IN resolving cases filed under the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020, courts must ensure there is a balance between the need to protect the public and ensuring that human rights are duly protected, Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo said yesterday.
“Truly, with the rapid advancement of technology, we recognize the need to allow a more proactive approach to security to prevent terrorist activities. While we accept the necessity for urgent and enhanced security measures, these must be done within the confines of the law, with proper checks and balances, to guarantee that there is no undue or excessive intrusion to our rights and freedom,” Gesmundo said in a during the “Dialogue with the Supreme Court on the Proposed Judicial Roles an Anti-Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Financing Cases” held in Mandaue City in Cebu.
“Indeed, we must balance the need for security with the protection of individual rights and freedoms.True to its mandate, the Supreme Court is here to ensure that any measure in this regard will be based only on clear legal authority and must adhere strictly to proper procedure,” he added.
In his message, Gesmundo said the passage of ATA and the SC’s subsequent move to uphold its constitutionality provided them with the impetus to draft rules that would protect the rights and freedoms of individuals in view of the law’s proactive and preventive measures which were adopted to thwart terror acts, such as the penalization of “inchoate offenses” in Section 4 of the measure.
Inchoate offenses refers to acts preparatory to the commission of terror activities.
Gesmundo said such preventive approach of ATA comes with the danger of State abuses brought about by overzealous law enforcement.
He stressed that since criminal statutes are inherently and understandably overbroad because methods of committing a crime are limited only by one’s imagination, there is a need to provide for some legal relief to keep the acts of law enforcers on check and in accord with the Constitution.
“To address this conundrum, the Court found it necessary to promulgate a procedural framework both to demarcate a zone of legitimacy for acts by law enforcers as well as to delineate judicial reliefs against abuses by State agents.Creating a procedural framework to balance effective law enforcement with the protection of the fundamental rights is akin to walking on a legal tightrope,” Gesmundo said.
“Procedures that lean heavily in favor of law enforcement will expose the fundamental rights of persons to the danger of abuses; while those that lean intensely in favor of liberties will expose the population’s lives and safety to the devastating effects of terrorism,” he added.
The chief justice likewise said the SC “encountered compelling concerns on the protection of due process rights in some sections of the ATA which provide for ex parte proceedings such as surveillance authorizations, designations, bank inquiries, and freeze orders.”
“In these proceedings, the rights of those in absentia are vulnerable to unjustified State intrusions, especially privacy rights. This is the reason why the principle of ‘effective judicial protection’ has been made to apply in ex parte proceedings of the ATA to afford adequate protection of the absentee’s fundamental rights. Consistent with the previous concern on perceived absence of remedies in some parts of the ATA, the proposed rules on anti-terrorism cases provide various reliefs against wrongful ex parte actions, either by the State or by the courts themselves,” he explained.
With these, Gesmundo said the judiciary will never accept a surrender, without safeguards, of certain rights inherent to an individual.
“It is here that the Court comes in and fulfills its duty to ensure that the cost would be no more than what is appropriate and necessary under the circumstance,” he added.
To recall, 37 petitions were lodged challenging the constitutionality of ATA before the SC.
However, on December 7, 2021, the SC ruled that the measure is constitutional. The ruling became final on April 22, 2022.
