SC actions awaited on 2 critical matters

Hopefully in the next few months the Supreme Court will come up with definite actions on two interrelated matters brought before it, in accordance with its mandate under the Constitution as the ultimate protector of the people’s constitutional rights.

One concerns the 37 consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality, in whole or in parts, of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. On May 17, the tribunal concluded the oral arguments on the petitions and gave both parties to the case 30 days to submit their written memoranda. There was no action, however, on the petitioners’ repeated pleadings to issue a temporary restraining order on the implementation of the ATA.

The SC also heard the opinions of two amici curiae (friends of the court): retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and retired Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, who took different stands. Jardeleza moved for the dismissal of all the petitions on the ground that no petitioner has legal standing, while acknowledging they have raised “very important” issues against the ATA: it “implicates liberties dear to all of us.”

Puno advised the SC to resolve the petitions on their merits, not dismiss them outright based on technical grounds. He pointed out as “areas of constitutional concerns” the ATA sections on designation of terrorists, proscription, arrest and prolonged detention without judicial warrants (no remedies provided) and surveillance.

He backed the petitioners’ legal standing, noting that they all challenge the ATA “because on its face, it infringes freedom of speech due to its vagueness and overbreadth.” He said: “A law that is vague and overly broad is considered as an immense evil and destructive of fundamental rights in a democratic regime, it ought to be struck down at the earliest opportunity by anyone in the body politic.”

Recognizing that challenging on the ground the law is overbroad is difficult “since petitioners have to prove that there can be no instance where the law is valid,” Puno noted the petitioners’ “valiant efforts fall short to justify striking down the whole Anti-Terror Law as unconstitutional on the ground of vagueness and overbreadth.”

The other matter pertains to a March 23 SC statement (then led by Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, who retired on March 27), that responded to several calls for action on the killings of and threats against lawyers and judges. The court urged public interest groups, lawyers, judges and other citizens to provide “vetted information” on any threat or fatal attack on legal practitioners in the past 10 years.

Based on the information collected, the SC said it would deliberate in the last week of April and decide on what to do henceforth, including amending certain procedural rules or crafting new ones to address the problems brought to its attention.

No en banc deliberation took place in the last week of April, as the court was preoccupied with completing the oral arguments on the ATA. Thus far, it hasn’t issued any statement about responses to its request for vetted information.

On April 23, the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) submitted to the court a report on the attacks on lawyers and judges it had recorded in the past 10 years: a total of 147 incidents, of which 84 or 57 percent were committed against lawyers engaged in human rights and public interest litigation. The group also recorded 49 instances of vilification against the NUPL, its two affiliates – the Public Interest Law Center and the Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao – and the Free Legal Assistance Group.

Last Tuesday leaders of seven progressive activist organizations, assisted by the NUPL, submitted to the SC vetted information on cases of human rights violation against them and their members. The group justified its collective appeal to the court by pointing out that “attacks on human rights lawyers violate the basic principle that lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions.”

Consequently, as clients, they are being deprived of “effective access to legal services and adequate protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms,” the group averred. “It is thus equally important that the (SC) look into the attacks suffered by the clients and to understand the overarching government policies that cause them,” the group wrote in a cover letter to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo.

The letter states in part: “From the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the present, the Philippine government, particularly the Executive Branch and its security forces from the (AFP) and the (PNP), have engaged in a ‘dirty war’ against unarmed activists.

“This has consisted of publicly labeling legal organizations as ‘communist fronts,’ filing trumped-up charges against activists like murder and illegal possession of firearms and explosives, and subjecting them to arbitrary arrest and surveillance. Many activists have been forcibly disappeared or have been victims of extrajudicial killings.”

The group hailed the Supreme Court for its landmark actions under Chief Justice Puno: first, for a ruling in a petition for certiorari, in 2007, that overturned the prosecution for rebellion of six progressive partylist legislators, dubbed as the “Batasan 6;” second, for promulgating rules on the writ of amparo (in 2007) and on the writ of habeas data (in 2008) – both expanding the judicial protection of the writ of habeas corpus, which were successfully availed of in a number of cases.

Under the current administration, however, the group informed the SC, the filing of applications for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data no longer appear to deter state security agents from engaging in red-tagging and other unlawful acts that threaten the right to life, liberty and security.

The organizations which submitted information to the SC are the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Karapatan, Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Courage, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas and Cordillera People’s Alliance.

They recommended 12 remedial steps to the problems cited. Space limit deters discussing them in this piece.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]