‘It is again a testimony that the local judicial system is working, and the losing petitioners are even showing their respect and deference to the Supreme Court.’
THE challenges to the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 or Republic Act 11479 have been put to rest with finality by the Supreme Court when it denied last Tuesday motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners against the ATA.
This latest ruling upholds the original High Tribunal decision last year that only two parts of the contentious Anti-Terror Law remain unconstitutional. The High Court, in its 2021 decision, said that the other provisions which were assailed by some 37 petitions “are not unconstitutional.”
The SC had ruled that the qualifier portion of Section 4 of the law is against the Constitution for being broad and violative of freedom of expression. This qualifier is about acts “…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.”
Another portion of the ATA that was invalidated by the SC is about the second method for designation of terrorist groups under Section 25, which states that “Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR No. 1373.”
The SC justices noted that the petitioners were not able to provide substantial issues and arguments that could merit changing their previous ruling. “The Court resolved to deny the motions for reconsideration due to lack of substantial issues and arguments raised by petitioners,” said the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office in a statement.
The Anti-Terrorism Act was signed into law on July 3, 2020, and took effect on July 18. It is the subject of 37 petitions before the Supreme Court, some from respected legal luminaries and lawyers’ associations, making the law supremely controversial.
The final ATA ruling from the High Tribunal, coming as it does during one of the most fractious national elections in recent history, should at least chip off some of the divisiveness now obtaining in Philippine society. It is again a testimony that the local judicial system is working, and the losing petitioners are even showing their respect and deference to the Supreme Court.
