruments wherein na mention yong words na “intended to cause,” which is the same sa definition daw nila.
Sabi ni Bernabe, there’s UN Resolution Section 66 (I hope I heard it right), International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
Tapos binasa mismo ni Bernabe yong words na “intended to cause serious damages to…”
Sabi ni Diokno, yong sa UN Security Council refers to criminal acts intended to cause. I need Ahmed and Trixie here hahahaha! Eh bakit yong terrorist acts? Hindi ba criminal acts yon?
Upon further clarification, lack of reference lang pala ang hanap ni Diokno. Meaning surrender sya na he really ha no issue after all?
Then he brought up “critical infrastructure.” Kasi that can be used to suppress expression.
Binira sya ni Bernabe na is there really a statute commanding Congress to really define every term or word when they create laws?
Wala naman daw sabi ni Diokno. Kaya lang daw, dapat yong sinasabi sa law must be understood. Balik na naman tayo dun sa vagueness.
Sabi ngayon ni Bernabe, would you agree with this statement?
“A statute which is generally worded is not necessarily void for vagueness as long as the legislative will is clear or the intent can be gathered from the law through principles of the statutory construction?”
HAHAHAHAHA Simple lang to si Judge Bernabe bumira na pupulbusin talaga ang arguments mo!
Diokno said, agree daw sya. Except that ATA fails in completeness and vagueness.
Grabe these people! Kelangan ba talaga i-drowing sa law yong dimension nung vumba (bomb), yong lakas at layo ng vumba. Yong mga ganun? Eh siempre pabago bago ang itsura ng vumba noh? So pano pag nag-bago ang itsura nung vumba? Eh di useless na yong law? Naknamfuta uu!