SC rules with finality on constitutionality of almost all provisions in anti-terror law (Sabong News)

BAGUIO CITY– The Supreme Court (SC) declared final its Dec. 7, 2021 decision which ruled as constitutional almost all the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020. The ruling which denied the motions filed by several petitioners was handed down by the SC after its full court deliberation on Tuesday, April 26, in Baguio City where the justices are holding their traditional summer sessions. In a statement, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said: “The Supreme Court, during its En Banc deliberations today, April 26, 2022, denied with finality the motions for reconsideration of its Dec. 7, 2021 decision on the petitions challenging Republic Act No. 11479 (R.A. 11479), or The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. “The Court resolved to deny the motions for reconsideration due to lack of substantial issues and arguments raised by the petitioners. “The Members of the Court maintained their votes in their Dec. 7, 2021 Decision, which was penned by then Associate Justice and now Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor Rosmari D. Carandang. Newly appointed Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. sided with the majority. “An entry of judgment was immediately ordered by the Court. The SC Public Information Office will upload in the SC website a copy of the Resolution denying the motions for reconsideration once available.” PIO Chief Atty. Brian Keith F. Hosaka confirmed that the new ponente (justice in-charge) of the ATA cases was Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda. Thirty-seven petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of ATA hich was enacted on July 3, 2020 and enforced starting July 18, 2020. Despite the pandemic, the SC conducted online oral arguments on the petitions.w In its Dec. 7, 2021 decision, the SC declared unconstitutional were: 1. “The qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of RA 11479, i.e., ‘… 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’ by a vote of 12-3 is declared as unconstitutional for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression. 2. “The second method for designation in Section 25 paragraph 2 of RA 11479, i.e., ‘Request for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR (United Nations Security Council Resolution) No. 1373’ is declared unconstitutional by a vote of 9-6.” The SC ruled that “on the basis of the current petitions, all the other challenged provisions of RA 11479 are not unconstitutional.” In its 2021 decision, the SC considered the “immense responsibility” of the government to defend the country against terrorism as well as the noticeably improving capabilities of terrorists to wreak havoc through weapons of mass destruction. The SC said: “The pervasive problem of terrorism requires interventions that not only punishes an act when it is done but also anticipates risks to disrupt and preempt a terrorist act before irreversible harm is done, without sacrificing and undermining fundamental freedoms recognized in the Bill of Rights. “Nonetheless, this Court is ever mindful that hand in hand with its obligation to give due regard to the inevitabilities of national security and public safety, as well as the effectiveness of law enforcement, is its constitutional mandate to safeguard substantive democracy, as expressed in fundamental values and human rights and to temper the excesses of the other branches.”