Says no ‘substantial issues, arguments’ presented
THE Supreme Court yesterday denied with finality motions seeking the reconsideration of its December 2021 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act (of 2020 (ATA).
“The Court resolved to deny the motions for reconsideration for lack of substantial issues and arguments raised by the petitioners,” a media briefer provided by the Court said.
“The members of the Court maintained their votes in their Dec. 7, 2021 decision which was penned by then Associate Justice and now Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor Rosmari Carandang,” it added.
The decision means that the anti-terrorism law, save for the free speech/dissent protection clause and mode of designation, is upheld by the High Court.
The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), one of the petitioners against the ATA, said it was “unfortunate” the Supreme Court did not strike down other portions of RA 11479 for being unconstitutional.
“We remain convinced that these provisions (among them those that fail to define with clarity the offense of `terrorism’ and grant broad and sweeping powers to the Anti-Terrorism Council to issue arrest orders and authorize extended detention periods on mere suspicion) are not only dangerous, as they are prone to abuse, but also in violation of the Constitution,” said its national chairman, Jose Manuel Diokno, in a statement.
“The denial with finality of the various motions to reconsider the court’s decision on the ATA, however, only encourage us to continue to be vigilant for fundamental rights and freedoms that may be impacted by the law. As suggested by the Court itself, these provisions may be challenged, case to case, on an “as applied” basis,” he added.
The decision was reached by the justices in en banc session in Baguio City during their “summer session” during which other important rulings were made, including on Reproductive Health Law, the Torre de Manila case, and the Mandanas ruling on the share of local government units from national taxes.
Newly appointed Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr. sided with the majority.
SC spokesperson Brian Keith Hosaka said an “entry of judgment was immediately ordered the Court.”
The SC has yet to provide a copy of the decision.
Twenty-six of the 37 petitioners against the anti-terror law asked the SC to reconsider its December ruling, specifically challenging the constitutionality of Sections 10, 25, and 29 of the law.
Section 10 punishes recruitment and membership in a terrorist organization, while Section 25 is on designation of terrorists by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), whose members are officials of the Executive Branch. Section 29 deals with detention without a court-issued warrant.
The group of retired SC Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales later on also questioned not only those sections but also Section 4 on the definition of “terrorism” and Section 12 on providing material support to terrorists.
In its December ruling, the SC voted 12-3 to strike down specific provisions of ATA for being unconstitutional while upholding the legality of the rest.
The first is a qualifier to a proviso in Section 4 which placed the burden on the suspects to prove that an advocacy, protest, work stoppage and similar actions are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person or create serious risk to public safety.
The SC ruled then that the qualifier “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” was “overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.”
The justices voted 12-3 to strike down this proviso.
The justices voted 9-6 to declare unconstitutional the power granted to the ATC to adopt requests for designations from other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions.
This is the second mode of designation under Section 25 of the ATA.
Presidential candidate Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who sponsored the anti-terrorism measure in the Senate, said the tribunal’s decision was “expected” because no new arguments were presented.
“Those are 15 learned and experienced justices, magistrates. So yung action nila, very seldom nire-reverse nila ang sarili nila (So they very seldom reverse themselves),” he said in a chance interview in Bangued, Abra where he was campaigning.
Communications Secretary and acting presidential spokesman Martin Andanar said Malacañang welcome the latest ruling which he said is a “triumph” for all peace-loving and law-abiding people and proof that the Philippines is not a safe haven for terrorists. — With Raymond Africa and Jocelyn Montemayor
