FLAG maintains parts of anti-terror law ‘dangerous’ after SC junks motions

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on Tuesday maintained other parts of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 are “dangerous and in violation of the Constitution,” even after the Supreme Court (SC) junked the motions for reconsideration that declare them constitutional.

In a statement, FLAG national chairperson Atty. Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno said that it was unfortunate that the high court did not strike down other portions of the Republic Act 11479 or The Anti-Terrorism Act “for being unconstitutional” as argued in their motion.

“We remain convinced that these provisions, among them those that fail to define with clarity the offense of ‘terrorism’ and grant broad and sweeping powers to the Anti-Terrorism Council to issue arrest orders and authorize extended detention periods on mere suspicion, are not only dangerous, as they are prone to abuse, but also in violation of the Constitution,” he said.

It could be recalled that the SC declared only two parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act as unconstitutional following months of oral arguments.

The other provisions in the measure, such as the 12-year imprisonment for any person who will threaten to commit terrorism, were considered as constitutional.

The same jail term will be imposed on those who will propose any terroristic act or incite others to commit terrorism, while the 14-day warrantless detention period for suspected terrorists, which can be extended by 10 days, will also remain.

Dioko said that such a move by SC only urges them to remain vigilant for human rights.

“The denial with finality of the various motions to reconsider the Court’s Decision on the ATA however only encourage us to continue to be vigilant for fundamental rights and freedoms that may be impacted by the law,” he said

“As suggested by the Court itself, these provisions may be challenged, case to case, on an ‘as applied’ ’basis,” he added.—LDF, GMA News