BAGUIO CITY—The Supreme Court affirmed with finality on Tuesday its decision issued last December 7, 2021, which declared almost all the provisions of Republic Act 1479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) “not unconstitutional.”
This was disclosed by the SC-Public Information Office (PIO) following the Court’s en banc session here where the magistrates denied the motions for reconsideration filed by various groups opposing the implementation of the ATA.
“The Supreme Court, during its en banc deliberations today, April 26, 2022, denied with finality the motions for reconsideration of its December 7, 2021 decision on the petitions challenging Republic Act No. 11479 [RA 11479], or The Anti- Terrorism Act of 2020,” the Court announced. It added that the motions were denied, “due to lack of substantial issues and arguments raised by the petitioners.”
The members of the Court maintained their votes in their decision, which was penned by then Associate Justice and now Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor Rosmari D. Carandang. Newly appointed Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr. sided with the majority.
The Court immediately ordered an entry of judgment on the case.
It can be recalled that the Court voted 12-3 to strike down specific portions of two of the ATA’s provisions for being unconstitutional.
These include the qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of RA 11479, which defines terrorism.
The said provision states that terrorism “shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action and other similar exercises of civil and political rights 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 ruled that the qualifier “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” was “overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.”
Also declared as unconstitutional was the second method for designation in Section 25 (Designation of Terrorist Individual, Groups of Persons, Organizations or Associations) Paragraph 2 of RA 11479.
Paragraph 2 states: “Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC [Anti-Terrorism Council] after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR [United Nations Security Council Resolution] 1373.”
The magistrates voted 9-6 to nullify the said portion for being unconstitutional. It can also be recalled that the petitions also assailed the constitutionality of ATA’s Sections 5 (threat to commit terrorism); Section 6 (planning, training, preparing and facilitating the commission of terrorism); Section 9 (inciting to commit terrorism); Section 10 (recruitment to and membership in a terrorist organization); Section 11 (foreign terrorist); Section 12 (providing material support to terrorists); Section 26 (proscription of terrorist organizations, associations or group of persons); Section 27 (preliminary order of proscription); and Section 29 (detention without judicial warrant of arrest).
A total of 37 consolidated petitions were filed before the Court seeking to declare the entire ATA or some of its vital provisions unconstitutional.
The ATA was enacted on July 3, 2020 and implemented 15 days later starting July 18, 2020.
In their motion for reconsideration, oppositors of ATA insisted that the entire law should be scrapped for being unconstitutional.
Out of the 37 groups of petitioners who originally questioned the constitutionality of ATA before the SC, 25 groups filed their joint motion for partial reconsideration of its December 7, 2021 ruling.
The SC-PIO said the copy of the resolution will be uploaded to its web site once available.