SOLICITOR General Jose Calida yesterday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to cancel the oral arguments set next month on the 29 petitions filed raising a range of issues against the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 that was signed by President Duterte into law last month.
In an urgent motion, Calida cited logistical restrictions and the health threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for his appeal to stop the oral arguments, which has been set for the third week of September.
Calida said the higher interests of health and safety dictates that the conduct of oral arguments, in-court or otherwise, be cancelled.
“The conduct of in-court oral arguments would necessarily entail the presence of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices, at least 300 petitioners and their respective counsels, an estimate of 16 lawyers from the OSG and their respective support staff, representatives from the respondents and the members of the Office of Clerk of Court. This clearly falls under mass gatherings that are prohibited in areas under the general community quarantine,” Calida said.
The sheer number of participants, Calida said, will make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain social distancing inside the en banc session hall.
“In this regard alone, even putting the matter of the age and health vulnerabilities of some of the participants aside, it is submitted that their physical presence for in-court oral arguments is inadvisable,” he added.
Instead of oral arguments, Calida said the court can resort to other alternatives such as the submission of memoranda, clarificatory questions and written opening statements.
“Although oral arguments may provide clarity to certain matters, it does not follow that the same end may not be achieved through means other than the conduct of oral arguments,” Calida said.
He stressed that a memorandum from parties to the case serves to augment their position on the issues, while clarificatory questions, as well as the submission of any relevant documents if necessary, will further shed light on matters.
He added that written opening statements may also cover the parties’ answer to the justices’ clarificatory questions.
Twenty-nine petitions have been filed against the measure, with petitioners including former vice president Jejomar Binay, retired SC justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, lawyers, law professors, Constitution experts, opposition lawmakers, human rights advocates, labor organizers, activists, journalists, youth sector representatives, and members of the religious sector.
Meanwhile, a high-ranking military official yesterday defended the suggestion earlier aired by AFP chief of staff Gen. Gilbert Gapay that the regulation of social media should have been included in the coverage of the Anti-Terrorism law.
AFP Southern Luzon Command chief, Lt. General Antonio Parlade Jr. said terror groups have been using social media platforms to recruit as well as discuss their tactics.
“Technology has evolved. Now we have social media and we all know that the social media is being used by elements, by organizations to destabilize the government. As we speak even in social media they are talking about how to make bombs,” Parlade told Sen. Franklin Drilon when he was asked on his earlier statement that he supported Gapay’s remarks.
Parlade yesterday appeared before the Commission on Appointments which approved of his promotion.
When quizzed by Drilon as to the specific provision of the anti-terror law would warrant the regulation of social media, Gapay said he cannot remember the detail but said it would likely be under the provision on the preparations or taking part in planning to commit terror acts.
“This is one aspect where we really have to look at the actions of people preparing for terrorist action. How to prepare for attacks is happening on social media and we were able to monitor it but we cannot do anything about it,” he said, adding that while social media should be accessible to everyone, those who use it should be regulated.
But Drilon, who served as justice secretary during the presidency of the late president Corazon Aquino, cautioned Parlade that regulating social media constitutes “prior restraint” which is not allowed under the Constitution.
“You just said the regulation will determine what they are allowed to do. This is precisely prior restraint. When you regulate what one is allowed to do, that’s prior restraint and that’s prohibited,” Drilon said.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said Gapay and other military officers should be careful in issuing statements on sensitive topics and take into account that petitions have already been filed with the SC questioning the constitutionality of the measure.
Lacson, a former PNP chief, is one of the main proponents of the anti-terrorism law in Congress.
“Gen. Gapay should have qualified his statement because it’s all-encompassing. When you say regulate social media, that’s it, regulate. So while I admire your statement you support the statement of the chief of staff, it’s lacking in substance,” Lacson said.
“So just a piece of advice: When you issue statements, be very careful, and be very conscious because when you say regulate social media, ‘yan ang sinasabi ni Sen. Drilon na prior restraint. So kindly relay that piece of advice to your chief of staff,” he added.
