endIndex:
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, February 2) The petitioners against the Anti-Terrorism Act have so far failed to present an “actual case” that would warrant the Supreme Court’s abolition of the controversial measure, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said during the much-anticipated oral arguments on Tuesday.
In a searing debate with law professor Alfredo Molo III, a counsel for the petitioners, Leonen said it might be too early for the high court to step in considering that none of the 37 sets of petitioners have directly suffered from the implementation of the law.
“Personally, I truly understand the kinds of fears that you are undergoing, having undergone those fears myself when I was a public interest lawyer,” Leonen said. “But with the hat now of the Justice of this Court, and with this judiciary, I think it is correct for us to assume that we should be careful not to become a political department.”
Too much executive power?
The Anti-Terrorism Council, currently headed by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, can now designate individuals and organizations as terrorists without any hearing, as long as it sees “probable cause” that they commit, attempt to commit, or are part of a conspiracy to commit acts defined and penalized as terrorism under Sections 4 to 12 of the law.
While authorities stressed that designation does not automatically warrant an arrest, the lists of designated terrorists are published, giving those tagged 15 days to file an appeal.
Petitioners say this encroaches on judicial power, particularly the Supreme Court’s rule-making power. It also violates due process due to lack of parameters for designation.
The vague definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 threatens labor groups fighting for the rights of common workers, National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) chairperson Neri Colmenares said Monday.
Published January 16, 2021, 10:30 AM
One of the petitioners questioning the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Law has expressed dismay over the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to postpone the oral arguments over the issue that was scheduled next week.
The SC announced on Friday, Jan. 15, that the scheduled Jan. 19 oral arguments is postponed and reset for Feb. 2 after a staff and an Assistant Solicitor General of the Office Solicitor General (OSG) scheduled to participate in the hearing caught the coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) president Edre Olalia admitted that he has mixed reactions over the SC’s decision to cancel the oral arguments.
The Supreme Court (SC) is limiting the number of lawyers allowed to attend oral arguments on the anti-terrorism law this month, the first event of its kind during the COVID-19 pandemic.