The Supreme Court (SC) has set for Jan. 19, 2021 the face-to-face oral arguments on 37 petitions which challenged the alleged unconstitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA).
Based on the advisory issued by SC Clerk of Court Edgar O. Aricheta, the legal debate will start at 2 p.m. at the full court session hall.
There are six “essential issues” laid down by the SC for the debate:
1. “Whether petitioners have legal standing to sue.
2. “Whether the issues raised in the petitions involve an actual and justiciable controversy.
3. “Whether petitioners’ direct resort to the Supreme Court is proper.
4. “Whether facial challenge is proper.
5. “Whether a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a status quo ante order should be issued.
6. “Whether Republic Act No. 11479 should already be declared unconstitutional in its entirety if the Court finds that the definition of terrorism as well as the powers of the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) are constitutionally infirm.
On Jan. 13, 2021, the SC directed the lawyers of the petitioners to submit a manifestation on who among them would present to the court the issue or groups of issues laid down for the legal debate.
Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, whose office represents the respondents in the 37 petitions, would be allowed to have three lawyers during the debate.
“Petitioners and respondents, through their respective counsels, shall each have a total of 30 minutes per side to present their arguments” on the issues identified by the SC.
On substantive issues, the oral arguments would delve on:
1.“Whether Section 4 defining and penalizing the crime of ‘terrorism’ is void for vagueness or overbroad in violation of the constitutional rights to due process, free speech, and expression, to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, and non-detention solely by reason of political beliefs.
2. “Whether Sections 5 to 14 defining and penalizing threats to commit terrorism, planning, training, preparing, and facilitating terrorism, conspiracy, proposal, inciting to terrorism, material support, and other related provisions, are:
a. “void for vagueness or overbroad in violation of the above-stated constitutional rights, as well as the freedom of religion, association, non-detention solely based on political beliefs, and academic freedom; and
b. “violative of the prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.
3. “Whether the uniform penalties for all punishable acts under Sections 4 to 14 violate the constitutional proscription against the imposition of cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
4. “Whether surveillance under Section 16 violates the constitutional rights to due process, against unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy of communication and correspondence, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, and accused's right to be presumed innocent.
5. “Whether judicial authorization to conduct surveillance under Section 17 violates the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and forecloses the remedies under the rules on Amparo and habeas data.
6. “Whether the following powers of the ATC are unconstitutional:
a. “power to designate terrorist individuals, groups and organizations under Section 25 for: (i) encroaching judicial power and the Supreme Court's rule-making power; (ii) inflicting punishment ex post facto based on the adoption of the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List of designated terrorists, and other requests for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions; and (iii) violating due process and constitutional rights due to the lack of clear parameters for designation, absence of notice and hearing prior to designation, and lack of remedies to contest wrongful designation
b. “power to approve requests for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions for violating the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol
c. “power to apply for the proscription of terrorist individuals, groups, and organizations under Section 26 for violating due process and constitutional rights
d. “power to authorize arrest and detention without judicial warrant based on mere suspicion under Section 29 for violating separation of powers (executive and judicial), and constitutional rights to due process, against unreasonable searches and seizures, to bail, to be presumed innocent, and speedy disposition of cases
e. “power to adopt security classifications for its records under Section 45 for violating the right to information
f. “power to establish and maintain comprehensive database information systems on terrorism, terrorist activities, and counterterrorism operations under Section 46 (e) for violating constitutional rights to due process and privacy of communication and correspondence
g. “power to grant monetary rewards and other incentives to informers under Section 46 (g) for lack of clear parameters
h. “power to require private entities and individuals to render assistance to the ATC under Section 46 (m) for violating the prohibition against involuntary servitude
7. “Whether Section 27 of RA 11479 on preliminary and permanent orders of proscription violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, and unconstitutionally punishes mere membership in an organization
8. “Whether the detention period under Section 29 of RA 11479 contravenes the Constitution, the Revised Penal Code, the Rules of Court, and international obligations against arbitrary detention
9. “Whether the restriction under Section 34 violates the constitutional rights to travel, against incommunicado detention, to bail and RA 9745 (Anti-Torture Act of 2009)
10. “Whether Sections 35 to 36, in relation to Section 25, on the Anti-Money Laundering Council's authority to investigate, inquire, and examine bank deposits, and freeze assets, violate separation of powers Qudicial), as well as the constitutional right to due process, and right against unreasonable searches and seizures
11. “Whether Section 49 on the extra-territorial application of RA 114 79 violates the freedom of association and the prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder
12. “Whether Section 54 on the ATC and Department of Justice's power to promulgate implementing rules and regulations constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power for failure to meet the completeness and sufficient standard tests
13. “Whether Section 56 repealing RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007), violates the constitutional mandate to compensate victims of torture or similar practices and right to due process
14. “Whether RA 11479 violates the Indigenous Peoples and Moros' rights to self-determination and self-governance under the Constitution
15. “Whether the House of Representatives gravely abused its discretion by passing House Bill No. 6875 (consolidated version of the house bills to amend the Human Security Act) in violation of the constitutionally-prescribed procedure.”
Thirty-six of the 37 petitions, which have been consolidated into one case, have been officially docketed as of Oct. 2 based on the list obtained from the SC’s judicial records office.
Still undocketed but has been official received by the SC was the petition filed by the Anak Mindanao party-list represented by Amihilda Sangcopan. It was coursed through the post office together with the petition filed by Haroun Alrashid Alonto Lucman and his group.
Based on the list, the officially docketed petitions against ATA as of last October 2 were those filed by:
Group of lawyer Howard Calleja and former education secretary Armin Luistro, under docket No. 252258; Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, 252579; the group of Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria and several professors of the Far Eastern University (FEU), 252580;
The Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives led by Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate, 252585; the former head of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel Rudolph Philip B. Jurado, 252613;
Two labor groups represented by the Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR) and the Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center (PLACE), 252623; the group of former members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission Christian S. Monsod and Felicitas A. Aquino and their group from the Ateneo Human Rights Center, 252624;
Party-List organization Sanlakas, 252646; several labor groups led by the Federation of Free Workers, 252702; Ferrer, 252726; the group of cause-oriented and advocacy organizations led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, 252733; the group of former SC Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, 252736;
The group of Ma. Ceres Doyo and former Constitutional Commission members Florangel Rosario Braid and Prof. Edmundo Garcia, 252741; National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, 252747; Kabataang Tagapagtanggol ng Karapatan, 252755; and the group of Algamar Latiph, 252759.
Bishop Broderick Pabillo, 252767; Gabriela, 252768; Lawrence Yerbo, Undocketed, 16663; Henry Abendan, 252802; Concerned Online Citizens, 253809; Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties, 252903; Beverly Longid, 252904; Center for International Law, 252905.
Main T. Mohammad, 252916; Sangguniang Kabataan Chairperson Semuel Gio Fernandez Cayabyab, 252921; Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines, 252984; UP System Faculty Regent Dr. Ramon Guillermo, 253018; Philippine Bar Association, 253100; Balay Rehabilitation Center Inc., 253118; Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 253124.
Coordinating Council for People Development and Governance Inc., 253242; Philippine Misereor Partnership Inc., 253252; Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan para sa Kalayaan, 253254; and Haroun Alrashid Alonte Lucman Jr., 253420.