The dean and professors of the Far Eastern University (FEU) Law welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling that two portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court declared a portion of Section 4 and a portion of Section 25 as unconstitutional. Section 4 deals with excluding mass actions and similar exercise of civil and political rights from the definition of terrorism, while Section 25 is about requests by foreign agencies or bodies to designate persons as terrorists and terrorist organizations.
In a statement, Dean Mel Sta. Maria, Atty. Eirene Jhone Aguila, Atty. Gideon Pena, Atty. Michael Tiu Jr., Atty. Francis Euston Acero, and Atty. Eugene Kaw, hailed the striking down of the two provisions as a "victory for human rights and civil liberties."
"This guarantees the protection of people's continued exercise of free speech, expression, and assembly, including academic freedom, especially in voicing dissent against government shortcomings and excesses," they said in a statement.
"While we hoped for the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Anti-Terror Act in its entirely, we respect the Supreme Court's decision to exercise judicial restraint when it said 'on the basis of the current petitions, all the other challenged provisions of RA 11479 are not unconstitutional'. This certainly leaves the door open for a challenge of constitutionality on 'as applied cases'," they added.
However, they maintained that Section 29 of the ACT "should likewise be struck down as being unconstitutional," as it legitimizes warrantless arrest on the basis of mere suspicion and for encroaching on exclusively judicial power and prerogative.
"The threat of arrest without a judicial warrant and prolonged detention would be more than chilling enough to stifle, suppress, if not totally snuff out, any fire, flame, or even flicker, of indignation or protest against government corruption, oppression, and abuse."
The deans and professors said they will study the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration to continue to fight for the striking down of Section 29.