Framers of Constitution, advocates from Ateneo file 6th challenge to anti-terror law

Two members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and several advocates from the Ateneo De Manila University have challenged the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 before the Supreme Court (SC).

The number of petitions against the new law climbed to six after Christian Monsod, Felicitas Arroyo, faculty members of the Ateneo Law School, affiliates of the Ateneo Human Rights Center, and the Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa filed theirs on Wednesday.

Fr. Albert Alejo, Xavier University law professor Ernesto Neri, and student Wyanet Aisha Eliora Alcibar were also petitioners.

The group asked the SC to declare several sections of the law unconstitutional and void and to permanently prohibit the government from implementing them.

They questioned the definition of terrorism in Section 4 as well as subsequent sections that use the definition to hold persons liable, arguing it is "broad enough to cover legitimate acts and exercise of activities in pursuance of constitutionally protected rights to free speech, press and assembly."

They also claimed the "overly broad definition" creates a chilling effect on free speech, resulting in prior restraint.

"Concretizing the Anti-Terrorism Law, suppose a rally is organized to
protest government policies and a large crowd has gathered. If the people become highly emotional and there are unified cries for the President to step down, would this call be considered inciting to commit terrorism, and the assembly a mass action that creates a serious risk to public safety, hence terrorism?" they said.

"If there happens to be violence during the dispersal because of the
heavy-handed manner by which law enforcers have treated the protesters, would this qualify as terrorism?" they asked.

In addition, they said Section 25 provides for the designation of individuals or groups as terrorists upon the Anti-Terrorism Council's (ATC) determination of probable cause and opens them to consequences, such as warrantless detention and freezing of assets, "without any formal finding of guilt or any judicial intervention."

They also said Section 25 infringes on the power of the courts to issue warrants of arrest.

"In this case, while the ATA (Anti-Terrorism Act) does not use the term 'warrant of arrest' the written authority issued by the ATC to take custody of a person upon being suspected of commission of certain acts, is practically the same thing," the petitioners said.

They cited what the government alleged was an ouster plot against President Rodrigo Duterte in 2018 and a supposed matrix implicating journalists and lawyers critical of the administration.

"Under the Anti-Terror Act, these implications of crimes are enough justifications for the ATC to designate terrorist/terrorist groups and approval of an application for proscription. It is basis enough, even on mere suspicion, of warrantless arrests and detention," they said.

"Given the pattern of imputation by the executive and the nature of accusations, the exercise of our fundamental freedom of expression and freedom of association has to be protected," they added.

The petitioners added that Section 29, which allows law enforcement or the military to detain suspects for up to 24 days before bringing them before a judge, violates the Constitution as it allows "warrantless and unreasonable arrests" and exceeds the 3-day period within which suspects must be judicially charged even during martial law.

Article 7, Section 18 is the 1987 Constitution's provision on martial law. It says that when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, detained persons should be charged in court within three days or be released.

"The protection granted by the Constitution can easily be rendered nugatory as the law allows the government to detain persons for long periods of time without ever filing criminal charges against them," the petitioners said.

"This is exactly what the provision sought to prohibit. It is a well-established rule that what cannot be legally done directly cannot be done indirectly," they said.

The SC has consolidated the first four petitions filed against the anti-terrorism law and ordered the government to comment. Former government corporate counsel Rudolf Philip Jurado also filed a petition on Wednesday.

More groups are expected to challenge the law. — BM, GMA News