MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General’s motions for extension to answer the push for a temporary stop on the implementation of the anti-terrorism law have kept the Supreme Court from deliberating on the petitioners’ pleas citing urgency, documents showed.
Petitioners against the Anti-Terrorism Act have pressed the Supreme Court time and again to issue a temporary restraining order against the law’s enforcement even before the much-anticipated oral arguments. They have not stopped asking for this, even during the debates.
Related Stories
RELATED: Petitioners to SC: 'Profiling' of state workers' groups shows 'terror' in anti-terrorism law
Before the oral arguments were officially suspended on February 16, Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay) again appealed to the court that petitioners and their counsels are “seriously threatened with prosecution.”
A week later, more than 20 petitioners filed a fresh plea for TRO, listing several “supervening events” such as continued red-tagging and arrests of petitioners, scrapping of the Department of National Defense and University of the Philippines accord, and continued prosecution and detention of two Aeta farmers under the law.
But the SC, in a notice on March 2, said they will wait for the OSG’s comment before it resolves the petitioners’ motion.
The SC continues to wait, as Solicitor General Jose Calida sought an extension to file its comment from first for another ten days and move the deadline from March 14 to March 24.
“To date, however, the draft Comment/Opposition remains under preparation as the OSG is still coordinating with the respondents to get a full grasp of the facts with respect to the allegations asserted by the petitioners, so as to come up with a comprehensive Comment/Opposition,” Calida said in a motion dated March 15.
Calida then sought another extension, this time for a month. In a motion filed on March 23, the solicitor general said they are “coordinating with the respondents, some of which also need more time to address fully the OSG’s inquiries as well as the allegations of petitioners.”
Calida has asked the SC to be given until April 23 to file its comment.
“The OSG assures that the instant motion is not intended to delay but is prompted by the afore-mentioned circumstances and by a sincere desire to submit a responsive and comprehensive Comment/Opposition that will aid this Honorable Court in resolving the present matter,” he added.
RELATED: Cheat sheet: Petitioners argue for the nullification of anti-terrorism law
In the time between the petitioners' filing on February 23 to end of March, counsel to petitioners Angelo Karlo Guillen was attacked and petitioners have also raised alleged intelligence-gathering and profiling of lawyers for "communist terrorist groups" and members of Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE) and the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT).
OSG: Parlade’s ‘threatening’ post made in personal capacity
Even with explaining Lt. Gen. Antonio Parlade’s Facebook post deemed by petitioners as a “clear threat” against them, Calida had to ask the SC for at least two extensions citing the need to “confirm… circumstances surrounding the subject Facebook post” and to “carefully verify these.”
Petitioners led by retired SC Justice Antonio Carpio in late January asked the SC to compel Parlade to explain his post which ended with: “Very soon, blood debts will be settled. The long arm of the law will catch up on you, and your supporters.”
On March 19, Calida filed the Comment, stating that Parlade made the posts in his personal capacity and statements are not officially from Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict where the military general holds ranking positions.
Calida also noted that the Facebook post “shows no indication—not even the logo of said agencies—that the same was posted on behalf of the government. The AFP and the NTF-ELCAC, clearly, have no personal knowledge on the circumstances and intent behind its alleged posting.”
“There can be no violation of the Bill of Rights when committed by a private individual. To stress, the subject Facebook post was posted by Parlade in his personal capacity,” the solicitor general also said.
The SC will resume the oral arguments on April 6.