INTERIOR Secretary Eduardo Año yesterday said the government may not appeal the Supreme Court’s that declared as unconstitutional two provisions of the Anti-Terrorist Act (ATA) of 2020.
Año, a member of the Anti-Terorrism Council (ATC) that is supervising the implementation of the law, said the government is satisfied with the court’s ruling which was announced on Thursday week.
Año said the government is happy that the SC ruled the entirely of the law is constitutional, except two “minimal items” which are Section 4 and 25.
The court said 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” to the proviso in Section 4 is unconstitutional “for being overboard and violative of freedom of expression.”
Also, the court voted against a second method of terrorist designation under Section 25 that gave power to the ACT to designate an individual or a group as terrorists based on a request by another country.
Año said the voiding of Section 4 means one can stage a rally, say anything against the government and, hold mass actions without being necessarily labeled as a terrorist.
Some of the petitioners against the controversial ATA want the whole law declared unconstitutional.
Año the SC decision pertaining to Section 25 of the ATA means that only organizations designated by the United Nations Security Council will be automatically included in the country’s list of terrorist organizations and individuals.
“This means that if there are other countries or organizations that will request the Philippine government to include their designated terrorists, that’s not going to be allowed… That’s not automatic, it has to go through a process,” he said.
Año maintained that the targets of ATA are organizations and individuals engaged in terrorist acts.
“Whatever is your organization, even if you are from the government, if you committed a terrorist act, you will be labeled as terrorist… This means that if you are an activist, (if you) attend a rally, boycott work, there is no problem, you are not a terrorist… You can say anything, curse anyone, call for toppling of government and others, you are not a terrorist,” he said.
On whether the government will submit a motion for reconsideration before the SC, Año said the ATC, headed by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, will have to discuss this first.
“But the way I see it, we are not going appeal because we are already happy with the ruling of the Supreme Court,” said Año, adding the government can now focus on going after the real terrorists.
“We are all praises for the Supreme Court for their latest decision and it’s again proven that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of justice and it looks in totality. We are thankful for the very good decision of the Supreme Court,” said Año.
PNP chief Gen. Dionardo Carlos said there will be no room for abuse of the ATA now that the SC has ruled that expression of advocacy or dissent and similar exercises of civil and political exercises are not considered terrorist acts.
“Over-all, we still see the law as favorable to the best interest of law and order,” he also said.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who sponsored the measure at the Senate, said law enforcers who commit abuses while implementing the ATA will be made to answer under that law.
He said law enforcers sometimes have a “wrong interpretation” of the law it “extend the meaning or the spirit of the law.”
“ We have a provision in that law that law enforcers who violated the provision of the law can be punished),” Lacson said in Filipino during a press conference in Dumaguete City on Saturday.
He also said under the law, law enforcers are mandated to inform the nearest trial court and Commission on Human Rights office if they have arrested a suspected terrorist within 24 hours. Failure to do so would mean a 10-year prison term for the law enforcer.
Lacson earlier said the SC’s decision did not have an effect on the real intent of the law.
Overall, he added, the ATA of 2020 is constitutional, even as various groups vowed to appeal the SC’s decision, saying the law is still repressive. — With Raymond Africa
