RETIRED Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza yesterday told the Supreme Court to junk all 37 petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
Jardeleza, on the last day of online oral arguments on RA 11479, said the petitioners lack legal standing.
Taking the stand as one of the two “amici curiae” or friends of court — the other being retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno — Jardeleza said none of the petitioners has claimed direct, personal, or constitutional injury, or has alleged actual prosecution under the controversial measure as to be entitled to relief.
Among the petitioners are former Vice President Jejomar Binay, retired SC Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, and several framers of the 1987 Constitution such as Christian Monsod.
“Following this Court’s ruling in Southern Hemisphere Network vs. the Anti-Terrorism Council, all 37 petitions should be dismissed,” Jardeleza told the magistrates led by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo although he said this should be “without prejudice” to the continuation of all the other cases cited by Solicitor General Jose Calida as cases directly related to the anti-terrorism law, such as the suit lodged against Aetas Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos.
Calida earlier argued for the dismissal of the 37 petitions, saying that contrary to Gurung and Ramos, they have no “locus standi” or legal standing to contest the constitutionality of the measure.
Gurung and Ramos were charged before the Olongapo City regional trial court for violation of the anti-terrorism law after they allegedly attacked Army soldiers in Zambales last year, leading to the death of a soldier. It is the first case in the country to use the measure.
Aside from the case of the two Aetas, Calida also cited the terrorism cases against three individuals in Negros Oriental, as well as those filed against 13 individuals led by Mundzrimar Mundi Sawadjaan in connection with the Aug. 24, 2020 bombings in Jolo, Sulu.
Calida said those who have pending terrorism cases such as Gurung and Ramos have direct personal injury while the petitioners before the SC cannot make the same claim.
Jardeleza said while the issues raised by the petitioners against the anti-terrorism law are important, as the law indeed implicates civil liberties that are dear to all Filipinos, there is however, an absolute dearth of facts in the case record, as of the moment, to support a ruling against the measure signed into law by President Duterte in July 2020.
He said that since the assailed law is an act of Congress, it enjoys the presumption of constitutionality.
Puno acknowledged the “unconventional nature of terrorism” that he said does not fit “traditional war.”
He said that while the United Nations has called on its member-states to criminalize terrorism, its Security Council itself could not craft a universal definition of terrorism with some countries having their own.
Puno said this lack of consensus on definition continue to be a pestering problem.
Even as he cited the concerns of the petitioners that the anti-terror law might be abused and will be used to go after legitimate dissent, Puno said there is a need to strike a balance between “the right of individual rights to be protected and the right of national security to be upheld,” adding that “both values are recognized by the architecture of our Constitution.”
He acknowledged the difficulty of finding the right balance between individual liberties and national security.
“But it should not reduce individual liberties to insignificance, neither should the balance put an end to the security of the people for the people did not enter into a suicide pact when they ratified the Constitution,” he said.
“The ideal is for us to be both free and safe,” he added.
Another concern raised by Puno was on the authority of the Anti-Terrorism Council to determine the person or organization to be designated as terrorists.
“The disconcerting question is whether there is a meaningful remedy on the part of a person or organization designated by ATC as a terrorist when its finding of probable cause rests on erroneous ground,” Puno said.
