BY ASHZEL HACHERO and JOCELYN MONTEMAYOR
A FORMER government corporate counsel of the Duterte government, framers of the 1987 Constitution, and more law professors yesterday filed the fifth and sixth petitions challenging the constitutionality of the new anti-terrorism law before the Supreme Court.
President Duterte signed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, or Republic Act No. 11479 last week, amid mounting criticisms and warnings about violating the Constitution and civil and political rights.
Yesterday, the President said the public should not fear the new law if they do not engage in any illegal activity as he said it is aimed at protecting the country from terrorist attacks.
The President, in a recorded message aired by government station PTV 4 past midnight, reminded the public of attacks in Mindanao.
“For the law-abiding citizens of this country, I am addressing you with all sincerity: Huwag ho kayong matakot kung hindi ka terorista. Kung hindi ka naman sisirain mo ang gobyerno, pasabugin mo ang simbahan, pasabugin mo iyong public utilities… just to derail para matumba na tuloy ang bayan (For the law-abiding citizens of this country, I am addressing you with all sincerity: Do not be afraid if you are not a terrorist, if you will not destroy the government, bomb the church, bomb public utilities… just to derail and topple the country),” he said.
Duterte said the militants are the least in the government’s priorities and “they are the least that we are spending our time” on.
Among questioned provisions of the anti-terrorism bill are on detention of suspected terrorists for 14 days without an arrest warrant with a 10-day extension; conduct of a 60-day surveillance on suspected terrorists with an allowable 30-day extension; and imprisonment of 12 years for those who violate the law.
There are also concerns that the new law will be used for red-tagging and against those staging protest actions or or posting negative and anti-government sentiments.
The first petitions were filed by the group of lawyer Howard Calleja, Albay Rep.Edcel Lagman, FEU lawyers led by dean Mel Sta. Maria of the FEU Institute of Law and progressive lawmakers belonging to the Makabayan bloc.
The fifth petition was filed by Rudolf Philip Jurado, who said RA 11479 should be junked because of procedural flaws in the passage of the bill in Congress. He said Congress violated the rule on giving printed copies of the final bill to its members three days before its passage, as it passed the bill on second and third reading on June 2 and 3. He said the move violated Section 26 (2), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which requires printed copies of a bill to be given to its members three days before its passage.
He stressed even if the Constitution provides an exemption to the rule if the President certifies it as an urgent measure, the urgency must be because of an emergency or public calamity. He said in this case, that standard was not met.
Jurado was sacked by Duterte in 2018 for allegedly issuing a legal opinion that would justify the grant of a 75-year gaming franchise to a free port locator in Aurora province.
The sixth petition was filed by lawyer Christian Monsod and Felicitas Arroyo, both framers of the 1987 Constitution, asking the high court to void a number of sections in the law.
They were joined by professors from the Ateneo Law School, Ateneo Human Rights Center, and Xavier University College of Law; Jesuit priest Albert Alejo; and the labor group Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa.
Specifically, Monsod’s group wants the SC to declare Sections 4 to 12, 14, 25 and 29, basically the same provisions that the other groups of petitioners have also questioned.
The petition focused on what they said was the broad definition of terrorism that could cover legitimate acts and activities protected under the right to free speech, assembly and expression.
They attacked the broad definition of terrorism in Section 4 with focus on the the supposed exception on dissent, adding this could be a “killer” provision since dissent is not exempted if it has a terror intent.
“Our criminal law has never punished intent alone. There must always be overt acts which are themselves illegal and which themselves manifest malicious intent. However, the proviso in Section 4 which deals with advocacy, protest, dissent and other similar exercises makes the same acts punishable when there is allegedly some criminal intent behind them, without however, requiring that the overt acts themselves manifest said intent in any way,” they said.
The petitioners said this in effect could result to “lawful exercises of civil and political rights are made criminal– terrorism–when there is some supposedly illegal intent behind them regardless of whether this intent itself is translated into action.”
Jurado, in his petition, also questioned Section 29 of RA 11479 saying Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion when it granted authority to the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to order a warrantless arrest and detention of a suspect without charge longer than what is provided for under the Revised Penal Code
Under RA 11479, the ATC can order the arrest and detention of a suspected terrorist for up to 14 days, extendable to 10 more days, without charge, while under the RPC, authorities have to file a case against a suspect within 36 hours after his or her apprehension.
“Congress could not repeal the provision in the Revised Penal Code setting the maximum hours under detention without charge because that it not germane to subject matter of the Anti-Terrorism Act, “ he said.
He also questioned the provision in Section 29 exempting law enforcers from criminal liability in the delay in bringing the suspect or suspects to the court after his or her arrest.
