8th petition filed against Anti-Terror Law
Despite heavy rain, a multi-sectoral group and partylist organization trooped to the Supreme Court yesterday to manifest intent to void the newly-signed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 for being unconstitutional.
Sanlakas President Manjette Lopez, represented by counsels JV Bautista, Emmanuel Jabla and Sanlakas Secretary General Aaron Pedrosa, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for a temporary restraining order, against RA 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Law.
Questions on the legality of the newly signed-law brought to eight the total number of petitions.
Bautista, the lead counsel of the group, said since Sanlakas was founded in 1993, its members have staunchly advocated for social, economic, political, cultural and environmental reforms to improve living conditions of marginalized Filipinos.
Their advocacies are ventilated through protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action — all of which RA 11479 now lists as acts of the crime of terrorism when deemed to be coupled with harmful intents.
They argued that due to the absence of standards and clarity, the intent of the actions enumerated will be left to the interpretation of law enforcement agents, subjecting petitioners and the general public to “grave injustice and irreparable damage.”
How can these Constitutionally protected and guaranteed acts now be dragged and considered as crimes of terrorism?
In its petition, Sanlakas said exercises of civil and political rights are inherently driven by individual or collective intent.
It said they are acts which are precisely intended to bring about a desired result, including the change or reform of government policies, decisions, and actuations.
“How can these Constitutionally protected and guaranteed acts now be dragged and considered as crimes of terrorism if accompanied by intent and purpose which are vague, not clearly defined, bereft of standards, and susceptible to the self-serving and gratuitous interpretations of police and military enforcers?,” it averred.