By Justice Noel G. Tijam
Former SC Associate Justice
Oral arguments scheduled next month on the anti-terror law would be useless if it will be a mere rehash by the parties of everything they have already written down in their pleadings. The High Court knows how to read. There is no need to waste their precious time to dissect and debate on the nuances and language of the law. The Supreme Court is not a proofreader of unacceptable laws in the absence of an actual case or controversy. Aided by skilled lawyers and researchers, these SC magistrates are familiar with all the arguments of all 28 petitioners as well as the counter-arguments proffered by the Solicitor General and lawyers for the respondent.
To make the oral arguments useful, petitioners must present empirical evidence and data that human-rights violations against suspected terrorists were committed by numerous countries worldwide in the implementation and enforcement of similar anti-terrorism laws, or that the expansion of their government’s power were used to target particular anti-government, religious, ethnic, and other social groups.
On the other hand, respondents must present historical data of acts of terrorism committed in our country as well as worldwide that caused immense harm to the general population necessitating the enactment and implementation of a draconian and stiff anti-terrorism law in keeping with their duty to protect the people from such attacks. Respondents must present empirical data that human rights of terrorists are nonetheless safeguarded and respected worldwide in the conduct of the war against terrorism.
This is the only way the crucial issues submitted to the High Court will be rationally evaluated and judiciously resolved taking into account that International terrorism can destroy our own country. The SC magistrates are sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, but more than anything else, they are obligated to insure that our government, our people, and our democratic institutions are insulated from terrorism that seek to destroy them.
Discussions must not dwell solely on the semantics of the law but on the primordial issue of whether the stability of government institutions are safeguarded; whether the law affords adequate protection to enhance the general welfare of the people; whether strengthening the law instead of diluting or emasculating it will remove lives and properties out of harm’s way.
The Constitution was not designed to weaken government or to put the people at risk to protect the rights of a selected few. The parties must look at the bigger picture, which is to make our country and its people safe and secured.