黑料社

MANILA, Philippines 鈥� Lawyers for groups and individuals opposing the Anti-Terrorism Act on Tuesday took turns assailing the measure, saying it was more repressive than the old antisubversion law.

They said the Supreme Court should declare the entire law or parts of it unconstitutional before someone was unjustly victimized by its implementation. But early into the first day of oral arguments on the 37 petitions against the law, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen asked the lawyers whether it wasn鈥檛 too early to challenge Republic Act No. 11479, or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which was signed by President Duterte in July 2020.

The lawyers argued that the antiterror law, which the government claimed was solely intended against terrorists, was the worst edict that Congress had passed since the 1987 Constitution was ratified a year after democracy was restored in the country.

Alfredo Molo III, a constitutional law professor from the University of the Philippines who represented a group that included former Supreme Court Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, said the law was more dangerous than the Cold War-era Anti-Subversion Act. That law was abused by dictator Ferdinand Marcos to quell political dissent and was repealed in 1992, Molo said.

鈥淪ince 1987, there has been no law that has breached so many constitutional rights and 鈥� threatened to diminish the judiciary by directly taking away its powers and giving it to the executive,鈥� he said.

24-day detention

Molo said the terrorism law allowed authorities to detain for up to 24 days without warrant individuals for alleged membership in an organization arbitrarily designated as a terror group by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC). He pointed out that under the old law against subversion, authorities were required to prove that a person 鈥渒nowingly and intentionally鈥� joined the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and other similar underground organizations, and had committed 鈥渙vert acts.鈥�

鈥淭hese are not present under Section 10 of the antiterrorism law,鈥� Molo said in response to a question from Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang. He warned about the dangers of the ambiguity and 鈥渙verbreadth鈥� of the law that restricted the exercise of free speech.

Molo said Section 25, which allowed the ATC to declare groups and individuals as terrorists, may actually be used to designate Carpio and Morales as terrorists for 鈥渟toking conflict with China鈥� for merely speaking out against Chinese intrusion in Philippine waters in the disputed South China Sea.

鈥榃ait for actual case鈥�

Leonen asked Molo whether the court should 鈥渨ait for an actual case.鈥� 鈥淢aybe the Aetas is the actual case,鈥� Leonen said, referring to the two Aeta men who were arrested in August last year and the first to be charged with terrorism under the law after the military claimed they were New People鈥檚 Army rebels.

Leonen said the court had already ruled in the past that 鈥渢here must be a clear actual case鈥� before it could intervene. 鈥淵es we have fears of any law, yes we have fears of any government. It鈥檚 understandable. But to ask the Supreme Court to move in and use its powers, without that standard, would invite us to insert our political perspective into how a law should be,鈥� he said.

鈥淚sn鈥檛 it the role of the judiciary to give a chance to the political department to be able to address the harm they wish to address before we come out immediately on a theoretical point, to annul that provision?鈥� Leonen said.

鈥淪hould we not wait until there is a clear case perhaps there can be a petition filed on those that are Red-tagged, and perhaps the facts should be very clear, goes to a regional trial court first so that the regional trial court can weigh in?鈥� he added. Molo responded, saying: 鈥淢y humble submission is that deference, judicial restraint, ends where the Bill of Rights begins.鈥�

Cardinal Sin

Human rights defender Jose Manuel 鈥淐hel鈥� Diokno said the late Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin, who called on the people to protect soldiers who broke away from Marcos at the start of the 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution, would have been arrested for inciting terrorism if this law were existing then.

As the revolt brought Metro Manila to a standstill, disrupted essential public services and 鈥渉ad a debilitating impact on national defense, security and public safety,鈥� Diokno said Sin would have been indicted for 鈥渟eriously destabilizing the country鈥檚 fundamental political structure and creating a public emergency.鈥�

鈥淭he antiterrorism act is novel in many ways. But what makes it stand out is the fact that it is the only law in our country that includes the exercise of fundamental rights in its definition of a crime,鈥� he added. Diokno said the law required that protests, advocacies, labor strikes and other similar activities, should not be intended to 鈥渃ause death or serious physical harm, to endanger a person鈥檚 life or create a serious risk to public safety.鈥�

鈥淣o other law makes the exercise of constitutional rights a crime when actuated by a certain intent. No other law empowers the state to arrest its people for exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution, based solely on a law enforcer鈥檚 subjective opinion of their state of mind,鈥� he said.

Legal standing

Carandang questioned the legal standing of the petitioners, asking whether any of them had been charged or prosecuted under the law.

In response, former Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz cited threats from Lt. Gen. Antonio Parlade against the petitioners, which were brought to the attention of the court by Carpio and Morales last week. Parlade is the chief of the military鈥檚 Southern Luzon Command and spokesperson for the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict.

He had warned the petitioners on his Facebook page that the 鈥淒ay of Judgment is upon you and the Filipino people, who have suffered enough from the malignant hands of the (CPP), of which you are a part of, sit in judgment.鈥�

Cadiz said Parlade made 鈥渁n actual threat.鈥� 鈥淲e cannot sit idly by while Parlade actualized this threat,鈥� he said. Cadiz said the law was 鈥渃onstitutionally infirm鈥� as it would only do 鈥渕ore harm to our civil liberties than providing security against the evils it seeks to curtail.鈥�

鈥淭he petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions as the instant case concerns our Bill of Rights, which are public rights,鈥� he said.

鈥淪ome of the petitioners have even been characterized by state elements as aiding terrorists. There is, thus, a credible threat of prosecution against said petitioners,鈥� he continued. Lawyer Evalyn Ursua cited the case of the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines (RMP), a church-based group whose assets were frozen by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) on suspicion that it was financing the activities of the communist rebels.

She said RMP wasn鈥檛 informed of the action, depriving the group of its right to defend itself and disprove the allegations against it.

Violation of separation of powers

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman argued that the law 鈥渧iolates the separation of powers鈥� principle in the Constitution when it transferred judicial authority to the executive branch by empowering the ATC, a seven-member body composed of Cabinet secretaries, to order the arrest of suspected terrorists.

He said prolonged detention would deny a suspect鈥檚 right to be presumed innocent, deprived him of his right to post bail, derailed his right to speedy disposition of his case, divested him of his right 鈥渢o promptly avail of the writs of habeas corpus and amparo, and derogates his right against torture.鈥�

Former Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, who represented the National Union of People鈥檚 Lawyers, said an innocent act may be declared as a form of terrorism if the ATC 鈥渋mputes vaguely-defined terrorist intentions and purposes on the suspect.鈥�

鈥淐learly, the mere imputation of intentions and purposes by the respondents suddenly goes into past conduct and transforms acts considered legal and constitutional when done into punishable terrorist acts,鈥� Colmenares said.

鈥淭his hydra-headed legal monster must be slain now lest it devours further anybody and everybody, including even its own defenders in Congress now that the terror law is no longer suspended during elections,鈥� he said.

鈥淲e must do the right things for the right reasons in the right way.鈥� The oral arguments will continue next Tuesday.