Former Vice President Jejomar C. Binay, former Sen. Rene A.V. Saguisag, and other convenors and members of the Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties (CLCL) filed with the Supreme Court (SC) Thursday the 25th petition against the alleged unconstitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) which the government started implementing last July 18.
They asked the SC to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the implementation of the law and, thereafter, to declare ATA, under Republic Act No. 11479, null and void.
The SC and all other courts in areas under the modified enhanced community quarantine (MECQ) are physically closed until Aug. 18.
It was learned that deliberations on pending cases at the SC have been moved after Aug. 18.
As directed by the SC, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has filed its comment on the petitions filed immediately after the President signed the new law last July 3. The OSG sought the dismissal of these petitions.
Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta had earlier said the OSG and other respondents in the petitions against ATA will be given the opportunity to comment on every petition and on the plea for TRO contained in all the petitions.
This means that the SC has to wait for the respondents’ comments on all the petitions before it could tackle the pleas for TRO and the request for oral arguments pleaded in some petitions.
Aside from Binay and Saguisag, the other petitioners in the new case are former University of the Philippines Law dean Pacifico Agabin, Atty. Edre Olalia of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, Dean Anna Maria Abad of the Adamson College of Law, Atty. Anacleto Rei Lacanilao III, Dean J.V. Bautista of John Wesley School of Law and Governance of Wesleyan University-Philippines, Atty. Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio of the University of Cebu School of Law, and Atty. Emmanuel Jabla.
Named respondents were President Duterte, Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, the Senate represented by Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and the House of Representatives represented by House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano.
A copy of the new petition was not immediately available.
A press statement issued after the filing of the petition stated that the petitioners “cited three main grounds to declare the law unconstitutional -- void for vagueness that leads to a ‘chilling effect,’ infringement of right to due process, and violation of equal protection clause of the Constitution.”
The petitioners said:
“According to the Supreme Court, a statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand, decrees that ‘a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.’
“The definition of a ‘designated person’ (Section 3), definition of the term ‘terrorism’ (Section 4) and other penalized acts (Sections 5-12) of the ATA are vague and overbroad, and must be struck down as unconstitutional.
“The law is vague and constitutes a violation of due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what to avoid. Such vagueness also leads to a ‘chilling effect,’ and the Supreme Court has ruled that an overbroad statute is unconstitutional because of its ‘chilling effect’ on the freedom of expression.
“ATA is unconstitutional on its face as its provisions infringe upon the right to due process.
“The authority granted by the law to the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to authorize the arrest of suspected terrorists violates the guaranty of due process under the Constitution. Section 29 of the ATA uses the phrase “taken custody of a person," which according to both the Rules of Court and jurisprudence is a form of arrest that requires a judicial warrant except in cases of warrantless arrests. The due process clause requires the existence of a probable cause before a warrant of arrest is issued.
“The ATA grants the ATC the power to issue the authority to take into custody a person based only on mere suspicion, which would put in constant danger the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. It would violate not just the rights to life and liberty, but is also inimical to free speech.
“Moreover, such provision also removes from the judiciary its constitutionally-protected prerogative over the power to arrest – only courts have the power to issue warrants of arrest; therefore, it should not devolve upon officials of the executive, such as the ATC, who is composed of alter-egos of the President.
“Such also provides for the detention period of 14 days, extendible to 24 days, of suspected terrorists without criminal charges, which violates the right to due process and runs contrary to the three-day limit on custodial investigations under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution.
“ATA is unconstitutional as it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
“The law’s provisions would deny due process to suspected terrorists. The ATA further does not show any indication of the existence of any public emergency that would require the need for a special treatment of suspected terrorists. The ATA unnecessarily carves out the crime of terrorism as outside the realm of the criminal justice system, which is violative of the equal protection clause.”