THREE more petitions were filed yesterday before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 which was signed by President Duterte last week.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman filed the second petition followed by Far Eastern University Law dean Mel Sta. Maria and progressive lawmakers belonging to the Makabayan bloc.
The group of lawyer Howard Calleja physically filed their petition with the SC. Calleja was accompanied by his co-petitioners, including former Education Secretary Armin Luistro. It was Calleja’s group that filed the first petition last Saturday, through email.
In his plea, Lagman asked the SC to declare the entire anti-terrorism law unconstitutional.
Lagman said RA 11479 “is unconstitutional for being replete with constitutional infirmities.”
He said terrorism was defined in “vague and ambitious language” that there is no certitude as to what acts are proscribed as well as what the people should avoid.
“The indispensable element of political or ideological motive has been deleted, which compounds the incompleteness and imprecision of the new law even as it facilitates the arrest, prosecution and conviction of suspects,” Lagman said.
Lagman, a member of the opposition bloc at the House, also questioned the provision on detention of up to 24 days before a suspect can be brought before a judge, saying it is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution.
He also described as “unreasonable violation of privacy” the 90-day technical surveillance on and wiretapping of communication of a suspected terrorist.
Lagman also said the new law grants judicial powers to the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), whose members are from the executive branch, and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), which he said is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The new law also lacks safeguards compared to the Human Security Act of 2007 that it replaced, he said.
“The so-called safeguards under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 are mere motherhood declarations which are eroded by oppressive provisions and a killer proviso that negates any concession to advocacy or dissent,” he said.
“All that a devious or underhanded law enforcer or prosecutor has to do is to conveniently invoke the killer proviso to stifle political dissent and peaceable assembly for redress of grievances,” he added.
For these reasons, Lagman asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of the new law.
Lagman named Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, the Anti-Terrorism Council, the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the Senate represented by Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and the House of Representatives represented by Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano as respondents in his plea.
For their part, the FEU lawyers Sta. Maria, Eirene Jhone Aguila, and Michael Tiu questioned the constitutional basis of 13 provisions in RA 11479, pertaining to the definition of acts that fall under terrorism, allowing allowing the ATC to designate terrorists, and on detention without court-issued warrant up to 24 days.
“Section 4 is vague and its overly broad definition allows it to cover traditionally recognized and protected forms of expression against government shortcomings and excesses, “ they said.
They also said the qualifications under Section 4 implies that all speeches may be treated as within the punishable acts defined under the law unless it is shown that no intent to cause death or serious physical harm animated the speakers.
“In effect, the general manner by which the provision is couched put constitutionally protected speeches and expressions under a criminal class, or at least, to a suspect class, to the detriment of these freedoms,” they said.
Progressive lawmakers belonging to the Makabayan bloc filed their petition at about 11:50 a.m. Like Lagman, they also want the SC to declare the entire law unconstitutional.
They also asked the SC to issue an injunction to prevent its implementation.
In their plea, the Makabayan lawmakers cited themselves as an example saying though they are lawmakers, they are treated and tagged as “enemies of the State.”
“Worse, several of our leaders and members have been killed while others are being deprived of liberty on false charges,” they said.
Interior Secretary Eduardo Año assured the public that law enforcement agencies will not abuse their authority in the implementation of the new law.
He also said it is the right of people to question the law before the Supreme Court but stressed the law is long-overdue noting that Philippines has ranked No. 9 in the Global Terrorism Index.
Nevertheless, he said, about a thousand local chief executives have expressed support for the new law. — With Victor Reyes
