Petitioners urge SC to limit anti-terror law oral arguments to 3 issues

Legislators, journalists, and human rights advocates have urged the Supreme Court (SC) to consider limiting the number of issues to be discussed in oral arguments on the anti-terrorism law, given the sheer volume of petitions assailing it.

In an urgent omnibus motion, Senators Leila de Lima, Francis Pangilinan, former senator Sergio Osmeña III, Quezon City 6th District Representative Kit Belmonte, and their fellow petitioners said the 37 petitions challenging the law have "mostly common, consequential substantive issues" that may benefit from oral arguments.

They suggested limiting the issues for oral arguments to the alleged overbreadth of the law, its alleged vagueness, and the need for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of the measure.

The petitioners said procedural matters and issues particular to specific petitions may be discussed in written pleadings.

"While there are 37 petitions, only one of them needs to succeed for the ATA (Anti-Terrorism Act) to be annulled," they said.

In addition, the petitioners asked that the court conduct the November 26 preliminary conference via videoconference instead of physically at the SC building in Manila considering the COVID-19 pandemic.

Citing the number of petitioners and lawyers involved and their various locations, they said "travel to Manila appears to be impracticable and may pose a serious health risk to counsel and all attendees of the preliminary conference."

The anti-terror law has become one of the most contested laws in Philippine history, its critics ranging from retired SC justices to students, from the religious sector to humanitarian workers, and from lawmakers to activists. 

The law took effect in July, with its implementing rules following three months after, amid criticism that it could legitimize attacks against "terror-tagged" groups and stifle the rights to free speech, association, and religious expression.

The government has claimed the law will not target activists and has enough enough safeguards against possible abuses. —KBK, GMA News