Amid the many problems the nation is now confronting in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic -- the continuing infections and deaths, the looming economic repercussions, and the impact on the personal lives of countless Filipinos – we must carry on with various other concerns and issues affecting the nation.
The Supreme Court case on the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) is one such issue that is of such importance that no less than 29 petitions have been filed against it in the Supreme Court as of last Wednesday.
The new law, Republic Act 114679, was signed by President Duterte on July 18. It replaced the Human Security Act of 2007 which targets cases of conspiracy to commit terrorism.
One of the petitions against the new law charges that the new law broadens the definition of “terrorism” to include such actions as “creating an atmosphere and spreading a message of fear” and “provoking or influencing by intimidation the government or any of its international organizations.” Under the new law, a terrorism suspect may be detained for 14 days without a charge, a period that can be extended to 24 days.
The National Union of Lawyers said the new law is overly broad. “It chills freedom of expression. It chills free speech. It chills freedom of the press. It chills freedom of association,” said human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares.
In the public exchange of arguments, national security adviser Hermogenes Esperon said the government needs strong laws to fight terrorists such as the militants identified with Islamic State and the decades-old Communist insurgency.
Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza said two of the 29 petitions --- one filed by former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio and former Associate Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales and the other filed by faculty members of the University of the Philippines College of Law -- are a “a microcosm of the numerous petitions assailing the constitutionality of the law and its various provisions.”
The two petitions claim that several provisions of the new law “violate the Constitutional guarantees of due process and the right to association… due process, free speech, and grants law enforcers unbridled discretion to define criminal conduct.”
The case on these rights will thus be revolving around Section 4 of Article III, Bill of Rights, of the Constitution which provides: ”No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
All claims of an overbroad definition of terrorism, excessive powers granted to the government, the need to stop the growing terrorist threat here and around the world are important to winning public support for the new law. But in the case before the Supreme Court, these concerns are peripheral to the core issue of constitutionality, over which the High Court is the ultimate arbiter.