Israel Sends Weapons to Duterte Filipinx and Palestinian Struggle Are Linked truthout.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from truthout.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Also on this day in 2020, golfers observed a moment of silence to pay their respects to the memory of George Floyd during the first round of the Charles Schwab
Gonzaga: Pandemic journey sunstar.com.ph - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from sunstar.com.ph Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Published March 16, 2021 11:16am The Supreme Court (SC) will resume the oral arguments on the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 on March 23. SC clerk of court Edgar Aricheta made the announcement after Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta extended the work suspension in the SC until Tuesday for the continuation of disinfection, cleaning, and sanitation of the different buildings aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19. Solicitor General Jose Calida is expected to begin his defense of the anti-terror law during the next session. Critics have argued that the law’s language is too vague and broad and gives law enforcers leeway to interpret it against protests, critical education and humanitarian work.
Published March 8, 2021 4:47pm The continuation of the oral arguments on the 37 petitions seeking to nullify the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 will take place on March 16, according to the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday. The oral arguments were supposed to resume on Tuesday but SC clerk of court Edgar Aricheta said that some of the justices were self-isolating as a precautionary measure against COVID-19. The SC also had to cancel the sessions originally scheduled for January 19 and February 23 due to COVID-related concerns. Solicitor General Jose Calida is expected to begin his defense of the anti-terror law in the next session. Critics have argued that the law’s language is too vague and broad and gives law enforcers leeway to interpret it against protests, critical education and humanitarian work.