Supreme Court upholds decision leaving Anti-Terror Act mostly intact
BAGUIO CITY, Philippines (Updated 3:37 p.m.) — The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals filed by petitioners to reverse its ruling on their pleas against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which they warned would have long-lasting effects on civil liberties in the Philippines.
The SC, in its final en banc summer session, denied with finality the motions for reconsideration on its Dec. 7, 2021 ruling that left most of the feared ant-terrorism law as intact.
The SC PIO said the Court dismissed the appeals due to "lack of substantial issues and arguments raised by the petitioners.”
“An entry of judgment was immediately ordered by the Court,” it added.
In December 2021, the SC voted 12-3 to declare as null the “killer caveat” of Section 4 that defines terrorism, particularly the proviso qualifying "advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights" that cannot be considered terrorism.
The court also voted 9-6 that allowing the Anti-Terrorism Council to adopt requests for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions is unconstitutional, the second method of designation under the law.
Petitioners however felt that the ruling was merely a consolation as the feared law was left mostly intact, including the broad powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council and the prolonged detention of suspected terrorists of up to 24 days
Now-retired Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang wrote the December ruling, while Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda penned the resolution that junked the appeals.
Appeals
SC spokesperson Brian Hosaka said a total of six appeals were filed. At least two groups of petitioners focused their motions on the following:
• Section 4: Terrorism
• Section 9: Inciting to Commit Terrorism
• Section 10: Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist Organization
• Section 12: Providing Material Support to Terrorists
• Section 25: Third mode of designation
• Section 29: Prolonged detention
The SC has yet to upload a copy of the resolution, but it said that justices maintained their voting, with newest Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr. siding with the majority.
Since the December 2021 ruling, the ATC has designated 16 new groups as terrorists during the period to appeal.
Petitioner Chad Booc, a teacher for Lumads who had been red-tagged, was killed in what the military claim was an operation, but Booc’s group fiercely denied.
Lawyer Tony La Viña said in March: “It is very important that the SC reconsiders because the ATA has deadly consequences.
Election issue
The SC ruling comes weeks before the Philippines elects a new president — where dictator’s son Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. leads in latest polls — who will appoint cabinet members who will sit as members of the feared ATC.
The new president will also inherit a Philippines reeling from the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the trail of blood from the “war on drugs” of President Rodrigo Duterte.
Counsels to petitioners said 2022 polls candidates should be asked on their stand on the law, because “human lives are at stake here,” lawyer Virginia Suarez said.
La Viña also said they hope “candidates will talk about their stand, whether they will repeal it or what is their interpretation” of the law, “because this is potentially a big disaster for the next government.”
With the decision of the SC to uphold its earlier ruling, National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers president Edre Olalia said they are still hoping that the law, “in good time,” will be struck down, amended, if not repealed.
But while the feared ATA is enforced in the country, they vowed that they will guard and defend against its abuse and misuse against the very people it is supposed to protect. It is even more imperative that we stand our ground for our rights.”
Survey frontrunner Marcos, in a January 17 release, vowed full support to the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict, which groups have long been accusing of red-tagging activists and dissenters.
- Latest
- Trending
