MANILA, Philippines (Updated 3:27 p.m.) — The Anti-Terrorism Council approved on Wednesday the implementing rules of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said.
In a message to reporters, Guevarra said the council approved Republic Act 11479’s Implementing Rules and Regulations, crafted by a technical group led by the Department of Justice.
Related Stories
“We will disseminate copies to the Congress and to law enforcement agencies as required under the law, and will publish the IRR online and in a newspaper of general circulation in the next few days,” Guevarra added.
Online publication will be done within the week, while the IRR will be printed on broadsheets this weekend, the DOJ chief also said.
Guevarra said the IRR is deemed effective upon publication and registration with the Office of the National Administrative Order Register at the University of the Philippines Diliman.
37 legal challenges vs anti-terrorism law
The Anti-Terrorism Law, which is facing 37 legal challenges at the Supreme Court, had already taken effect in July.
President Rodrigo Duterte signed Republic Act 11479 or the ATA on July 3, amid mounting criticism against the law deemed by law experts as infringing on the peoples’ freedom.
Malacañang insisted that the law took effect on July 19 or 15 days from when a copy of the law was uploaded on the Official Gazette website—although some petitioners contest this and said the law became effective on July 22.
Petitions against the law came from constitution framers, legal luminaries such as former SC acting chief justice Antonio Carpio, law academe, lawmakers, religious leaders, community leaders from Mindanao and dozens of civil society groups.
READ: Cheat sheet on the looming legal battle on the anti-terrorism law
They assailed the law for being vague and overbroad, and infringing on the people’s rights enshrined in the Constitution. The petitioners told the SC that the vague definition of “terrorism” under the law gives law enforcers unbridled discretion to interpret its provisions.
Past actions of State forces, who have a history of red-tagging and abuses, do not inspire confidence of the law’s fair implementation too, the petitioners added.
Asked if the IRR contains a provision on social media regulation—a recommendation earlier floated by military chief, Gen. Gilbert Gapay—Guevarra said: “No specific provision pertaining to social media regulation.”
A petition filed by youth leaders, filed through the National Union of Peoples' Lawyers-National Capital Region, earlier said that the IRR cannot be used to remedy the "defects" of the anti-terrorism law.
“Trying to ‘correct’ the glaring and inherent defect in the assailed law through its implementing rules must be avoided because of the dangers accompanying such a proposition, not the least of which is the unwarranted discretion being given to the law-enforcer when he is asked to set the rules for the implementation of a vague law,” they said.
The SC had previously said the petitions are set for oral arguments, but a date has yet to be set as of Wednesday.