Confusion over ATA oral arguments

I watched the oral arguments on the Anti-Terror Act the other day in a major newscast, and I am a bit confused and quite alarmed at why the petitioners were so eager to junk the said law. I understand the petitioners’ fears; however, I believe the Supreme Court is not a political department and I agree with Justice Marvic Leonen’s point of view that the allegations have not “ripen(ed) into actual cases,” that’s why there’s no need to file a legal challenge.

As a political science graduate I agree that there is absence of clear and convincing demonstration that the Constitution has been violated, that is why it is too early to junk the law. Why not give it a chance first?

Likewise, why would the petitioners keep on emphasizing that the vague definition of terrorism in the ATA would chill the public into silence when the people are free to express their thoughts and concerns. Further, the public is still allowed to conduct peaceful assembly.  – Denver Alex Ambrocio, [email protected]