Dump ATA, retired magistrates ask SC
The mere enactment of the ATA poses an unconstitutional curtailment of civil liberties and invalid intrusion into judicial prerogatives by the other branches of government
Retired Supreme Court (SC) associate justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales, in tandem with University of the Philippines Law faculty and alumni, on Wednesday sought to restrain government from implementing the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) that President Duterte signed into law earlier this month.
The ATA takes effect 15 days hence.
The retired magistrates also sought to present multiple arguments against the ATA in person and challenge the constitutionality of the law itself.
As the 11th group to question the validity of the legislation, they said the SC should declare the entire ATA, particularly Sections (3), 3(b), 3(h), 3(i), 3 (k), 3(m), 4,5 to12, 16, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30, 34, 35 and 36, 45, 46 and 49 null and void for being unconstitutional.
According to them, the mere enactment of the ATA poses an “unconstitutional curtailment of civil liberties and invalid intrusion into judicial prerogatives by the other branches of government.”
The group claimed they themselves are in imminent danger of prosecution as a result of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC).
Carpio was earlier linked to an alleged “Oust Duterte Movement.”
UP Law faculty and alumni pointed out they conduct classes that require discussions of the history, roots and motivation of past and present societal movements like the Communist Party of the Philippines, past rebellions and controversial issues as the West Philippine Sea and the extrajudicial killings that may be misconstrued as “advocacy” or “inciting” terrorism under the ATA.
The petitioners said the definition of terrorism under ATA is both “vague and overbroad” that would allow law enforcers to arbitrarily and selectively enforce the law.
The vagueness of the provisions vests law enforcers with unbridled discretion to interpret the law and result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as the wording of the law could be used for any hypothetical scenario.
Section 4 on the definition of terrorism, for instance, contains a qualifier that supposedly protects advocacy and protests but is actually rendered meaningless by the succeeding phrase “which are 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.”
The ATA, according to the petitioners, would promote an “arrest now, explain later” mentality.
“The vagueness of the provisions vests law enforcers with unbridled discretion to interpret the law and result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as the wording of the law could be used for any hypothetical scenario,” the petition read.
“The lack of standards in the wording of the ATA enables malicious criminal prosecution of innocent right-holders. Unsuspecting citizens would second-guess their actions, chilling them into silence,” they added.
The former magistrate said the ATA illegally allows an executive body, the ATC to encroach into a judge’s exclusive prerogative to issue arrest warrants.
The petitioners assailed the overbroad discretionary powers to wiretap private communication based on mere suspicion and in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the grant of unbridled discretion to the ATC to impose security classifications on all its records.
The lack of standards in the wording of the ATA enables malicious criminal prosecution of innocent right-holders. Unsuspecting citizens would second-guess their actions, chilling them into silence.
“In its fight against terrorism, the government must not be the source of terror and impunity itself. We must never let reason continue to escape us,” Morales said.
Justice Carpio adds: “The Constitution declares that the right of the people ‘to be secure in their persons xxx against unreasonable xxx seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose’ shall be ‘inviolable.’ To guarantee this, the Constitution erected two fortresses: the first fortress is that only a judge can issue warrants of arrests; the second fortress is that warrants of arrest must be issued only upon probable cause. What has the ATA done? The ATA has demolished both and reinstated the ASSOs of the Martial Law era. Section 29 of the ATA begins with the tell-tale heading “Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest.”
In its fight against terrorism, the government must not be the source of terror and impunity itself. We must never let reason continue to escape us.
Carpio and Morales tandem are joined by Constitutional Law professors from the University of the Philippines, College of Law: Associate Dean and Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea Director Jay L. Batongbacal, Institute for the Administration of Justice Director Dante B. Gatmaytan, former Supreme Court Public Information Office chief Theodore Te, and Senior Professorial Lecturers Victoria V. Loanzon and Anthony Charlemagne C. Yu in the petition.
Co-petitioners include former Magdalo Partylist representative and security analyst Francisco Ashley L. Acedillo and incumbent UP University Student Council councilor Tierone James M. Santos.
They are represented by UP Profs. Luisito Liban, John Molo and Gwen de Vera and assisted by lawyer Darwin Angeles.