The Supreme Court has been asked to reverse its December 7, 2021 decision that declared the Anti-Terrorism Act constitutional except for parts in two of its sections.
In a joint 71-page motion for reconsideration, 25 of the 37 petitioners appealed to the SC magistrates to reconsider its ruling, particularly pertinent provisions that they considered unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, and failing to meet the strict scrutiny test.
The high court declared unconstitutional in ATA, which was enacted on July 3, 2020 and enforced starting July 18, 2020, the following sections:
“The qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of RA 11479, i.e., ‘… which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety’ by a vote of 12-3 is declared as unconstitutional for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.”
“The second method for designation in Section 25 paragraph 2 of RA 11479, i.e., ‘Request for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR (United Nations Security Council Resolution) No. 1373’ is declared unconstitutional by a vote of 9-6.”
The tribunal held that “on the basis of the current petitions, all the other challenged provisions of RA 11479 are not unconstitutional.”
The petitioners appealed to the SC to reconsider its decision on the third paragraph of law’s Section 10 as they alleged that it is unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, and for failing to meet the strict scrutiny test.
Another issue brought up by petitioners was Section 29 of the law on the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council.
The petitioners argued that the written authorization issued by ATC partakes of a warrant of arrest which the council has no authority to issue since only judges can issue warrants of arrest.
“An executive warrant of arrest is void ab initio [void from the beginning], a usurpation which has no constitutional pedigree,” they said.
On detention of suspects, the petitioners told the SC that the prolonged detention of 14 days, extendible for another 10 days, is odious and oppressive.
A prolonged detention of an accused is fraught with dangers to security because the person might be tortured or coerced to confession, or it could lead to the manufacture of “evidence,” they said.
The petitioners also stressed that prolonged detention would deprive a suspect of his right to speedy disposition of his case, and forfeit his right to bail and other legal remedies.
Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, who wrote the majority opinion that was the basis of the decision, has retired.
Under the rules, the joint motion for reconsideration has to be re-raffled among members who comprised the majority when the ruling was handed down last December.