Ex-gov’t corporate counsel Jurado asks Supreme Court to junk anti-terror law

Former government corporate counsel Rudolf Philip Jurado has asked the Supreme Court to strike down the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

In filing the fifth challenge against the new law, Jurado asked the high court to declare as unconstitutional in its entirety, or Sections 4 and 29, which provide the definition of terrorism and the warrantless detention of terror suspects for up to 24 days, respectively.

The lawyer also asked for a temporary restraining order that would prevent the government from enforcing the law.

Jurado headed the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel until he was fired by President Rodrigo Duterte in 2018 for allegedly issuing a legal opinion that would justify the grant of a 75-year gaming franchise to a free port locator in Aurora.

Apart from assailing specific provisions, Jurado alleged that the House of Representatives did not serve its members printed copies of what was then House Bill No. 6875 at least three days before its passage. He said this violated the constitutionally mandated procedure for passing a bill.

Duterte had certified the bill as urgent in June, but Jurado claimed that the Constitution limits this power of the president to when there is a need "to meet a public calamity or emergency."

He said the presidential certification "does not even mention the words 'public calamity' or 'emergency' as it was issued merely to 'address an urgent need to strengthen the law on anti-terrorism.'"

He alleged that the House acted with grave abuse of discretion when it allegedly assumed it could disregard the constitutional procedure for passing a bill on account of the presidential certification.

Jurado also challenged one of the law's most assailed provisions, Section 29, arguing that it allows the Anti-Terrorism Council to waive the application of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes delay in bringing detained persons before a judge.

Article 125 says detained persons should be brought before a judge within 12, 18, or 36 hours, depending on the offense. Section 29 allows detention of up to 24 days without law enforcers incurring any criminal liability.

Jurado also said it is "dangerous" that Section 29 allows detention "even when no investigation against him [has] been concluded, that is, even when it has not been concluded that he perpetrated terrorism."

Like the other petitioners, Jurado questioned one of the definitions of terrorism in the law that states the crime is committed by anyone who "engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person's life."

He said the definition is "definitely vague and ambiguous which could lead to several abuses and misinterpretations."

"Mere intent to kill or intent to cause bodily harm could not, as it should not, be tantamount to an act of terrorism," he said.

A group of lawyers including Howard Calleja, Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, Far Eastern University law professors, and the House of Representatives' Makabayan bloc filed the first four petitions against the law. — RSJ, GMA News