The Supreme Court (SC) has adopted the rules on the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 and Related Laws.
The rules state that starting Jan. 15, 2024, law enforcers cannot legally conduct online surveillance like wiretapping of conversations, intercepting social media accounts, and collecting and reproducing images and photographs of suspected terrorist groups or individuals without an order from the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a full court notice, the SC stressed that the CA order, if issued within 72 hours from the termination of the summary proceedings on the surveillance petition, may also require telecommunication firms and internet providers to provide the needed data sought by law enforcers.
The SC order also mandates that suspected members of terrorist groups and individuals who are arrested without judicial warrants cannot be detained for more than 36 hours from the time of arrest without written authority from the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC).
Before the lapse of the 14-day extension which is counted from the day of arrest, the ATC through the Department of Justice (DOJ) should file before the regional trial court (RTC) a motion for an extension of detention of the suspected terrorist for not more than 10 days. The motion should contain the justification for the continued detention of a suspect.
If the RTC finds no evidence for further detention, the detained suspected terrorist should be released immediately.
The rules on ATA cases were signed by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Amy C. Lazaro Javier, Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Rodil V. Zalameda, Mario V. Lopez, Samuel H. Gaerlan, Ricardo R. Rosario, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Japar B. Dimaampao, Jose Midas P. Marquez, Antonio T. Kho Jr., and Maria Filomena D. Singh.
These are the salient features of the Rules on the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 and Related Laws adopted by the Supreme Court (SC) through the help of an Ad Hoc Committee for the Formulation of the Special Rules of Procedure on Anti-Terrorism Cases. The committee was chaired by retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.
Members of the committee were representatives of the SC, CA, RTC, Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJa), Department of Justice (DOJ), Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
Reviewed by the committee were the constitutional provisions on dignity of every human person and respect for human rights, Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 under Republic Act No. 11479, Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act under RA 10168, AMLC law under RA 9160, Anti-Wire Tapping Act under RA 4200, and other anti-terrorism laws.
The SC’s full court notice on the rules has been published in two nationally circulated newspapers.
“This set of Rules shall take effect on Jan. 15, 2024, fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Office Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation,” the SC notice stated.
On April 26, 2022 in Baguio City, the SC declared final its Dec. 7, 2021 decision which ruled as constitutional almost all the provisions of the anti-terrorism law.
Thirty-seven petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of ATA which was enacted on July 3, 2020 and enforced starting July 18, 2020. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic, the SC conducted online oral arguments on the petitions.
Declared unconstitutional in its Dec. 7, 2021 decision were:
1. “The qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of RA 11479, i.e., ‘… 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’ by a vote of 12-3 is declared as unconstitutional for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.
2. “The second method for designation in Section 25 paragraph 2 of RA 11479, i.e., ‘Request for designation 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 (United Nations Security Council Resolution) No. 1373’ is declared unconstitutional by a vote of 9-6.”
The SC held that “on the basis of the current petitions, all the other challenged provisions of RA 11479 are not unconstitutional.”
The SC decision considered the “immense responsibility” of the government to defend the country against terrorism as well as the noticeably improving capabilities of terrorists to wreak havoc through weapons of mass destruction.
“The pervasive problem of terrorism requires interventions that not only punishes an act when it is done but also anticipates risks to disrupt and preempt a terrorist act before irreversible harm is done, without sacrificing and undermining fundamental freedoms recognized in the Bill of Rights,” the SC declared.
“Nonetheless, this Court is ever mindful that hand in hand with its obligation to give due regard to the inevitabilities of national security and public safety, as well as the effectiveness of law enforcement, is its constitutional mandate to safeguard substantive democracy, as expressed in fundamental values and human rights and to temper the excesses of the other branches,” it said.
Under the rules on ATA, members of organizations and individuals suspected of being terrorists can file before the CA their petition against their designation as “terrorists” and the freeze order on their assets issued by AMLC.
The CA should render its decision on the petition within one month from the time the case is submitted for resolution.
Also, the designation of an organization and its members and individuals as “terrorists” should be filed by the DOJ before the CA which is authorized to issue a preliminary order of proscription based on probable cause established in the petition.
The proscription petition should be decided by the CA within three months from the date the case is submitted for decision. The CA’s permanent order of proscription is valid for three years from the date of the publication of the order in a newspaper of general circulation and in the official website of the ATC, DOJ, AMLC, NICA (National Intelligence Coordinating Agency), and the Official Gazette.
“The permanent order of proscription shall automatically lapse upon the expiration of the three-year period provided that there is no order extending or continuing the proscription,” the rules state.
The rules also provide reliefs for vulnerable groups composed of the elderly, pregnant, persons with disability, women, and children.
The arrested persons belonging to vulnerable groups should be detained in a facility that is separate and more appropriate to his or her condition, and that the spouses, parents or legal guardians should be informed of the detention.
Also, the rules provide that in cases where the persons arrested belong to vulnerable groups and cannot safeguard their interest, the court should appoint a guardian to protect their legal rights.
