Solicitor General Jose C. Calida asked the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, April 27, to dismiss all the 37 petitions that challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020.
During the online oral arguments, Calida said the enactment of ATA is political in nature that cannot be delved into by the courts, there are supervening events that warrant the dismissal of the petitions, and petitioners do not have legal standing to challenge the law.
Calida told the SC that ATA “is not an instrument of oppression and neither is it a tool to suppress the vibrance of our democracy.”
He stressed that ATA “is the embodiment of the State’s policy to protect life, liberty, and property from terrorism – a commitment to peace in our day and the future of our children.”
“Our lawmakers enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act primarily for the peace and security in our country. The ATA protects the economic and financial security of Filipinos against the adverse effects of grey listing, or worse, blacklisting by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF),” he said.
He explained that ATA is in compliance to international obligations under the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) No. 1373 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism.
He pointed out that the FATF has imposed a deadline for the enactment of an anti-terrorism law and that the non-passage of the law would put the country in “high risk” and in non-cooperative jurisdiction of the Global Anti-Money Laundering Watchdog.
“Without such law the Philippines will be treated as a leper. FATF will see to it to either blacklist us or put on grey list,” he said.
If the country is included in the grey list, Calida said this would result to reduced investor and lender confidence as well as limited access to banking and financial service
“Clearly, grey listing would seriously affect the country’s international trade, remittances, and humanitarian financial flows that support the country’s economic growth and development,” Calida stressed.
On supervening events, Calida cited the pendency of the cases involving ATA in the trial courts in Olongapo City, Negros Occidental, Sorsogon, and Sulu.
Specifically, he said the Sulu case involved 13 individuals and several unidentified persons involved in the Aug. 24, 2020 Jolo bombings.
Also, he said, a supervening event was the decision of the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army as terrorist organizations.
“It is the duty of petitioners to demonstrate actual case and controversy worthy of judicial resolution,” he said.
“Despite the braggadocio of the petitioners, they did not do it. The persons now facing charges for violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act are now before this Honorable Court,” he noted.
“Instead, they are now litigating their cases before the Regional Trial Courts. Ergo, any resolution in this case would be purely academic and hypothetical – a clear waste of this Honorable Court’s time and resources,” he added.
On lack of legal standing, Calida said the petitioners did not suffer any direct or indirect injury with the implementation of ATA as he pointed out that those with more direct and specific interest were those charged before the lower courts with violations of the law.
Calida stressed that contrary to the claims of petitioners in the 37 cases, ATA maintains probable cause in warrantless arrest; ensures lawful data acquisition and handling; merely regulates conduct and speech; and does not contravene the right to speedy trial and disposition of cases.
The oral arguments will resume on Tuesday, May 4.
The SC has yet to hear the views of two friends of the courts in the persons of former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and retired Associate Justice Francis H. Hardeleza.
It also has to resolve the petitioners’ reiterative motions for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) that could stop the implementation of the law that stated on July `18, 2020, or exactly 15 days after it was enacted on July 3, 2020.