NGO coalition asks Supreme Court to nullify anti-terror law

A network of legal resource non-governmental organizations has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 for being unconstitutional.

In the 17th petition against the controversial law, the Alternative Law Groups (ALG), a coalition of 18 organizations, also urged the court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction that would prevent the enforcement of the law while the case is pending.

The ALG told the SC that the definition of terrorism and other terrorism-related crimes in the law is ambiguous, lacking in specificity and standards that should guide law enforcers in its implementation.

The definition excludes acts such as advocacy, protest, and dissent, that are not intended to cause death, serious physical harm, endanger a person's life, or create a serious risk to public safety.

But the ALG said the exemption is "insufficient to cure the fatal defect of the present provision." In the absence of clear standards, law enforcers will have the sole discretion to determine which acts are permissible, the coalition said.

In addition, the ALG claimed that the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), a body composed of executive officials, is not recognized by the Constitution as a "competent authority" to "designate" a person or groups as terrorist.

Under the law, the ATC may "designate" upon a finding of probable cause that the subjects committed, are attempting to commit, or conspired in the commission of terrorism.

The ALG said designations made by the ATC, which it said will allow the Anti-Money Laundering Council to freeze the alleged terrorists' assets, effectively takes a person's property without due process.

The coalition likewise objected to Section 29, which provides for the detention of suspected terrorists arrested, supposedly using a written authority from the ATC, for up to 24 days before they have to be charged in court.

The ALG pointed out that the 24-day detention period is eight times longer than the 3-day maximum period set by the Constitution in times of invasion or rebellion, when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended.

These powers of the ATC, the ALG said, "in effect, places the lives, liberty, and property of people in the hands of a body that is not at all clothed with judicial authority, nor equipped with expert knowledge of the law and fundamental constitutional principles."

The ALG also said the law violates the right to privacy by allowing the surveillance of "any person charged with or suspected" of committing terrorism.

"As a default, this law assumes that every single Filipino could possibly be a suspect, without even meeting the minimum threshold of evidence and in complete disregard of the presumption of innocence," the coalition said.

"Not only has the law failed to clearly define what acts constitute terrorism, but it also allows the state surveillance to include those merely suspected of the crime," it added.

In all, the ALG said the law must be struck down because it authorizes violations of due process, privacy, the right against unreasonable search and seizures, free speech and expression, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right of association.

At 17 and counting, the petitions against the anti-terrorism law has surpassed in number those against the Cybercrime Prevention Act and the Reproductive Health Law.

Retired SC justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, four members of the commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, lawyers, professors, human rights advocates, labor groups, youth organizations, journalists, and artists have also filed petitions.—AOL, GMA News