No more hindrance to Terror Law – DOJ

In an interview, Justice Undersecretary Adrian Sugay said that the SC would no longer accept any petition or motion as far as the Anti-Terror Law is concerned, after the high tribunal decided with finality on the constitutionality of the controversial law.
The STAR / Michael Varcas, file

MANILA, Philippines — The Department of Justice expressed confidence that there will be no more hindrance to the implementation of the controversial Anti-Terror Law, as it can now be fully implemented by the government after the Supreme Court (SC) recently affirmed its constitutionality.

In an interview, Justice Undersecretary Adrian Sugay said that the SC would no longer accept any petition or motion as far as the Anti-Terror Law is concerned, after the high tribunal decided with finality on the constitutionality of the controversial law.

“Because of this, the implementation of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 will push through. Our law enforcement
 agencies will not be hindered in its implementation in order to stop terrorism in our country,” Sugay said in Filipino.

Sugay said the public can still question certain provisions of the Anti-Terror Law even if the SC has already affirmed its constitutionality, as he emphasized that there are enough safeguards mentioned in the law to allay fears over its implementation.

“There are enough safeguards. So, if something is seen as not right in the law’s implementation, that can be questioned – before the prosecutor, during preliminary investigation and in court if a case has been filed,” he said. 
“And if, for example, people say that its implementation on them is incorrect, the law says that certain cases may be filed against those in the law enforcement agencies who will implement this law incorrectly,” he added.

The SC ruled in 2021 and struck down only two portions of the Anti-Terror Law, particularly on the definition of the word “terrorism” and a portion on the responsibility of the Anti-Terror Council.

At least 37 petitions were filed against the Anti-Terror Law, questioning its constitutionality.

Show comments