FORMER Vice President Jejomar Binay led a group of lawyers in filing the 25th petition seeking to declare Republic Act 11479 or Anti-Terror Act of 2020 unconstitutional.
Binay, along with former Senator Rene Saguisag and other lawyers from the Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties, argued that the ATA of 2020 should be struck down for being vague and violative of the people’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Joining Binay and Saguisag in the petition are former UP College of Law Dean Pacifico Agabin, former diplomat Anacleto Rei Lacanilao III, National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) President Edre Olalia, Adamson University College of Law Dean Anna Maria Abad and Wesleyan University College of Law Dean JV Bautista, law professor Rose Liza Eisma-Osorio and lawyer Emmanuel Jabla.
Named respondents in the petition are Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, the Senate represented by Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and the House of Representatives represented by Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano.
The petitioners also asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the respondents from implementing it while the merits of their plea are being heard.
“If not so voided, the assailed statute will run roughshod over the 1987 Constitution, particularly its salient provisions on the Bill of Rights,” the petition said.
They argued that the law is vague and constitutes a violation of due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what to avoid.
Such vagueness, they added, would lead to a “chilling effect” on the freedom of expression.
The petition also cites the report of the UN Human Rights Office which investigated the situationin the country, including the phenomenon of “red-tagging” which has posed a serious threat to civil society and the freedom of expression.
They also lambasted the provision in the law (Section 29) which allows the Anti-Terrorism Council, composed of officials from the Executive Department, to authorize law enforcers or the military to take custody of suspected terrorists without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court.
“The authority issued by the ATC to arrest suspected terrorists is not a substitute to the warrant of arrest under the Constitution. It short-circuits the right to due process under the Bill of Rights and must be impugned as a repugnant violation of fundamental rights,” they said.
While warrantless arrests are allowed under certain conditions, the petitioners said they “cannot be based on mere suspicion” which, they added, could be likely based on “legally amorphous products of intelligence reports.”
Binay and Saguisag were both member of the MABINI lawyers’ group which, along with the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), handled many human rights cases during the Marcos dictatorship.
Among those who previously questioned the legality of the measure are former SC justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, several lawyers, lawmakers, human rights advocates, youth groups, labor rights groups, journalists, and artists.
The government is now finalizing the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the ATA of 2020.
The ATA of 2020 took effect on July 18, and Department of Justice (DOJ) and other concerned agencies have 90 days to come up with its IRR.
Earlier, the SC directed the consolidation of 19 petitions earlier filed questioning the constitutionality of the law.
Prior to this, it directed the respondents Office of the President, several agencies under the Executive Department, and both Houses of Congress to comment on the eight petitions that were initially consolidated within 10 days upon receipt of notice.