Ruling withheld pending ‘accurate’ vote tally
THE Supreme Court yesterday voted on 37 consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 that President Duterte signed into law in July last year.
The voting was held during the regular en banc session, according to SC spokesperson Brian Keith Hosaka.
However, Hosaka said the SC cannot release the results yet “considering that there were numerous issues resolved in the case, as well as the fact that each justice had to vote on each issue, there is a need to accurately confirm and tally the vote of each Justice in order to ensure the correct resolution of the Court per issue.”
He said the SC will “provide the media and the public with an accurate summary of the action with respect to the ATA case at the soonest possible time.”
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen confirmed the voting when he earlier corrected a radio report saying the justices have ruled that the anti-terrorism law is constitutional, except for Section 4.
“Mali po ito (This is wrong). Please wait for the official announcement,” Leonen said in a tweet.
He later said in another tweet that “votes have been tallied already during the deliberations,” and pleaded again for the public to wait for the official announcement.
Section 4 is about the expanded definition of terrorism, which the petitioners say is vague.
The SC held nine oral arguments in nearly four months on the case, wrapping up on May 17 after hearing the arguments of the petitioners and the government side represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
Among the petitioners are former Vice President Jejomar Binay, retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Constitution framer Christian Monsod, human rights organizations, media members, youth groups and even the religious sector.
They said the SC should strike down the law, or parts of it, as unconstitutional for violating freedoms of Filipinos guaranteed under the Constitution, and due to its vague and overbroad provisions that make it prone to abuse.
While the SC is holding oral arguments on the case, at least three ATA cases were filed, including against Aetas Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos who were arrested by the military in Zambales after an encounter between Army troops and members of the communist New People’s Army left one soldier dead.
The Army claimed the two are NPA members, which they denied.
The Olongapo City regional trial court has dismissed the charges against Gurung and Ramos.
The government, through Solicitor General Jose Calida, centered its arguments in defending the ATA on the petitioner’s lack of legal standing, citing Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, wherein petitions were dismissed as the SC held that there was no actual charge or credible threat of prosecution.
Calida also denied claims of the petitioners that the ATA can be used as a tool to suppress democracy in the country, as he lamented how the law meant to fight terrorism has been “unfairly stigmatized.”
The petitioners have told the SC that the ATA’s broad provisions may silence government critics for fear of being tagged as terrorists, a claim dismissed by Calida who insisted that the law will also penalize those who will abuse its implementation.
The same position was claimed by National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon when he also appeared during the oral arguments, though his testimony became controversial when he named alleged “front organizations” of the communist movement, including several of the petitioners.
The petitioners and the OSG also clashed on the “vagueness and overbreadth” of the ATA and on the designation of suspected terrorists.
Just as the SC was wrapping up its oral arguments last May, the Anti-Terrorism Council whose members are Executive branch, designated 19 alleged members of the Central Committee of the Communist Part of the Philippines as terrorists.
Some of those designated by the ATC were consultants in the now defunct peace negotiation between the Duterte administration and the communist movement, heightening fears that the ATA could be used against anybody.
The petitioners and the OSG also clashed on the period of detention of suspected terrorists — up to 24 days — and the freezing of assets, including bank accounts, with the former arguing that it could result in abuses and human rights violations.
