The government is expected to press the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the 37 petitions against the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 when the oral arguments on the legal dispute resume on Tuesday afternoon, March 9.

Solicitor General Jose C. Calida – who represents the government – had earlier sought the dismissal of the petitions both on procedural and substantive grounds.

In his written comment filed last year, Calida – on the procedural ground – had told the SC that the petitioners in the cases have no legal standing to bring the cases before the SC which is not a trier of facts.

He said the petitioners failed to point out “personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result.”

On substantive arguments, Calida said ATA under Republic Act No. 11479 does not violate the constitutional provisions on equal protection of the laws, due process, right to privacy, freedom of speech and of expression, right to information, prohibition against incommunicado and other similar forms of detention, right to speedy trial, right to speedy disposition of cases, proscription against involuntary servitude, separation of powers, and indigenous people’s right to self-determination.

Calida said: “Now, more than ever, the response of the government against terrorism is critical. And respond, it did through RA 11479... which is actually the embodiment of the State’s policy ‘to protect the life, liberty, and property from terrorism... and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the Law of Nations.”

Only the petitioners in the 37 cases, represented by their chosen counsels, have finished the presentation of their arguments during the sessions held Feb. 2, 9 and 19, and March 2.

The petitioners’ counsels have also been interpellated by the SC justices on the issues they presented.

After presenting the government’s side, Calida is also expected to be interpellated by the justices.  It is not known how many sessions will the interpellations consume.

After the government’s side, the SC is expected to call its two appointed “friends of the court” to share their views that may help in the resolution of the legal dispute.

Appointed “friends of the court” (amici curiae) are former Chief Justice Justice Reynato S. Puno and former SC Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.

All the 37 petitions asked the SC to declare ATA, under Republic Act No. 11479, unconstitutional in its entirety.

Also, all the petitions sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) that could stop the law’s implementation which started on July 18, 2020.

 The SC is yet to tackle the pleas for TRO which were reiterated by several petitioners during the past oral arguments.