Day 7 of the anti-terror law oral arguments has begun. You can still follow our live updates page, which will show the accumulated dispatches from the last 6 days, as well as links to stories. @rapplerdotcom
J Zalameda starts: If an actress puts up a community pantry, disregards protocols, thus risking lives and says in a megaphone it's for everyone neglected by govt, can you arrest her?

ASG Raymund Rigodon: No, that's just airing grievance, it's protected.
J Zalameda: So how do you measure provocation for it to be terrorism under anti-terror law?

Rigodon: For example, a group bombs a market with the intend to provoke; and the purpose is to bait the govt into doing something that terrorists can capitalize on.
J Zalameda: Why was there no modifier for the use of the word "provocation"? Like, "seriously provoke?"

Rigodon: It's the wisdom of Congress. Not all terror groups have concrete political demands, therefore the use of "provoke" instead of "compel" or "coerce."
J Zalameda: I fear that "to provoke" is too vague. It doesn't say "to provoke govt to do an act," it just says "to provoke."

Rigodon cites wording of the law and says it's followed by "influence by intimidation." Zalameda wants OSG to explain lack of modifier for provoke.
Zalameda: Cite law that authorizes arrest w/o warrant with detention longer than what is provided in revised penal code (36 hours).

ASG Galandines could not answer. Zalameda provides PD No. 1936 from 1984 on dollar-salting that provides 30-day detention.
Zalameda: So the Court cannot strike out this 24-day detention?

ASG Galandines: We submit it's a political issue that is not under judicial review.
First dispatch is up on the live blog.
You can follow @lianbuan.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: