The National Union of People’s Lawyers on Tuesday objected to the plea of the Office of the Solicitor General to the Supreme Court to cancel the oral arguments on the 29 petitions seeking to declare as unconstitutional Republic Act 11479, or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, saying it would set a "bad precedent."
NUPL President Edre Olalia said Solicitor General Jose Calida’s motion was premature because its details were indefinite.
"We humbly submit that the motion is premature and the remedy being sought would set a bad precedent,” Olalia said.
“It is premature because while there has been an announcement that oral arguments would be held, the date/dates and the modalities or parameters have not yet been determined and are as yet uncertain."
Olalia made his statement even as the lawmakers, media practitioners and lawyers who filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act urged the high court to issue a temporary restraining order to stop its implementation.
The petitioners cited the statements of Armed Forces Chief Gilbert Gapay asking social media to be included in the measure, which they said was clearly a form of prior restraint and another way for the State to curb free speech and dissent.
"The casual conflation of "radicalization" with "terrorism" by a ranking officer of the law does not portend a measured, tolerant and even-handed implementation of a dangerously vague law," the petitioners said through their lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group.
Among those who signed the plea were Senators Leila de Lima and Francis Pangilinan, former senators Sergio Osmeña III and Wigberto Tañada Sr., former congressman Lorenzo "Erin" Tañada III, former Akbayan party-list Rep. Loreta Ann Rosales, lawyers Jose Manuel Diokno, Edmundo Garcia and Lutgardo Barbo, and media practitioners Maria Ceres Doyo, Josefa Maglipon, Rappler CEO Maria Ressa, Rachel Khan, Maria Rosario "Chay" Hofeliña, Lilibeth Socorro Frondoso, Maria Teresa Vitug, Mario Nery Jr., Beatrice Fuente and Florangel Rosario-Braid.
Olalia said asking for the cancellation of the proceedings that were still indefinite would be like jumping the gun and may even affect the judicial discretion and prerogative of the high court.
To cancel the oral arguments would set a bad precedent and would not be in the public interest, especially considering the controversies generated by the law and the number of petitions.
"To dispense with the oral arguments would deprive the Court of the immense value and benefits of an interactive, spontaneous and public process whether by the Socratic method or by any other dynamic exercises," Olalia said.
As to Calida's argument that there were other viable alternatives to hear the petitions instead of holding oral arguments through memoranda, clarificatory questions and written opening statements, Olalia said they were "supplementary or complementary" to the oral arguments.
According to Olalia, though Calida's concerns over the health threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to such gatherings were valid, those ring hollow "when the public is taunted by contemptible double standards in favor of those who are in the good graces of the government.”