The Supreme Court has directed the Court of Appeals to come up with rules to be observed that would protect and uphold the rights of a suspected terrorist or terrorist groups when the appellate court hears any petitions on a proscription under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
This is after the high tribunal published Tuesday its full decision and the separate opinions on the controversial law that 37 groups tried to have declared as unconstitutional.
“The Court has also directed the CA to immediately formulate the rules to be observed for judicial proscription with the objective of upholding the rights of groups of persons, associations, or organizations,” the high tribunal said.
The act was signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte in July 2020. Months later, the Supreme Court declared only two parts of the measure were unconstitutional.
Over three dozen petitions seeking to nullify the measures were filed against it, making it one of the most challenged laws before the High Court.
Republic Act 11479 or Anti-Terrorism Act was signed into law on July 3, 2020, and took effect on July 18. It alarmed some lawyers and human rights activists who feared it could be used to suppress free speech and harass government opponents.
The law grants police and military sweeping powers to tackle security threats, but legal experts had warned its overly broad articles could open the door to discriminatory enforcement, privacy infringements, and suppression of peaceful dissent.
Last December, the Supreme Court said in a statement it struck down a part of the law “for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.”
It also declared as unconstitutional a provision that allows an anti-terrorism council appointed by the president to adopt requests by other entities, including international organizations, to designate individuals and groups as terrorists.
In its full 235-page resolution, the high tribunal voted on the following nine critical questions identified as the core issues:
–Whether to grant due course to 35 out of 37 petitions
–Whether a facial challenge or an as-applied challenge should be used in analyzing the ATA
–Whether the “Not Intended Clause” in the proviso of Section 4 is constitutional
–Whether the phrase “organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism” in the third paragraph of Section 10 is constitutional
–Whether the first mode of designation under Section 25 is constitutional
–Whether the second mode of designation under Section 25 is constitutional
–Whether the third mode of designation under Section 25 is constitutional
–Whether the provisions on proscription in Section 26 to 28 are constitutional
— Section 29 on arrest and detention without a judicial warrant is constitutional
Of these, the Supreme Court declared the “Not intended Clause” in the proviso of Section 4 and the second mode of designation under Section 25 as unconstitutional.
Akbayan, a group of activists and legislators, said the ruling was a devastating blow for the country, adding: “The Supreme Court missed the opportunity to defend the Filipino people’s human rights and democracy.”
In his opinion, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen also voted to declare as unconstitutional Section 29, which provides for the warrantless arrest and detention of persons suspected of terrorism, and the authority of the Anti-Terrorism Council to issue an authorization to extend periods of detention.
Meanwhile, Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe voted to have the phrase “organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism” of Section 10 invalidated.
Bernabe and Associate Justice Alfredo Caguiao also sought to declare as unconstitutional the third mode of designation under Section 25.
Caguioa also voted to strike down Section 29 for violating the principle of separation of powers, infringing on the right to liberty and the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and for failing the scrutiny test.
Meanwhile, Associate Justice Amy Javier, in her separate opinion, said she joined the full disposition of ponencia of former Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang to partially grant some petitions.
She also called on the executive branch to launch an information campaign on the law.
For his part, Associate Justice Henri Inting concurred with the decision but proposed several measures to be incorporated into the guidelines.
These included the periodic presentation of detainees arrested without a warrant to the court nearest the place of detention on the 7th and 14 days for the questioning of his or her physical and mental condition.
Inting said the detainee must not also be transferred without notice and that concerned law enforcement personnel must report to the concerned trial court the specific reason to extend the detention period.
