Revived lawyers' group file 25th legal challenge vs anti-terrorism law
MANILA, Philippines — The Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties asked the Supreme Court to strike down the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 for failing to protect the people’s liberties enshrined in the Constitution.
CLCL members — led by former Vice President Jejomar Binay, former Sen. Rene Saguisag, former University of the Philippines College of Law dean Pacifico Agabin and National Union of Peoples' Lawyers President Edre Olalia — joined the legal fight against the contentious Republic Act 11479 that they said “impairs freedom of expression and its cognate rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”
“If not so voided, the assailed statute will run roughshod over the 1987 Constitution, particularly its salient provisions on the Bill of Rights,” the petitioners said.
This is the 25th challenge to the law’s constitutionality filed before the SC.
CLCL is a broad network of lawyers and law students first formed during the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and was revived in 2019 to protect the people's rights under the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte.
UN report
Part of the petition is anchored on findings of the United Nations Human Rights Office report, released June 4, that found that the Philippine government’s “heavy-handed” focus on combating illegal drugs and security threats—coupled with verbal encouragement from top officials—has resulted in grave human rights violations.
CLCL said that due to the vagueness of the law, law enforcers are left with “unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.”
Citing the UN report, the lawyers said that the Philippines is in a situation where “where the governing group has shown obvious disdain for human rights, identifying enemies and scapegoats as a unifying cause, relying mainly on the military and the police, harassing or closing mass media which do not toe the government line, and is completely obsessed with national security.”
The petitioners pointed out that the present administration of Duterte has openly shown disdain “for intellectuals and artists, and is fixated only on crime and punishment.”
“Human rights violations documented in the Philippines have been exacerbated by harmful rhetoric emanating from the highest levels of Government, which the report described as ‘pervasive and deeply damaging,’” they also said.
‘Take into custody’ is arrest
The petitioners also attacked the Section 29 of the law on Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. The petitioners said that the use of the phrase “take into custody” and proponents’ defense that this does not mean give the Anti-Terrorism Council with power to “arrest suspected terrorists” is just a ruse.
“It is clear from both the Rules of Court and the Supreme Court that the power to take into custody of suspected terrorists under Section 29 is a form of arrest. There is no question under this law that the ATC is empowered through its police and military agents to ‘take into custody’ or to ‘arrest’ suspected terrorists,” the lawyers said.
They stressed that the Constitution provides that it is the judge that would determine where there is probable cause—this “[raises] the bar in protecting the individuals from unlawful arrests.”
“Under the express terms of the Constitution, it is dubious that the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than the judge,” the petitioners said.
READ: Ex-SC justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales, UP law profs challenge anti-terrorism law
The lawyers also pointed out that the ACT is composed of political appointees of Duterte, and their considerations “might vitiate the seriousness and fairness” required in ruling who to arrest.
The ATC is composed of several Cabinet officials, who, under the Duterte administration have military backgrounds and have history of red-tagging.
“Mere suspicion of terrorism would be enough to make one liable to acquire the ire of the ATC and be immediately subjected to its process of arrest. These suspicions are likely to be based on the legally amorphous products of intelligence reports, which will not pass muster the constitutional requirement for due process,” the petitioners said.
“The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 fails miserably to protect and preserve the guaranties of human rights and civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution and therefore must be struck down,” the lawyers told the SC.
President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Anti-Terrorism Law on July 3 despite opposition from rights groups and civil society groups that it could be used to stifle human rights.
A petition against the law has been filed at the Supreme Court and other groups are preparing pleadings of their own.
Follow this page for updates. Photo courtesy of The STAR/Michael Varcas
National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon moves to block access to several websites, including news sites of alternative news orrganizations Bulatlat.com and Pinoyweekly.org.
In his letter to the National Telecommunications Commission, he only says the websites are "affiliated to and are supporting these terrorists and terrorist organizations."
No other basis to back up his allegation was cited in the letter.
Citing the designation of the CPP-NPA-NDF as terrorists, NSA Hermogenes Esperon moves to block access to several sites.
— Kristine Patag (@kristinepatag) June 22, 2022
In Esperon's letter to the NTC, he included news sites @bulatlat and @pinoyweekly; sites of other progressive groups RMP and Save our Schools. @PhilstarNews pic.twitter.com/nAzMITJFsS
The Commission on Human Rights says it "partly welcomes" the Supreme Court decision that some parts of the controversial Anti-terrorism Law are unconstitutional.
CHR spokesperson Jacqueline de Guia says the commission remains hopeful that the remaining contentious provisions of the law will be clarified by the high cour in the full text of the decision.
"At the same time, our commitment remains in guarding against possible human rights violations arising from the implementation of the anti-terror law. We steadfastly remind the government that countering terrorism and protecting human rights are not competing values but are, in fact, mutual and complementary," De Guia says in a statement.
The Supreme Court has deliberated and voted on the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act but the decision will be released "at the soonest time possible."
"However, considering that there were numerous issues resolved in the case, as well as the fact that each Justice had to vote on each issue, there is a need to accurately confirm and tally the vote of each Justice in order to ensure the correct resolution of the Court per issue," SC spokesperson Brian Hosaka says.
The Anti-Terrorism Council designates the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, the panel that negotiates for communist rebels during peace talks a terrorist organization.
Previous designation of the Communist Party of the Philippines and New People's Army led to the designation of supposed members of the CPP's Central Committee. Among those designated as terorrists were peace consultants.
Designation gives the Anti-Terrorism Council the authority to investigate and freeze the accounts of designated persons.
The Anti-Terrorism Council has designated 29 people, including alleged members of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army, as terrorists in two resolutions.
Designation allows the Anti-Money Laundering Council to freeze the assets of those on the list.
- Latest
- Trending
