MANILA, Philippines — A group of lawyers on Friday filed the 17th petition against the much-feared Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, making it one of the highly-contested laws before the Supreme Court.
Alternative Law Groups (ALG), a coalition of 18 legal resource non-governmental organizations, filed a 135-paged petition before the tribunal, asking it to strike down Republic Act 11479 as unconstitutional and command the respondent government officials to cease from implementing the said law.
Related Stories
The new anti-terrorism law took effect on July 19, said the Palace while its chief legal counsel, Solicitor General Jose Calida said the law became in full force on July 22.
"In exposing the patent nullity of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Republic Act No. 11479), this Petition invokes the people’s sacred freedoms - due process, privacy, right against unreasonable searches and seizures, free speech and expression, right to peaceably assemble, and right of association," ALG said.
"The Petitioner humbly asks the Honorable Court to take prompt action for the protection of these freedoms," they added.
'Chilling effect' on ALG's work
ALG engages in developmental or alternative lawyering and works with the poor and marginalized groups in different parts of the country.
It renders legal work concerning women, labor, peasant, fisherfolk, children, urban poor, indigenous peoples, person living with HIV-AIDS, persons with disabilities, elderly, incarcerated persons, local governance and the environment.
The group explained that part of the work in providing legal assistance to grassroots communities take the form of rallies, demonstrations, protests, marches and other activities. “All of these acts embody speech in a public forum,” they stressed.
They argued that RA 11479 uses terms that are “overbroad, ambiguous, and imprecise terms” that gives “too much enforcement discretion to the government.”
“Petitioner is directly affected in terms of being ‘chilled’ or ‘clipped’ in the performance of its legitimate functions of providing legal services to the basic sectors and grassroot communities,” they said.
SC jurisprudence, in Disini vs. Secretary of Justice, defines chilling effect as “the dear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads of citizens who are minded to step beyond the boundaries of what is proper.”
ALG stressed that without “legal standards or criterion provided by the law to determine what is prohibited act from legitimate activities, and in light of deep-seated biases and prejudices against certain factors of society, Petitioner’s whole range of work and services run the risk of being ‘suspected’ or ‘designated’ terrorist activities.”