Petitioners to continue pursuing remedies vs. Anti-Terror Law

The petitioners who challenged the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 will file a motion for reconsideration on the dangerous provisions of the controversial law.

Bayan Muna chairperson and counsel-petitioner Neri Colmenares said at a press conference that they would file a motion for reconsideration on the provisions regarding the extended period of detention even without sufficient evidence as well as the powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council.

"Kinulong at hinuli ka nila na wala naman pala silang ebidensya, kaya hindi talaga 'yan dapat payagan... Ilalaban natin sa motion for reconsideration 'yung Anti Terror Council, grabe ang poder niya, ang tindi ng poder niya, puwede siyang mag-freeze ng accounts kung sino man ang tingin niyang terorista kuno," Colmenares said.

(They will arrest and detain you even without enough evidence, that should not be allowed. We will also file a motion for reconsideration on the powers and mandate of the Anti-Terror Council. The body can freeze accounts on whoever it thinks as terrorists.)

"Puwede siyang magdesignate kahit sino pa man ang gusto niyang idesignate kaya napakadelikado ng poder na 'yan sa karapatang pantao," he added.

(The Council can designate anyone as terrorist. This is very dangerous for our human rights.)

Lawyer Howard Calleja, another petitioner, expressed the same sentiment, saying that they would continue to pursue available remedies for the reconsideration of the other questionable provisions of the said law, which they believe are unconstitutional.

"Definitely, we feel strongly about having other questionable provisions declared unconstitutional as well. We will continue to make our case in our motion for reconsideration. Hopefully the Supreme Court will reconsider. But for now, we take our victories and use them as inspiration moving forward," Calleja said in a statement.

Calleja stressed that they have lauded the High Tribunal recognizing their legal standing in this case and discussed it on the merits instead of dismissing it outright on alleged technicalities.

"On substantive grounds, we are partially happy because the killer provision under Sec. 4(e) and the second mode of designation under Sec. 25 were declared to be unconstitutional," Calleja said.

"These are clear wins. We however reserve the right to fully comment once we have obtained a copy of the full decision including separate opinions and dissents," he added.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Chel Diokno said that "while the other portions of the law apparently have been upheld, at least, the definition has been cut down in terms of the dangerous portion."

Diokno is also not discounting the possibility of filing a motion for reconsideration as they have yet to read the entire ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter.

"We were hoping that the Court would accept our arguments, especially with respect to inciting to terrorism and Section 29 among other provisions," Diokno, who is eyeing a Senate seat in 2022, said.

"But we are realistic and I’ve been involved in so many cases like this where it is not often that major victories are secured only through a court battle," he added.

During Tuesday's en banc, the High Tribunal declared as unconstitutional a qualifier in Section 4 and the second paragraph of Section 25 of Republic Act 11479.

Section 4 of the law states that terrorism shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights.

However, there is a qualifier stating dissent is not considered terrorism, provided that it is not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person's life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.

Further, Section 25 states that the Anti-Terrorism Council will automatically adopt the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List of designated individuals or groups designated as a terrorist, one who finances terrorism, or a terrorist organization.

Paragraph 2 of the said section indicates that a request for designation by other jurisdictions of supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC after a determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR.

Meanwhile, Colmenares, who is running for senator in the coming elections, encouraged the public to continue voicing their sentiments and concerns against the government.

“Siyempre idugtong ko rin, itong desisyon ng Korte Suprema na nagsasabi na ang civil rights, ang exercise ng constitutional rights, mga rally, protesta, paglabas ng hinaing sa Facebook ay di sakop ng terorismo. Ang tingin namin diyan positibo naman 'yan pero dapat ang lahat ng mamamayan dapat eh ilabas niyo na ang hinaing niyo, sumama na sa protesta kung gusto ninyo, ilabas na ang ating gustong sabihin na problema ng lipunan,” he said.

(The decision of the Supreme Court which says that the exercise of constitutional rights is not a form of terrorism is a welcome development. The public should continue voicing their sentiments against the government.) — RSJ, GMA News