Safeguards in place to prevent ‘abuses’ in enforcement of anti-terror law – DOJ (Sabong News)

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday, April 29, assured that safeguards are in place to ensure that Republic Act No. 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA), will not be used against candidates and their supporters in the coming elections. Also, the DOJ – through Undersecretary Adrian Ferdinand S. Sugay – said that while almost all provisions of ATA have been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court (SC) in its final decision, the law can still be challenged “on a case-to-case basis.” The provisions of RA 11479 can still be challenged “based on the specific criminal act for which a person is being charged with, or is being complained against,” Sugay said during the “Laging Handa” public briefing. “So, kung meron mang sa tingin nila ay na-agrabyado dahil hindi tama ang pag-implementa ng batas na yan maaari naman yan kwesyunin before the prosecutor during preliminary investigation, sa korte kung saan naisampa yung kaso (If there are individuals who think that the law was wrongly implemented against them, they can question it before the prosecutors conducting the preliminary investigation and before the courts where the charges would be filed),” Sugay said. He pointed out that under the law “certain cases may be filed against the law enforcers who will implement this law incorrectly.” “So, may kaakibat na obligasyon yan sa ating law enforcement agencies, sa ating National Prosecution Service, sa ating mga korte to ensure that this law is properly implemented (Law enforcement agencies, the National Prosecution Service, and the courts are obligated to ensure that this law is properly implemented),” he stressed. Sugay also cited that the SC, itself, stated in its rulings that provisions of the law can still be questioned on a case-to-case basis. “Ang sinasabi ng desisyon ng Korte Suprema maaari pang kwestiyunin pero base na yan doon sa specific na criminal act for which a person is being charged with or is being complained against (The SC said it can be questioned but based on a specific criminal act for which a person is being charged with or is being complained against),” he explained. Last April 26, the SC declared final its Dec. 7, 2021 decision which ruled as constitutional almost all provisions of ATA. The SC denied the motions filed by several petitioners during its full court session in Baguio City where the justices are holding their traditional summer sessions. The SC’s public information office (PIO) said: “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.” 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.”