Ex-justice Jardeleza to SC: Junk petitions vs. anti-terror law

Retired Supreme Court justice Francis Jardeleza on Monday asked his former colleagues in the high tribunal to dismiss the petitions seeking to nullify the anti-terror law, citing lack of legal standing of those who oppose the measure.

Jardeleza cited the Court’s 2010 decision in the case involving the Human Security Act in which the SC junked the petitions filed by groups led by Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc. for failure to establish an actual charge or credible threat of prosecution.

“None of the petitioners in these cases has claimed direct, personal,  or constitutional injury, or has alleged actual prosecution under the ATA (Anti-Terrorism Act) as to be entitled to relief,” Jardeleza said.

“I humbly submit that, following this Court’s ruling in Southern Hemisphere Network vs. the Anti-Terrorism Council, all 37 petitions should be dismissed.”

Jardeleza also said while the anti-terror law “indeed implicates civil liberties,” there is no basis at the moment “to support a ruling” against it.

“There is, however, an absolute dearth of facts in the case record, as of the moment, to support a ruling against the ATA, at this time. The ATA is an act of Congress that enjoys the presumption of  constitutionality,” he said.

“I stress the word presumptively. For when, and if, constitutional lines are crossed, as borne out by facts, we know where the Court’s heart lies.”

The retired magistrate also defended the law’s implementing rules and regulations.

“Counsels for petitioners belittle the attempts of the Department of Justice (DOJ), headed  by Secretary of Justice Menardo Guevarra, to ‘fill-in the-details’ of the ATA through the issuance of implementing rules and regulations (IRR),” he said.

“If the DOJ has provided  for ‘narrowing definitions,’ as held in Holder, as to save a law from being declared unconstitutional, then, I ask, what is so wrong in allowing the DOJ to do its share in defining constitutional law?”

Jardeleza participated in the oral arguments as one of the amici curiae, who were tapped by the Court to help in the disposition of issues.

Retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the other amicus curiae, expressed his “constitutional concerns” over the law’s provisions on designation, proscription, arrest without judicial warrants, surveillance, the right to travel, and other areas.

Puno did not expound on his concerns during the session. He however said that he submitted a position paper to the Court.

According to Puno, the resolution of the 37 consolidated petitions will lead to the adjustment of the existing balance between the rights of the individual against the right of the state to safeguard the security of the public.

“Your Honors, we are to shape the right balance between individual liberty and national security. This is not a case of all or nothing matter but a matter of more or less,” he said during the oral arguments.

“The balance should not reduce individual rights into insignificance for they are inherent to human dignity. Neither should the balance put an end to the security of the people, for the people did not enter into a suicide pact when they ratified the Constitution.”

Puno added: “The ideal, Your Honors, is for us, for the people to be both free and safe.”

Puno said the anti-terror law’s approach to fighting terrorism was “more radical.”

“The government is allowed to take preventive measures to stop the violation from happening and for this purpose, the government is given new tools such as detention and surveillance of suspects,” he said.

“How to strike the balance between individual rights and national security in light of the threats of terrorism will not be a walk in the park.”

Puno did not discuss his position on the legal standing of the petitioners. — BM, GMA News