MANILA, Philippines — Two Aeta farmers who have been charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and who assert allegations against them are trumped up are seeking the Supreme Court’s nod to join the fight to strike down the contentious law as unconstitutional.
Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos, with the assistance of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, filed a petition-in-intervention on Tuesday, hours before the SC is to hold oral arguments on Republic Act 11479.
Related Stories
Gurung and Ramos asked the court to admit their petition, which calls for the nullification of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
READ: Cheat sheet on the looming legal battle on the anti-terrorism law
The two are facing the first known case of alleged violation of the anti-terrorism law. They are being held at the Olongapo City Jail over a charge of violation of Section 4 of the law, which defines terrorism.
Section 4 of the law is assailed in 37 petitions for allegedly being void for vagueness and for being overbroad.
Gurung and Ramos said in their pleading that they are “[seeking] to become litigants in these cases for the purpose of protecting their rights and interest, which will be affected by the outcome of these proceedings."
Solicitor General Jose Calida, who represents the government as respondents, has assailed the petitioners for having only raised “hypothetical scenarios of possible abuses.” He said petitioners' “slights are merely imagined.”
Petitioners however argue that a facial challenge may be mounted against the anti-terrorism law as it deters protected speech and other fundamental rights.
'They were just tending their farms'
Petitioner-intervenors Gurung and Ramos are farmers who till their small farms and forage for banana blossoms for a living, their pleading said.
READ: Lawyer to amplify long unheard Moro, IP voices at anti-terrorism law debate
In the morning of August 21, 2020, they heard gunfire from the mountains and decided to make their way down to the barrio to bring their families to safety.
They went to a house of Ramos’ cousin, where they saw soldiers inside. The military told the petitioners and their families to stay because they said they are still pursuing members of the New Peoples’ Army.
The two said that after they had lunch, which the Ramos family cooked and shared with soldiers, they were placed under arrest for being NPA members supposedly trying to flee the area.
Gurung and Ramos were detained for six days and said they were tortured and made to confess to being members of the NPA. They narrated that they were tied up, mauled, placed inside a sack and hung upside down, a plastic bag was also placed over their head, and they were ordered to eat their own feces.
“They were interrogated without counsel and were forced to admit that they are members of the NPA,” the petition read.
'Charges vs Gurung, Ramos show vagueness of the law'
Gurung and Ramos were then charged for “conspiring, confederating and cooperating with each other” and engaged in acts “intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or endangers a [person’s] life, by firing and shooting at members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.”
The charge sheet added that the two fatally wounded and caused the death of Sgt. Rudil Dilao, “thereby causing intimidation to the general public , spreading a message of fear and seriously undermining public safety, to damahe and prejudice the heirs of [Dilao].”
The NUPL however pointed out that the only ultimate fact in the Information or charge sheet was the “firing and shooting” at the military, while the supposed intent and purpose of the act are mere “conclusory statements.”
“If the allegations are hypothetically admitted, the act of ‘firing and shooting’ is too unequivocal to signify intent to cause serious bodily harm, death or endangerment of persons together with the purpose of intimidating the general public, spreading a message of fear and seriously undermining public safety,” they said.
They NUPL said that Dilao’s death may fall under murder or homicide, “but not intent to commit terrorism.”
“If the assailed law will be upheld, [Gurung and Ramos] will have to endure trial for a prohibited conduct of which they are not apprised, since they were neither committing any acts of terrorism nor were they part of a terrorist organization or association when they were arrested,” NUPL added.
“For these reasons, the issuance of an injunctive relief to Petitioner-Intervenors who stand to be the first casualties of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, will only prevent the threatened wrong, further injury and irreparable harm or injustice to them and scores of others until the rights of the parties in these cases are ultimately settled,” they added.
The SC will hold oral arguments on the anti-terrorism law petitions at 2:30 p.m.
FOLLOW: LIVE: Oral arguments on petitions vs the anti-terrorism law