By Regina Elaine Vendivil

The Supreme Court has declared some provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 or the Republic Act No. 11479 unconstitutional during its En Banc session held last Tuesday, December 7, 2021. 

According to the Supreme Court Public Information Office (SC-PIO) in an advisory released on Thursday, the qualifier portion of Section 4 which states that “…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,” was declared unconstitutional by a vote of 12-3.

This portion was believed to be “overbroad and violative of freedom of expression” as said by the SC-PIO.

After revisions, section 4(e) now states that, “Provided, that terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights.”

The second method of section 25 which states that “Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR No. 1373” has also been stricken down by a vote of 9-6.

The second mode, which has now been voided, would have given authority to the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to declare a person or group as a terrorist upon request from other countries given that it meets the criteria of the United Nations Security Council Resolution.

According to the Supreme Court, other provisions of more than 30 petitions remain constitutional, including the 24-day detention power and the ATC’s arbitrary power to designate without undergoing a trial.

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 was signed into law on July 3, 2020, and took effect on July 18 during the same year. It is recognized to be the most contentious law as it is subject of 37 petitions before the High Court

Prior to its passing, the Anti-Terror Act has been under fire for its numerous violations of human rights. Additionally, several reiterative motions have been filed by petitioners from around the country after the controversial arrests and red-tagging of individuals.

The Supreme Court advised the public to wait for the publication and read the explanations of votes from the En Banc decisions and separate opinions.

References:

Buan, L. (2021, December 9). SC voids anti-terror law power to designate terrorists based on other country’s request. Rappler. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/supreme-court-voids-parts-designation-anti-terror-law/ 

Buan, L. (2021, December 9). Supreme Court upholds most of anti-terror law, including 24-day detention. Rappler. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/supreme-court-upholds-parts-anti-terrorism-law/

Buan, L. (2021, December 9). Supreme Court voids anti-terror law’s “killer” caveat on “harmful” dissent. Rappler. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/supreme-court-voids-killer-caveat-anti-terror-law-harmful-dissent/ 

Philippine Supreme Court Public Information Office. (2021, December 9). MEDIA ADVISORY in G.R. Nos. 252578, et al. #ATAOrals [Tweet]. Twitter. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/scph_pio/status/1468776602871865346?s=21 

Torres-Tupas, T. (2021, December 9). Anti-Terror Law constitutional except for two parts, says SC. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1525096/anti-terror-law-constitutional-except-for-two-parts-says-sc 

‌

Photo source: AC Dimatatac/AFP