New anti-terrorism law 'presumed unconstitutional' —Lagman

Albay Representative Edcel Lagman on Wednesday said the Anti-Terrorism Law of 2020 is "presumed unconstitutional" for supposedly imposing prior restraint on free speech and the right to dissent.

Lagman made the remark as he filed a petition before the high court challenging the constitutionality of the newly-enacted law.

In a statement, Lagman said the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Social Weather Stations vs. Comelec that a law which is challenged for imposing a prior restraint on freedom of expression is presumed unconstitutional.

He said the SC, in its ruling, voided the provision in the Fair Elections Act prohibiting the publication of poll survey results within 15 days before an election affecting national candidates and within seven days before an election affecting local candidates as it "imposed a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of expression."

"Such a (contested) measure is vitiated by a weighty presumption of invalidity. Indeed, ‘any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity…. The Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such restraint,'" he added, quoting the court's decision.

"This decision contradicts the repeated claims of the proponents of the new Anti-Terrorism Act that it enjoys the 'presumption of constitutionality,'" Lagman said.

He pointed out that in cases involving suppression of free speech, the presumption that the law is constitutional is reversed because it is presumed unconstitutional and it is the responsibility of the government to prove otherwise.

"All of the four petitions so far filed with the Supreme Court have protested that among the unconstitutional provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is its criminalization of 'threat,' 'proposal,' and 'inciting' to commit terrorism, because it has chilling effects deterring the exercise of free speech and the right to dissent," Lagman said.

"Verily, the 'Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020' is presumed unconstitutional as it imposes a prior restraint on the exercise of free speech and the right to dissent," he added.

In his petition, Lagman said the crime of terrorism was defined in "vague and ambitious language " in the new law, "so much so that there is no certitude on what acts are proscribed and the people are perplexed on what acts to avoid."

He likewise questioned the warrantless detention of up to 24 days of terrorism suspects before they have to be brought before a judge. He said this is an "unreasonable seizure of a person in violation of the Bill of Rights."

At the same time, he also claimed that the up-to-90-day technical surveillance and wiretapping of communications under the law is an "unreasonable invasion of a person's privacy which is guaranteed by the Constitution."

But Lagman is optimistic that the Supreme Court will rid the newly-enacted Anti-Terrorism Law of 2020 of its allegedly unconstitutional provisions and ensure that human rights will be protected in its decision.

"We trust the Supreme Court will uphold the majesty of the Constitution by purging the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 of patently unconstitutional provisions and assuring that civil liberties would flourish," he said.

"We supplicate for justice and protection for the beleaguered Filipino people," he added.—AOL, GMA News