FORMER vice president Jejomar Binay, former senator Rene Saguisag and other lawyers from the Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties joined the list of groups opposing the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as they asked the Supreme Court to declare the controversial measure unconstitutional.
Joining Binay and Saguisag in the petition filed on Thursday were Pacifico Agabin, former dean of the UP College of Law; Anacleto Rei Lacanilao III, a former diplomat; Edre Olalia, president of the National Union of People’s lawyers; Anna Maria Abad, dean of the Adamson University College of Law; JV Bautisat, dean of the Wesleyan University College of Law; Rose Liza Eisma-Osorio, law professor; and lawyer Emmanuel Jabla.
Named respondents in the 25th petition against Republic Act No. 11479 were Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, the Senate represented by Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and the House of Representatives represented by Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano.
Aside from asking the SC to declare the new law as null and void, the petitioners also asked for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to stop the respondents from implementing it while the petition is being heard.
The petitioners alleged that the anti-terrorism act is unconstitutional due to numerous provisions that are “vague and violative of the rights to due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution.”
“If not so voided, the assailed statute will run roughshod over the 1987 Constitution, particularly its salient provisions on the Bill of Rights,” the petition said.
They argued that the very vagueness of the language of the anti-terrorism law creates a “chilling effect” that gives law enforcers on the ground wide latitude in implementing its provisions.
They also lambasted the provision (Section 29) which allows the Anti-Terrorism Council, composed of officials from the Executive Department, to authorize law enforcers or the military to take custody of suspected terrorists without the benefit of an arrest warrant issued by the court.
“The authority issued by the ATC to arrest suspected terrorists is not a substitute to the warrant of arrest under the Constitution. It short-circuits the right to due process under the Bill of Rights and must be impugned as a repugnant violation of fundamental rights,” they said.
“It is clear from both the Rules of Court and the Supreme Court that the power to take into custody of suspected terrorists under Section 29 is a form of arrest. There is no question under this law that the ATC is empowered through its police and military agents to take into custody or to arrest suspected terrorists,” they added.
While warrantless arrests are allowed under certain conditions, the petitioners said they “cannot be based on mere suspicion” which, they added, could be likely based on “legally amorphous products of intelligence reports.”
“Under the express terms of the Constitution, it is dubious that the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than the judge. It is the judge which would determine whether there is probable cause to order the arrest,” they said, adding this is meant to protect individuals from unlawful or arbitrary arrests.
They also questioned the period of detention of up to 24 days allowed in the said law without criminal charges being filed in court, saying this would further violate that person’s right to due process.
Among those who are also questioning the RA 11479, which was signed by President Duterte on July 3, are former SC justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, lawyers, lawmakers, human rights advocates, youth and labor rights groups, journalists, and artists.
