By Joel R. San Juan & Jovee Marie N. Dela Cruz
Several groups opposing the newly signed Anti-Terrorism law (ATL) trooped to the Supreme Court on Monday to file separate petitions to declare the controversial legislation as unconstitutional.
Four petitions were officially filed before the Court on Monday, which also sought the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the government from enforcing the ATL, or Republic Act 11479, which was signed by President Duterte last Friday and will take effect 15 days after its publication.
Lawyers Howard Calleja, Joseph Peter Calleja and Christopher Lao and the De La Salle Brothers led by Armin Luistro, a former secretary of the Department of Education during the past administration, were the first to electronically file their petition last Saturday. They submitted the hard copies of the petition on Monday.
They were followed by opposition lawmaker Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay; Far Eastern University (FEU) College of Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria and several law professors of the said university; and opposition lawmakers belonging to the so-called Makabayan bloc.
Lagman, the first lawmaker to challenge the constitutionality of the ATL, argued that the people’s fundamental rights should not take a backseat in the government’s efforts to address the terrorism problem besetting the country.
“The war against suspected terrorists and the campaign against terrorism cannot be pursued and intensified by sacrificing human rights, civil liberties and fundamental freedoms, which are enshrined in and protected by the Constitution,” Lagman pointed out.
He also branded as mere motherhood declaration the claim of the proponents and supporters of the new law that there are existing safeguards to prevent abuses in the implementation of ATL.
“The purported acknowledgment of the people’s advocacy and right to dissent is decimated by a killer caveat which categorically states that people’s acts lose protection if they are ‘intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety,” Lagman stated.
“All that a devious and underhanded law enforcer or prosecutor has to do is to conveniently invoke the killer proviso to stifle political dissent and peaceably assembly for redress of grievances,” he added.
He described this “killer proviso” as the “malevolent torpedo” that renders the supposed safeguards provided for in the ATL useless.
Lagman cited other unconstitutional provisions of the ATL such as the criminalization of “threat,” “proposal,” and “inciting” to commit terrorism which, he said, has a chilling effects on the exercise of the people’s right to free speech and dissent; the imposition of 24 days of prolonged detention of a suspect without a judicial warrant, or without charging him before a judicial authority violates the Bill of Rights for unreasonable seizure of a person; a maximum of 90 days technical surveillance and wiretapping of communications which, he said, is an unreasonable invasion of a person’s privacy guaranteed under the Constitution; the maximum of six-month investigation of a suspect’s bank accounts and the freezing of his assets without judicial authorization constitute unreasonable seizure of one’s assets; the designation of a person or association of a terrorist without judicial authorization infringes on the freedom of association and due process; and the grant of judicial powers to the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
Lagman is also questioning the constitutionality of the redefinition of the crime of terrorism which, he said, is “vague” and “ambiguous” making it difficult for the people to ascertain what acts are prohibited and should be avoided.
The lawmaker also said that contrary to the claims of some of the authors of the ATL, the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) cannot rectify the deficiencies and excesses in the new law because the IRR cannot modify, amend or repeal a statute.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, who is a member of the ATC, earlier assured that the council would come up with its IRR that would safeguard the basic rights of the people.
Lagman is also seeking the issuance of a TRO to enjoin the ATL’s implementation.
On the other hand, the Sta. Maria et al petition argued that the implementation of ATL would be a waste of financial resources considering that the country is still facing the Covid-19 pandemic.
Like Lagman’s petition, the group of Sta. Maria also questioned the broad definition of terrorism under Section 4 of the ATL.
Considering the overly broad definition of terrorism, the petitioners said this might lead to the inclusion of traditionally recognized and protected forms of expression against perceived government shortcomings and excesses.
Furthermore, they also asserted that the qualification under Section 4 implies that all speeches may be treated as within the punishable acts defined under the ATL unless it is shown that no intent to cause death or serious physical harm on the part of the speakers.
“In effect, the general manner by which the provision is couched puts constitutionally protected speeches and expression under a criminal class, or at least, to a suspect class, to the detriment of these freedoms,” the petition read.
The petition added that the threat of arrest without a judicial warrant and prolonged detention would be “more than chilling enough to stifle, suppress, if not totally snuff out, any fire, flame, or even flicker, of indignation or protest against government corruption, oppression and abuse.”
In another petition, the Makabayan bloc asked the Court to immediately enjoin the government from implementing RA 11479 and from promulgating its IRR.
After due hearing and deliberation, the group asked the SC to eventually declare the said law null and void.
The group also echoed the call of the other petitioners for the Court to declare as unconstitutional Section 4 as it violates basic rights of the people under the Constitution; Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 as these provisions violate the fundamental right to privacy; the designation power of the ATC under Section 25 as it violates certain rights and preliminary order of proscription under Section 26 and 27 for being unconstitutional; the period of detention without judicial charge under Section 29 for being arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified; and Section 34 as it impairs the constitutional right to bail.
The Makabayan bloc is composed of Bayan Muna Party-list Reps. Carlos Isagani Zarate, Ferdinand Gaite, and Eufemia Cullamat; Gabriela Women’s Party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas; ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Francisca Castro and Kabataan Party-list Rep. Sarah Jane Elago.
Also among the petitioners are Bayan Muna Party-list President Saturnino Ocampo, Makabayan co-chairman Liza Maza, Bayan Muna Party-list Chairman Neri Colmenares, ACT Teachers Party-list President Antonio Tinio, Anakpawis Party-list Vice President Ariel Casilao and Makabayan Secretary-General Nathaniel Santiago.
Calleja’s petition also challenged as unconstitutional at least 11 provisions of RA 11479.
Among other things, the challenged provisions deal mainly on the definition of terrorism, how terrorism is committed, recruitment and membership in terrorist organizations, surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of communications, and detention of suspects without judicial warrant of arrest.
The group pointed out that RA 11479 could be used by the government “to weaponize itself for state-sponsored repression that makes a mockery of the rule of law.”
“The effectivity and implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act will materially and substantially prejudice basic constitutional rights and may result [in] the permanent contradiction of civil and political liberties,” it added.
Earlier, the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) said it deferred the immediate filing of a petition against RA 11479 “upon further consultations and deliberation with the clients we represent.”
Named respondents in the petition were Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon, the secretaries of defense, interior, finance, justice, and information and communications technology, and the executive director of the AMLC.
For his part, Guevarra said the government welcomes the filing of the petitions before the SC, being the final arbiter of all constitutional issues raised against the ATL.
“The Court ruling will also guide the DOJ and the ATC in the preparation of the implementing rules and regulation of the law,” he said.
1 comment