SC urged to act on motion to issue injunction against ATA and its IRR

THE Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and the Movement Against Tyranny on Monday filed a motion before the Supreme Court to immediately grant their plea to issue a status quo ante order, or a preliminary injunction, to enjoin the implementation of the Republic Act 11479, or the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR).

In their manifestation with motion filed through the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), the groups argued it would cause “grave injustice” to the petitioners, particularly those who have been red-tagged and labeled as “terrorists” front organizations by various government security agencies, if the implementation of ATA and its IRR would not be enjoined pending the Court’s ruling on the merits of petitions filed assailing the constitutionality of the ATA.

As of today, there are already 37 petitions filed before the SC seeking to declare null and void the provisions of the ATA for being unconstitutional.

“The issuance of the IRR has set the stage for the unimpeded implementation of the assailed law; the targeting of activists and critics of the government; the suppression of dissent; and the curtailment of civil and political rights, all in the altar of national security,” the groups said.

“Thus, the petitioners beseech this Honorable Court to consider and grant their respective applications for provisional injunctive relief if only to protect them and countless citizens who stand to be victimized by such a draconian law, while awaiting further proceedings in the main cases and a final judgment therein,” they added.

The petitioners claimed the IRR merely reproduced the “objectionable, broad and vague” definition of terrorism under the law and even added new provisions not present in the law itself.

Oppositors of the ATA of 2020 argued that the definition of terrorism under the law is “vague and overbroad” which may be used as a weapon against constitutionally protected speech and speechrelated conduct.

The petitioners noted that the ATA creates the new speech crime of inciting to terrorism under Section 9 and then ties it to a new definition of the crime of terrorism which is found in Section 4.

The ATA’S definition of terrorism, according to the petitioners, encompasses speech and conduct protected by the Constitution, including non-violent assemblies like the 1986 People Power.

All the petitioners are seeking to nullify Section 5 (threat to commit terrorism); Section 6 (planning, training, preparing and facilitating the commission of terrorism); Section 9 (inciting to commit terrorism); Section 10 (recruitment to and membership in a terrorist organization); Section 11 (foreign terrorist); Section 12 (providing material support to terrorists); Section 25 (designation of terrorist individual, groups of persons, organizations or associations); Section 26 (proscription of terrorist organizations, associations or group of persons); section 27 (preliminary order of proscription); and Section 29 (detention without judicial warrant of arrest).

“A careful review of the IRR would show that it also features the same objectionable and unconstitutional aspects of the assailed law, including but not limited to utterly vague, or overly broad definition of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses, the infringement of fundamental rights and the inordinate grant of powers to the Anti-terrorism Council, which violates the principle of separation of powers and usurps functions exclusively reserved for the judiciary,” the petitioners argued.

“As a matter of fact, the IRR pushes way beyond the scope and parameters of RA 11479 by further infringing on constitutional, and giving greater, undue power and discretion to officials and agencies tasked to implement the same,” it added.

Likewise, the petitioner said that while the law penalizes expressions that “incite others” to commit a terroristic act, the IRR expanded it by stating that “the incitement is done under circumstances that show reasonable probability of success in inciting the commission of terrorism.”