"What is taking the Supreme Court too long to decide?"
"What is taking the Supreme Court too long to decide?"
Thirty-seven. That's the total number of petitions against Republic Act 11479, or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, already filed by various groups before the Supreme Court even before its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) had been drawn up.
Now, with the new law's guidelines already finalized by the Department of Justice and awaiting implementation after publication, expect the number of petitions against the new law to rise to 38.
Amid all this, the question needs to be asked: Why is it taking the Supreme Court taking too long to make a ruling on all these petitions?
According to Domingo Cayosa, president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the country's largest group of lawyers, the IRR of the anti-terrorism law will not cure its supposed unconstitutional provisions since the guidelines "cannot rise above the provisions of the law that it seeks to clarify."
Cayosa said "the effort of the DOJ to address the questions, fears and objections of many over the antiterrorism law through the publication of its IRR is welcome and appreciated…but as DOJ officials themselves correctly admit, they cannot go beyond what the law provides. The IRR may therefore be hounded by the same questions surrounding the law itself."
Cayosa believes the “infirmities” of the law and the mounting opposition it generated have already made it “one of the most questioned laws in recent history.”
“The antiterrorism law covers not only terrorism, which we all denounce, but also impinges on constitutionally guaranteed rights and settled principles of law and governance…The law affects all of us and even the next generation of Filipinos beyond the term of the current Congress and administration. It is best that the contentious and controversial issues regarding the law be resolved in a timely manner,” he explained.
We agree completely.
For his part, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate has already urged the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order against the IRR of the anti-terror law because it is “full of provisions that will trample on people’s rights…The overbroad and vague definition of terrorism still remains in the IRR as well as the draconian provisions like warrantless arrests, asset freezing, outright and publicized designation of being a terrorist, being incommunicado, 24 days of incarceration without charges among other Marcosian provisions still remain.”
The new law expands the definition of terrorism to cover acts committed by persons within or outside the country seeking to "intimidate the general public, create an atmosphere to spread a message of fear, provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures in the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety."
Vice President Leni Robredo is correct in pointing out that provisions in the law focusing on expanding the definition of a terrorist and on lessening the checks and balances against wrongful arrest can “cause a lot of fear.” She said the implementation of the law, "especially in the hands of people who have no qualms about using disinformation, inventing evidence, or finding the smallest of pretexts to silence its critics—this power is very dangerous.”
Sen. Kiko Pangilinan also believes that the law's definition of terrorism is "vague," making it open to abuses as common crimes can be framed by erring law enforcers.
For Sen. Risa Hontiveros, certain provisions of the law, "specifically those allowing the preliminary proscription of suspected terrorist organizations prior to their being given an opportunity to be heard as well as those lowering the standard for warrantless arrest and detention, go too far and might lead to a number of pernicious consequences."
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said the law would “tighten the noose on suspected terrorists at the expense of the protection of human rights and civil liberties like critical dissent and expression of grievances.”
The Commission on Human Rights was even more blunt, warning that the prolonged detention of suspects without a judicial warrant, “may result in cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or torture.”
Amnesty International Philippines said the law "disproportionately restricts human rights in the name of security”, while the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights described the law as “extremely concerning,” as it could be weaponized by the administration.
The International Coalition of Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) also warned of an “all-out escalation of rights abuses” with the law now up for enforcement.
Given all these warnings about the danger posed by the antiterror law on constitutional rights, shouldn't the Supreme Court now act posthaste to render a clear ruling on the matter?