FOUR more petitions were filed yesterday before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
This brought to 16 the number of petitions filed before the High Court since President Duterte signed the controversial measure on July 3.
On Wednesday, retired SC Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, and several UP Law professors also challenged the measure before the tribunal.
RA 11479 took effect on July 18. Its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) have yet to be crafted.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said the justice department’s lawyers are set to meet today to discuss what provisions of the law need the IRR. The DOJ will also consult the Office of the President and the Anti-Terrorism Council as it goes along with the drafting of the IRR.
Earlier, Guevarra said the measure can be implemented even without the IRR but advised law enforcement agencies to wait for the implementing rules, if there is no imminent threat.
Guevarra said the IRR will be drafted within 90 days.
The petitions against RA 11479 are questioning what they said was a broad definition of terrorism and the length of time a suspected terrorist can be held without charging him.
The 12th petition was filed by Quezon City Rep.Christopher “Kit” Belmonte, former Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada and Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno in behalf of several framers of the Constitution, journalists, human rights workers and lawmakers.
Among 18 who signed the 12th petition, aside from Belmonte, Tañada, and Diokno, were Senators Francis Pangilinan and Leila de Lima; former senator Sergio Osmeña III; former Akbayan party-list Rep. Etta Rosales; Florangel Rosario Braid and Edmundo Garcia, members of the commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution; and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa, columnists John Nery, Ma. Ceres Doyo and Jo-Ann Maglipon.
Two other framers – Christian Monsod and Felicitas Arroyo — joined an earlier petition.
The group in the 12th petition is represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group.
The 13th petition was filed by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Concerned Artists of the Philippines, National Artist Bienvenido Lumbera, journalists Ces Oreña Drilon and Inday Espina Varona, UP College of Mass Communications Dean Luis Teodoro, and at least 30 others.
The 14th plea came from student groups from UP Diliman, UST, Ateneo de Manila, and De La Salle University and youth groups under the Kabataang Tagapagtanggol ng Karapatan and Youth For Human Rights and Democracy.
The 15th petition was filed by four Muslim lawyers — Algamar Latiph, Bantuas Lucman, Musa Malayang and Dalomilang Parahima, on behalf of Bangsamoro residents
The petitioners are arguing mainly against the definition of terrorism in RA 11479, which they say is too broad and vague and would endanger constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
“For posing a clear and imminent danger to free speech, the Anti-Terrorism Act must be struck down. What is at stake in this case affects every Filipino citizen because it involves the individual right of every person to speak freely on matters of public concern, and the collective right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances,” they said.
While the controversial measure exempts advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action and other exercises of civil and political rights, they said such acts may still be punished under the new law when “intended to cause death, serious physical harm to a person, endanger a person’s life or create a serious risk to public safety.”
Citing the late Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin as an example, the petitioners said calling the people to mass up along EDSA could be interpreted to mean “inciting people to engage in acts intended to cause extensive interference with or damage to critical infrastructure, considering that EDSA is Metro Manila’s prime thoroughfare.”
Critical infrastructure under RA 11479 includes a system or asset essential to the delivery of public services, whose incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on national security, national economy, and public safety.
They said that unlike the 2007 Human Security Act which it replaced, RA 11479 “punishes acts based on intent and purpose regardless of the stage of execution and even if there is no actual death, damage or injury.
FAIR NOTICE
As to its vagueness, the petitioners said the danger with RA 11479 is that it does not give fair notice that a contemplated speech is prohibited while also lacking clear guidelines for law enforcers to prevent abuse and arbitrary enforcement on the ground.
They also pointed out that the new law empowers the Anti-Terrorism Council to order the detention of a person suspected of being a terrorist for up to 24 days without warrant.
The Human Security Act allows warrantless detention only up to three days while the Constitution, even during martial law, allowed the same period before a person has to be charged in court.
They also said the new law’s enforcement will encroach on constitutionally-guaranteed rights such as freedom of the press and expression.
“How do law enforcers or even judges determine that intent or lack thereof? Without the overt acts being defined in Section 4 ascertaining intent becomes an arbitrary exercise that will inevitable lead to abuse on the ground,” they said.
“RA 11479 destroys the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution and it is one more reason to declare it unconstitutional,” they added.
The Muslim petitioners said their plea is meant to shield the Bangsamoro people from possible abuses and injustices in the enforcement of the anti-terrorism act.
They said the Bangsamoro people have been at the receiving end of abuses by operations of security forces in the guise of going after terrorists.
“The vague provisions would victimize innocent people. They will be at the mercy of the pre-conceived notion of the law enforcers interpreting the provisions of RA 11479. Ordinary people would not have sufficient guidance from the law on what specific acts are prohibited,” they added.
Court spokesman Brian Keith Hosaka said lawyer Jose Ferrer Jr. has also filed a petition, making him the 10th such petitioner against the measure.
The physical copy of Carpio’s petition was also filed yesterday along with the petition of progressive groups led by Bayan, academics, human rights activists and former government officials.
The petitions were earlier filed electronically.
