MANILA, Philippines — Progressive groups led by BAYAN and a group of Sangguniang Kabataan leaders urged the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments on the petitions filed against Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 to allow the public to participate in discourse on the contentious law.
In a Joint Opposition filed Monday, through the National Union of Peoples Lawyers, the two groups of petitioners asked the SC to junk the Office of the Solicitor General’s motion to cancel the oral arguments on the petitions.
Related Stories
READ: SC to hold oral arguments for petitions vs anti-terrorism law | Solgen to SC: Oral arguments on anti-terror law unnecessary, unsafe due to pandemic
On official SC list, BAYAN filed the 11th while the SK officials and youth community leaders filed the 27th legal challenge against Republic Act 11479. Two more petitions filed via registered mail have yet to be received and docketed by the SC.
Solicitor General Jose Calida in August urged the SC to cancel the oral arguments, citing its risk and impracticality in this time of COVID-19 pandemic. Calida instead said the SC may order the submission of memoranda, clarificatory questions and written opening statements to the parties.
Matters of public concern
The groups told the court that the number of petitions filed against the law “only indicates the transcendental importance of these cases.” They added that arguments raised in the petitions center on issues that are matters of public concern.
“Cancelling the oral arguments will be a disservice to the overwhelming public interest in these cases,” the petitioners stressed.
“The public have the right to examine and discuss how respondents assisted by the OSG will defend the odious law,” they added.
The petitioners mounted a “facial challenge” against RA 11479. They argued that Section 4 of the law, which defines terrorism, fails to inform an ordinary citizen that his or her act may be deemed a criminal offense under the law. “The term is so vague and overbroad, it encroaches even upon constitutionally protected freedoms,” they added.
Opting for the alternatives proposed by the OSG, such as submission of memoranda, would deny the public the opportunity to take part in the “democratic discourse” on the case, the petitioners also said.
READ: Cheat sheet on the looming legal battle on the anti-terrorism law
They also pointed out that the SC has adjusted to the situation brought about by COVID-19, based on the various memoranda it put out while the country remains in continued quarantine.
They noted that even when Metro Manila was placed in the strictest quarantine protocols, the courts continued to function and shifted to conducting videoconferencing.
“Respondents, therefore, cannot now undermine the ability of the Honorable Court to conduct oral arguments in a way that balances the overriding public interest in these cases and the safety of the parties, their counsels, and the Court’s members and staff,” they added.
“If courts in remote areas have been successful in conducting hearings online, there is no reason why the same cannot be done in Manila,” they said.
“Interestingly, for the proponents of a law that has been so ‘unfairly stigmatized,’ Respondents are averse to throwing light on the same through the oral arguments. It seems that by refusing to be subjected under public scrutiny, Respondents intend to obscure the law, which operates in the shadows,” the petitioners added.
The SC, in an en banc session on August 11, set the petitions for oral arguments, but a date has yet to be determined. The tribunal has also yet to announce whether the oral arguments will be held in-court or via videoconferencing.