Solgen to SC: Oral arguments on anti-terror law unnecessary, unsafe due to pandemic
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on Monday filed an urgent motion calling on the Supreme Court to cancel the conduct of oral arguments for petitions filed against the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
The government, represented by the OSG, citing 18 of the at least 27 petitions filed so far, moved that the SC cancel oral arguments for the following reasons:
The factual allegations raised in the subject petitions preclude direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
- Petitioners failed to satisfy the requisites of judicial review
- The conduct of oral arguments is not mandatory
- The continuous rise of COVID- 19 cases in the country renders the conduct of oral arguments unsafe and impractical
- There are other viable alternatives to oral arguments
The Supreme Court on August 11 announced that it would be holding oral arguments for the petitions on the third week of September at the earliest.
'No actual controversy'
"As discussed in the respondents' Consolidated Comments and Supplemental Comment, all petitions failed to comply with the requirements of judicial review-in particular, that there should be an actual and appropriate case or controversy," the government argued in its motion.
"A cursory perusal of all the petitions filed so far reveals that the 'worst-case scenarios' petitioners raise — of obscure allegations of future and contingent surveillance, detention and red tagging, or of the stifling of dissent — are all theoretical and contingent. Each of the subject petitions are anchored not on a justiciable controversy but on the strawman of hypothetical abuse."
Veteran litigator and martial law-era solicitor general Estelito Mendoza last week made a similar argument when he urged the SC to dismiss the petitions against the controversial law.
Mendoza sought the tribunal’s nod to appear as amicus curiae (friend of court) and admit his comment calling for the dismissal of the petitions.
He stressed that for the SC to exercise judicial power, there must be actual controversies which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondents.
He added that the SC “would be ill-advised” to act on the petitions that do not comply with these Constitutional requirements, just because of the sheer number of the petitions filed or because these raised public interest.
Proposed alternatives to oral arguments
Citing rising cases of COVID-19 and the continued placement of the country under community quarantine, the government argued against the conduct of in-court oral arguments which they said would require the presence of over 350 people from the Supreme Court, the petitioners, and lawyers from the OSG.
"This clearly falls under mass gatherings that are prohibited in areas under [general community quarantine]," the petition read.
"Evidently, oral arguments through video conference would still require people to gather in a confined space and, in turn, violate the prohibition against mass gatherings. For the OSG alone, this means that at least twenty-five (25) individuals...would have to gather in a limited space during the entire proceeding," the office added.
Given this, the government proposed the following alternatives to holding oral arguments: the submission of memoranda, clarificatory questions, and written opening statements.
OSG said memorandums would serve "to augment the parties' position on the issues," Justices could issue clarificatory questions by issuing a resolution and directing parties to respond within a given period, while written opening statements would cover the parties' responses to the Justice's inquiries. — Bella Perez-Rubio with reports from Kristine Joy Patag
- Latest
- Trending
