THE Supreme Court has ruled as unconstitutional parts of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, including that which would have made dissent or protest a crime.
The law signed by President Duterte in July 2020 has alarmed lawyers, human rights activists and other sectors who fear it could be used to suppress free speech and harass government opponents.
The justices voted on 37 petitions questioning the constitutionality of the law during their en banc session last Tuesday but the ruling was made public only yesterday.
The Supreme Court has yet to release a breakdown of its ruling but said in a statement that it struck down a part of the law “for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.” It also declared as unconstitutional a provision that allows the Anti-Terrorism Council to adopt requests by other entities, including international organizations, to designate individuals and groups as terrorists.
Malacañang stressed the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) is part of the government’s efforts to address terrorism and uphold the rule of law.
Cabinet Secretary and acting presidential spokesman Karlo Nograles also said the Office of the Executive Secretary will study the ruling and, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, consider their next course of action.
“We reiterate that Republic Act Number 11479 underscores our commitment to seriously address terrorism and to uphold the rule of law,” he said.
The Supreme Court, in partially granting the plea of 37 consolidated petitions, said: “The qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of Republic Act 11479 ‘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,’ by a vote of 12-3 is declared as unconstitutional for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.”
Petitioners, among them former Vice President Jejomar Binay, retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio, former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, and Constitution framer Christian Monsod, have contested the caveat found in Section 4 (e) of the ATA which exempts dissent or protest from the definitions of a terroristic act, provided there is no intent to cause harm. They said it is very subjective and would result in abuses on the ground.
Most of the 37 petitions wanted the High Court to struck down the entire Section 4 for being unconstitutional because of its vague definitions.
The SC also struck down by a vote of 9-6 the second method of designation under Section 25, paragraph 2 of the ATA, giving power to the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), whose members are from the Executive branch, to designate an individual or a group as terrorists based on the request by another country.
“Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution is declared unconstitutional by a vote of 9-6,” the SC said.
However, the justices retained the third mode of designation which gave power to the ATC to designate an individual or group as terrorist without trial, based only on their determination and without asking the designee to proffer counter-evidence.
The SC also retained the first mode of designation for an individual and groups which are already on the list of the UN Security Council.
“On the basis of the current petitions, all the other challenged provisions of RA 11479 are not unconstitutional,” the SC said.
A briefer provided by the SC public information office said the “main ponencia and the various opinions contain interpretations of some of the provisions declared in these cases as not unconstitutional.”
The petitioners said giving ATC the power to designate without going to trial or affording the individual or group the chance to hear evidence and contest it is not only unconstitutional but also constituted usurpation of the authority of the court and is also prone to abuse.
They said it could even be used to restrict some freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
During the oral arguments on the consolidated petitions, Solicitor General Jose Calida had argued that the designation by the ATC will stand even if a court dismissed a petition for proscription.
The SC also upheld another controversial provision of the ATA which provides a 24-day detention period for a suspected terrorist by mere authority of the ATC. — With Jocelyn Montemayor and Reuters
