MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has appointed retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno as a “friend of court” that will help the tribunal resolve issues involving the 37 petitions against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
The SC in an en banc session Tuesday appointed Puno as an amicus curiae or “friend of court.” The copy of the resolution was made public only on Thursday.
Related Stories
Under the Rules of Court, the court may invite “experienced and impartial attorneys” to appear as amici curiae to help in disposition of issues submitted to it.
Puno is the second amicus curiae that the SC appointed to the case. The court had earlier designated retired SC Justice Francis Jardeleza as an amicus curiae.
Jardeleza, also a former solicitor general, will present his stance after the interpellation of the petitioners, which may be on February 16, the third day of the oral arguments.
SC spokesperson Brian Hosaka said they are yet to confirm whether Puno will deliver his statement following Jardeleza.
The Puno court
Puno served as the high court for 13 years from 1993. He served as chief justice from December 2007 to May 2010.
Under the Puno court, the SC promulgated the rules on the writ of amparo or known as the “protection” writ. This was crafted to address the issue of extrajudicial killings and forced abductions.
Puno had said then: “The writ of amparo will deny authorities the defense of simple denial when they are sued to produce, before the courts, the bodies of victims of involuntary disappearances.”
RELATED: Supreme Court finishes draft rules on writ of amparo | SC to review 2007 Rules on Writ of Amparo
The writ of amparo was seen as having a broader scope that the writ of habeas corpus, which relatives of missing persons usually file before courts to compel that that the government produce their persons.
During the second day of the oral arguments, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen had asked the petitioners whether a petition for habeas corpus may be filed for a person detained under a provision of the anti-terrorism law.
Section 29 of the assailed law allows detention of suspected terrorist without judicial charges of up to 24 days.
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers chair Neri Colmenares, one of the petitioners’ oralists, said that while this right is not taken away from the accused, courts may dismiss the plea due to the wording of the law.
SC notes Carpios’ manifestation on threat to journalist
The SC in the same en banc session also “noted” former SC Justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales’ manifestation citing the posts of Lt. Gen. Antonio Parlade Jr.’s directed at Inquirer.net reporter Tetch Torres-Tupas.
The Carpios had asked the SC to compel Solicitor General Jose Calida to explain Parlade’s comment on a social media user asking whether the journalist may be sued. The military general replied: “Aiding the terrorists by spreading lies? PUEDE (It is possible).”’
The Carpios had re-pleaded their earlier prayer seeking an explanation from Calida on Parlade’s threat to petitioners. In their latest manifestation, they said the posts “engender fear that chills journalists, and even citizens, from exercising their rights to freedoms and expression and of the press.”
Parlade was angered by Torres-Tupas stories on the Aeta farmers’ filing of Petition-in-Intervention to join the anti-terrorism law pleas. He accused the reporter of being a propagandist for communist rebels.
The SC on February 9 denied the petition “considering that a criminal case for violation of Section 4(a) of RA 11479 was already filed against the intervenors before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City.”
The oral arguments will resume on February 16. Recaps on the first two days of the oral arguments meanwhile may be read here and here.