Fearful that their members could be tagged as “terrorists” in their evangelical and missionary work, particularly with the poor, leaders of a church organization petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday, August 26, to declare as unconstitutional the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020.

The petition filed by the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines (AMRSP) and several lawyers claimed that many provisions in ATA violate the Constitution and their freedom of religious expression.

This is the 28th petition officially docketed with the SC as of Wednesday.  But two more petitions were filed through the post office a month ago in Mindanao and have not been officially received by the SC.

Thus, there are at least 30 cases so far filed against ATA under Republic Act No. 11479 that was signed into law by President Duterte last July 3 and implemented starting last July 18.

The SC has not issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) as pleaded in various petitions to stop the implementation of the law.

It has set oral arguments on the petitions “on the third week of September at the earliest, and proper notices will be issued once the date is finalized.”

But Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, representing the respondents in the petitions, pleaded the SC to cancel the oral arguments due to health risks posed by COVID-19.

Calida’s plea was opposed by several petitioners in the cases as they insisted that the SC should issue a TRO immediately.

AMRSP in its petition is represented by its co-chairpersons Fr. Cielito Almazan, OFM and Sister Marilyn Java, RC, and its co-executive secretaries Fr. Angelito Cortez, OFM and Sister Crisvie Montecillo, DSA. The other petitioners are lawyers Rafael Vicente Calinisan, Noel del Prado and Adrian Vivas.

Named respondents were Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and other Cabinet secretaries, and heads of offices in the Executive Department, and chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

The new petitioners asked the SC to declare as unconstitutional Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 25, and 29 of the law.  The same provisions in the law have been assailed as null and void in several previous petitions.

They said that being an organization that is part of the Catholic church, their group supports strongly the dignity of a human person.

“The Christian conviction is founded on the long-held tradition of the Catholic social teaching of the Church which goes all the way to the teaching of Jesus: respect for the dignity of the human person as the image of God; the right to equal participation and subsidiary in the running of society; the respect for due process and individual right in front of the law; the search for the common good; and solidarity with the socially excluded and preferential option for the poor,” they stated in their petition.

They pointed out that since their members give preference to the poor and the marginalized, they could be suspected as “terrorists” under the new law by overzealous law enforcement agents or military operatives.

“As the Church does not distinguish who it helps out, for as long as they are part of the marginalized sectors of society, helping the poor may be construed to mean giving assistance to ‘terrorists,’” they added.