TWO more petitions were filed on Wednesday before the Supreme Court seeking to stop the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 for being unconstitutional.
There are now a total of six petitions lodged before the SC seeking the nullification of the anti-terrorism law.
The fifth petition was filed by former Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) chief Rudolph Philip Jurado and the sixth, by the group of former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman Christian Monsod and lawyer Felicitas A. Arroyo, who were both members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the present Constitution.
Monsod and Arroyo were joined by several faculty members of the Ateneo Law School and Ateneo Human Rights Center, faculty members of the Xavier University College of Law and several others.
In his petition, Jurado, who was appointed by President Duterte as OGCC chief in 2017 but was removed a year later, said the law should be declared unconstitutional because it gives the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) the authority to waive the rights of a detainee.
Jurado explained that a salient feature of his petition, not questioned in the four previous petitions filed before the SC against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, was the procedural aspect of the law.
He said Section 29 of RA 11479 allegedly authorizes the ATC to extend the detention periods in Article 125 of the RPC without the consent and knowledge of the detainee.
“Clearly, Section 29 of Senate Bill 1083 [now House Bill 6875] allows ATC to waive the application of Article 125 of the RPC, even when such waiver is vested solely in the hands of the detainee—the person to whom the right, which is to be waived, is actually vested,” said Jurado in his petition.
“For indeed, it is elementary that only the person who enjoys the right can waive the same, as it would be perilous if someone can waive the rights of another without the latter’s consent,” he added.
This is strengthened by Section 7 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court that states that the only person who can waive the application of Article 125 of the RPC is the detainee himself, as it is the detainee who enjoys the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case, as well as the constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
By amending or repealing Section 7 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the RA 11479 violates the constitutionally established separation of the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, his petition avers.
He also questioned the provision in the law that vaguely defines terrorism and allows detention of suspected terrorists sans warrant of arrest and beyond the period allowed under the Constitution.
Monsod-led petition
On other hand, Monsod’s group brought almost the same arguments raised by the other petitioners who questioned the broad definition of terrorism under the ATL.
According to the group, the definition of terrorism under Section 4 of the Act is vague enough to cover legitimate exercise of free speech, expression assembly which is guaranteed under the 1986 Constitution.
They also questioned the constitutionality of Section 5 that allows the creation of the ATC with vast powers to “designate” a person as a terrorist.
Furthermore, the group questioned Section 29 as it bars a person from expressing their thoughts, concerns and beliefs, as on mere suspicion, they can be arrested without the protection of a judicial warrant.