8 lawyers, Calida to debate on anti-terrorism law at January 19 oral arguments
MANILA, Philippines — Out of the 37 groups of petitioners challenging the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, the Supreme Court has allowed only eight lawyers to present their arguments on specific issues they are raising against the controversial law for its oral arguments.
The SC on Friday issued a revised advisory on the conduct of oral arguments, set on January 19, on the consolidated petitions against the anti-terrorism law.
The court moved to limit lawyers representing the dozens of petitioners to just eight. This was agreed upon by all parties during the preliminary conference held on Nov. 26, 2020.
The SC also said that only one counsel per petition, if not among the eight presenting lawyers, will be allowed to physically attend the oral arguments. Solicitor General Jose Calida meanwhile can bring up to three lawyers with him.
All of the attendees are required to present a negative COVID RT-PCR swab test result from within 72 hours before the oral arguments.
Counsels from the petitioner and the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the government as respondents, are told to coordinate and submit to the court a manifestation by Jan. 13, on the name of presenting lawyer/s on each issue or group of issues and the time allotted for each lawyer. The time to present should not exceed 45 minutes.
After each side has presented their arguments, interpellations from the members of the SC will immediately follow.
Issues to be discussed
The SC has earlier determined six preliminary issues to be discussed on the oral arguments. These include whether a temporary restraining order or a status quo ante order should be issued, and should Republic Act 11479 be declared as unconstitutional in its entirety of the SC finds that the definition of terrorism—under Section 4—and the powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council are constitutionally infirm.
A majority of the petitioners had pressed the SC to issue a Temporary Restraining Order or Status Quo Ante Order to restrain the government from implementing the law months before the oral arguments.
RELATED: FLAG urges SC: Shield people from 'terror' of anti-terror law, issue TRO | Carpio, Carpio-Morales prod SC: Filipinos 'chilled to silence' by fear of anti-terrorism law
The tribunal also listed at least 15 substantative issues to be discussed, which include whether Section 4 is void for vagueness or for being overbroad in violation of several rights of the people
The court will also look into whether the powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council such as its power to designate terrorist individuals or groups are unconstitutional.
READ: 'Mother of red-tagging': No process yet to remove names from terror list | Anti-Terrorism Council irons out delisting process as state allegations vs activists pile up
It will also determine whether the pre-trial detention period of up to 24 days under Section 29 of the law violates the Constitution, Revised Penal Code, Rules of Court and international obligations against arbitrary detention.
The court will also deliberate whether the anti-terrorism law violates the indigenous peoples' and Moros’ rights to self-determination and self-governance under the Constitution.
The SC however stressed that matters not covered by the oral arguments are not considered as eliminated but shall be argued upon in the written memoranda that will be required from parties.
At least two people — Aetas from Zambales — have been charged with a supposed violation of the anti-terrorism law, an accusation that their lawyers denied.
- Latest
- Trending
