THE year 2021 saw a number of major decisions and measures issued by the Supreme Court that were intended to shield the people against what some groups alleged as government-sanctioned killings, red-tagging and other forms of human-rights abuses.
It has also refused to let its guard down against the continued threat of Covid-19 to the well-being not only of magistrates, court officials and personnel but the entire population as well. This it did by coming out with decisions upholding the government’s discretion on how to address the Covid-19 pandemic.
Just a few weeks ago, the Court issued a decision on the 37 petitions assailing the constitutionality of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) by declaring almost all of its provisions “not unconstitutional” except for specific portions of two provisions.
In a vote of 12-3, the Court struck down as unconstitutional the the qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of RA 11479 which states “…which are not 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.”
The Court held that such proviso was “overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.”
Also declared unconstitutional was the second method for designating terrorists in Section 25 Paragraph 2 of RA 11479 which states: “Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the Anti-Terrorism Council after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR (United Nations Security Council Resolution) No. 1373.”
Over 30 groups had petitioned the SC to nullify the law for being unconstitutional, saying it tends to curtail the people’s basic rights, have claimed partial victory with the Court’s decision.
They called it an affirmation of the “inherent dangers posed to civil liberties by the language of the qualifier to the proviso.”
The Court has yet to release a copy of its entire decision to the public, prompting the government and other petitioners to withhold their comments.
Enough powers
IN dismissing the petitions seeking to declare null and void President Duterte’s unilateral decision to withdraw from the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court last March, the SC stressed that the Judiciary has enough powers to protect human rights, contrary to the claim of the petitioners.
Thus, the mounting calls for the Court to come up with measures to address extrajudicial killings (EJK) and red-tagging of lawyers and human-rights advocates did not fall on deaf ears.
In July, the SC promulgated the rules on the long-delayed use of body-worn cameras in implementing arrest and search warrants.
The SC, in its unanimous full court resolution, explained that the Constitution “guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law; and mandates the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
It noted that “there are increasing reports of civilian deaths resulting from the execution of warrants issued by trial courts, the causes and conditions surrounding such deaths being widely disputed.”
The SC said the rules were issued under its power “to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.”
Video factor
UNDER the rules, pieces of evidence obtained by law enforcers who did not use body-worn cameras or alternative devices—which can record both video and audio, in the service of search warrants—would be considered “inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied.”
However, in the service of arrest warrant, “failure to observe the requirement of using body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices shall not render the arrest unlawful or render the evidence obtained inadmissible since the facts surrounding the arrest may be proved by the testimonies of the arresting officers, the person arrested, and other witnesses to the arrest.”
It added that a law enforcer “who fails, without reasonable grounds, to use body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices, or intentionally interferes with the body-worn cameras’ ability to accurately capture audio and video recordings of the arrest, or otherwise manipulates such recording during or after the arrest, may be liable for contempt of court.”
Meanwhile, concerned over the increasing number of killings, threats, harassments and red tagging committed against lawyers and judges, the Court also released this year comprehensive measures to address the problem following calls from different lawyer groups.
Initially, the SC said it has requested all lower courts, as well as the various law-enforcement offices, to furnish it with relevant information to shed light on the number and context of each and every threat or killing of a lawyer or judge in the past 10 years.
“We are too aware that everything the Court stands for must bend its arc toward ensuring that all its officers can fairly and equitably dispense their duties within the legal system, unbridled by the constant fear that such exercise may exact the highest cost,” the SC magistrates said.
“In this light, the Court condemns in the strongest sense every instance where a lawyer is threatened or killed, and where a judge is threatened and unfairly labeled. We do not and will not tolerate such acts that only perverse justice, defeat the rule of law, undermine the most basic of constitutional principle, and speculate on the worth of human lives,” the magistrates added.
Facing Covid threat
HOWEVER, the Court’s actions this year were not only intended to safeguard the public’s right to life, liberty and property, but also to help the government control the Covid-19 pandemic.
In July 2021, the Court dismissed a petition for a writ of kalikasan seeking to stop the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF) from cutting trees at the Nayong Pilipino to give way for the establishment of a mega vaccination site for Covid-19.
The Court said the petition failed to enumerate the environmental laws violated or threatened to be violated, and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to put at risk the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces to warrant the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.
The Court also denied the petition seeking to stop the government from purchasing and allowing the emergency use of Chinese-manufactured anti-Covid-19 vaccine Sinovac.
It held that President Duterte has been granted the discretion under Republic Act 11494 (Bayanihan to Recover as One Act) on how to address the pandemic brought about by the spread of Covid-19.
The law, according to the Court, paved the way for the President to exercise powers that are necessary and proper to undertake and implement Covid-19 response and recovery interventions.
“In the case of Sinovac vaccine, while many doubt its efficacy, it is not within the office of this Court to issue an order compelling the government to conduct further tests before the same can be distributed to the Filipino people,” the Court declared.
“Extraordinary times that present an invisible threat to the health of individuals, unbeknown to humanity, require an immediate, exceptional response from the government. This exceptional response must of course be in line with the guidelines and actions undertaken by an international central authority which, in this case, is the WHO (World Health Organization) and trusted international agencies,” the SC said.
In line with this, Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo said he would lead the Judiciary in implementing technology-driven programs for court processes for the next five years as the country continues to battle Covid-19 and to make the Judiciary more accessible to the public.
Gesmundo, who will serve as head of the Judiciary until 2026, explained that he would be endorsing to the en banc the approval of the Strategic Plan for 2021-2026, which includes making technology-based improvements.
The Strategic Plan would be founded on four guiding principles, namely: that the Filipino people deserve a Judiciary possessed with competence, integrity, probity and independence; the Judiciary must provide equal access to justice real time; public confidence in the Judiciary is dependent on transparency and accountability; and technology must be the platform on which the basic court systems and processes run.
While the Court, he said, had already embraced videoconference hearings even before Covid-19 struck, and its use was further accelerated during the pandemic, it brought to the fore the quest for a holistic digital transformation.
“In this age of innovation, creative solutions are widely available to enhance existing judicial processes. As Chief Justice, with the support of my colleagues, I intend to take advantage of the best technology available to make court services better and more efficient,” the Chief Justice said.