PETITIONERS against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) yesterday expressed guarded optimism after the Supreme Court en banc voted to declare unconstitutional two contentious provisions of the controversial measure signed into law by President Duterte in July last year.
The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), which served as legal counsel of several of the 37 petitions against the ATA, said they consider the ruling as a small victory nonetheless.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III, principal author of the measure, said he considers the SC decision a victory for peace-loving Filipinos.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, principal sponsor of the measure at the Senate and one of the principal authors, said the SC decision does not have an effect on the real intention of law.
At the House of Representatives, opposition leader Rep. Edcel Lagman said the Supreme Court’s partial nullity of the anti-terror law “falls way short of full protection.”
Lagman, who was among the petitioners, also said a law that allows detention of a suspect for up to 24 days without a warrant was a “blatant violation of the constitution.”
“While the nullity of the killer proviso under Section 4 of the ATA and the method for designation in Section 25, Paragraph 2 of the ATA, is welcome, the entire law should have been voided,” he said.
National Security Adviser and Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) vice chairman Hermogenes Esperon Jr said he is “happy” that the entire law was not declared unconstitutional.
Esperon declined further comment, saying he has yet to receive a copy of the decision.
Interior Secretary and ATC member Eduardo Año said the provisions that were declared unconstitutional “are minimal and it won’t affect at all the ATA 2020.”
Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, another ATC member, declined comment. “I’ll have my legal team study it first,” he said.
Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno, FLAG national chairperson, said the group sees the ruling as “an important win for civil liberties.”
“The vote, 12-3 as contained in the Court’s advisory, sustained FLAG’s position on this issue and affirms the inherent danger posed to civil liberties by the language of the qualifier to the proviso,” the group said.
Former SC spokesman Theodore Te, a FLAG lawyer, said the “declaration of the qualifier to the proviso on Section 4 as unconstitutional is an important win as it strengthens the protection of civil liberties that the provision in Section 4 carves out.”
Edre Olalia, president of the National Union of People’s Lawyers which also served as counsel to the petitioners, said they would remain vigilant.
“While we are glad and assured that the Court mainly struck down the qualifier in Section 4 on the exercise of civil and political rights, thereby sustaining our position that activism and advocacy are legitimate activities and sacred rights of the people and should not be considered as terrorism at all, we regret that all the perilous provisions like the main definition and concept of terrorism, other forms of designation, warrantless arrest, prolonged detention, freezing of assets, proscription, definition of incitement, recruitment, membership, material support and human assistance, among others remain in the books, for now,” Olalia said.
Olalia said NUPL will file a motion for reconsideration.
“We will not allow the dying of the flickering light of our basic rights,” he added.
Karapatan secretary general Tina Palabay said they are dismayed by the SC ruling since the other “draconian” provisions prone to abuse on the ground remains.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to adopt repressive provisions – the vague and overbroad definition of terrorism, arbitrary powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate and freeze assets of individuals and organizations, and the long period of warrantless detention – will only set to worsen the already dismal human rights situation in the country,” Palabay said.
She said the arbitrary power of the ATC to designate “can still be use to target dissenters” as it is a “virtual hit list.”
Former Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares, among the petitioners, said they would continue to fight the ATA, adding that a motion for reconsideration would be filed.
“The consequences of the Anti-Terror Law are very dire for the people and human rights.
Section 4 which is overbroad and overreaching has a chilling effect on the people — press freedom and freedom of expression are stifled,” he said.
Lawyer Antonio La Viña, former Dean of the Ateneo School of Government, said the SC ruling is still a victory, though like Colmenares, he said a motion for reconsideration is also necessary.
“In my view, we should thank the Supreme Court for its categorical decision by a lopsided vote of 12-3 that protects freedom of expression, speech, association and assembly,” La Viña, who also lawyered for some of the petitioners, said.
Lawyer and petitioner Howard Calleja echoed La Vina’s stand on the ruling.
“For now, we celebrate the fact that we have hurdled procedural issues. We are grateful that the Court recognized our legal standing in this case and discussed it on the merits instead of dismissing it outright on alleged technicalities,” Calleja said.
Vice President Leni Robredo is still hoping that the rest of the concerns raised by the petitioners “will be substantially resolved in the full decision.”
“We remain steadfast in our position: Any anti-terrorism legislation must truly address the root causes of terrorism, and should not be used as a pretext to stifle freedom of expression or legitimate dissent.
Lagman said the ATA’s definition of “terrorism” should have been junked for being “grossly vague as it ensnares innocent victims who are the targets of the government’s vengeance and reprisal for being conscientious dissenters and vigilant critics of the administration.” — With Raymond Africa, Wendell Vigilia, and Victor Reyes
