Supreme Court sets January 2021 oral arguments on anti-terror law

The Supreme Court (SC) will hear oral arguments on the petitions challenging the anti-terrorism law on January 19, 2021.

The oral arguments will be held at the court's En Banc Session Hall.

The schedule came out more than three months since the court first said it would conduct oral arguments, and days after some petitioners informed the justices of cases that they said reinforce their contentions to the law.

In an advisory seen on Friday, the SC also enumerated the issues for discussion in the oral arguments.

The petitioners and the government, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, will have to argue their position on issues ranging from legal standing to questions on the law's language and provisions on surveillance, terrorist designation, and warrantless arrests.

The parties would also have to argue whether or not the court should issue a temporary restraining order or a status quo ante order.

Each side has 30 minutes to present their arguments. Solicitor General Jose Calida may bring up to three lawyers with him, the advisory states.

There are 37 petitions questioning the constitutionality of the anti-terrorism law, which was enacted despite concerns that it could legitimize alleged state attacks against government critics and activists under the guise of an anti-terrorism campaign.

Critics of the law say the government's "red-tagging" or "terrorist-tagging" of people and groups it perceives to be communist rebels or fronts places lives in danger.

In one case, petitioners said two Aetas were charged under the new law allegedly as a form of "reprisal" by the military for the death of a soldier in a supposed encounter with the New Peoples' Army. In another, a progressive religious organization's assets were frozen for alleged terrorism financing.

"We are glad that finally the SC has set the (physical) oral arguments and distilled the major issues involved," said National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) president Edre Olalia. The NUPL represents some petitioners.

He said they hope no more "onslaughts on basic rights" will occur.

Calida had previously asked the SC to cancel the oral arguments, citing COVID-19 health risks and logistical constraints.—LDF, GMA News