Cancelling oral arguments on anti-terror law would set 'bad precedent' —NUPL

Cancelling oral arguments on the petitions challenging the anti-terrorism law before the Supreme Court (SC) would set a bad precedent, lawyers for some of the petitioners said Monday.

The National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) also said the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) urgent motion is premature because the details of the oral arguments are still indefinite.

In a statement on Monday night, NUPL president Edre Olalia said cancelling the event, which concerns an "unprecedented" number of petitions, "would not be in the overwhelming public interest."

"To dispense with the oral arguments would deprive the Court of the immense value and benefit of an interactive, spontaneous and public process whether by the Socratic method cum cross examination interchange or by any other dynamic exercise," Olalia said.

The OSG cited logistical restrictions and health risks due to the COVID-19 pandemic as a ground for its motion to cancel oral arguments, which the SC had said may be held as early as the third week of September.

In the alternative, the OSG suggested the submission of written pleadings containing the parties' arguments, including answers to clarificatory questions the SC may ask.

Olalia in response said such pleadings have value but are "merely supplementary or complementary."

And while he acknowledged concerns related to the pandemic, he said these "ring hollow" in light of "double standards in favor of those who are in good graces with the government."

"Thus, it would not be hard to hear people say that this may just be a convenient justification for asking the cancellation of something which is still inchoate at this point," the lawyer said. —Nicole-Anne C. Lagrimas/KBK, GMA News