NEWS | Oral arguers did well challenging ATL provisions before the SC, Lagman says
By Sean Gere Pascual
The first day of the Anti-Terror Law (ATL) oral arguments was pushed through on February 2. Participating human rights lawyers, petitioners, and several mass organizations gathered at the Supreme Court (SC) to collectively condemn the provisions of the terror law. Along with the stirring exchange of varied statements, high tension between the SC justices and the lawyers arose towards the end of the first session of the oral arguments.
The arguments
Days prior to the oral arguments, the SC and petitioners were able to compromise the categorization of the issues to be discussed within 45 minutes. The two categories are preliminary issues and substantive issues. Moreover, the said issues are divided into six clustered issues.
Clusters I and II were presented by Atty. Jose Anselmo Cadiz, Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno, and Atty. Alfredo Molo. Cluster I was about preliminary issues such as determining whether the petitioners have standing to file legal complaints and if ATL should be declared unconstitutional in its entirety. Meanwhile, Cluster II, was about determining whether the definition of “terrorism” in Section 4 is void for being vague and overbroad which is in violation of constitutional rights like free speech and expression.
In his opening argument, Diokno directly called for the SC to repeal the terror law before its impact further intensifies in the future. He stated that if the law was passed in 1986, the religious groups’ call for the people to participate on the EDSA revolution would be considered an act of terrorism as well. Hence, he asked the court to strike down the law forthwith.
Clusters III and IV, on the other hand, were presented by Atty. Evalyn Ursua and Atty. Neri Colmenares. Ursua raised questions whether the powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) are unconstitutional. Colmenares, on the other hand, argued whether Section 16, which states that people and groups who have not yet been declared as terrorists by any court can also be surveilled, impedes the constitutional rights to due process and against unreasonable searches and seizures, privacy of communication, freedom of speech and religion.
During the oral arguments, Colmenares emphasized the unconstituionally and invalidity of the ATL due to its overbreath and impermissible vagueness, punishing legal acts of terrorism based on merely say-so of authorities.
“No one should go to prison for the exercise of constitutional rights. This terror law has done precisely that. That is why this abomination that pretends to be a law to protect people must be struck down,” Colmenares reiterated.
Lastly, Clusters V and VI, which were about the ATC and indigenous people’s (IP) rights, were presented by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman and Atty. Algamat Latiph. Lagman questioned the ATC’s power to detain suspected terrorists with the absence of judicial process. Latiph, on the other hand, argued the violation of ATL on the IP and Moro’s rights to self-determination and self-governance under the constitution.
In a CNN interview on February 3, Lagman expressed that the oral arguers did well to convince the SC to junk the terror law. He also stated that the ATL would not stand the test of constitutionality as he believes that it will be repealed by the SC without any difficulty.
Mass support
Even before the scheduled time of the first day of the ATL oral arguments at 2:30 pm, the oral arguers, petitioners, as well as several mass organizations gathered early in front of the SC to express support for the lawyers and petitioners on the call for the immediate repealance of the terror law.
“Nakikiisa ang Bayan Metro Manila sa laban ng mga organisasyon na agarang mapabasura ang ATL sapagkat ito ay gagamitin laban sa mga kritiko ng administrasyon, mga aktibista at indibidwal upang sila ay huliin, gawan ng gawa gawang kaso, i-red tag at supilin ang kanilang karapatan,” Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) — Metro Manila stated. “Handa nating singilin si Duterte sa kanyang pagpapabaya sa mamamayan at pagyurak nito sa kanilang karapatang pantao.”
Stirring exchange
The first day of the ATL oral arguments ended with a high tension when Justice Marvin Leonen, the last justice in the session’s interpellation, questioned the impact of the ATL. He stated that it may be too early for the SC to repeal the law because the petitioners have not suffered a direct injury yet.
Leonen then proceeded that although he understands the theoretical fear of petitioners, they should not insert political perspectives when viewing the law. He added that for a facial challenge to be valid, petitioners must show that the implementers of the law have no other choice but to violate freedom of speech.
With this, Molo disagreed by stating that there are also facial challenges that have more recently been recognized. Leonen then cut him off by asking him to provide facts which made Molo reiterate that the operative fact in a facial challenge is the passage of the law itself. However, the justice countered by stating that there needs to be facts in order for the SC to act on their power of judicial review.
After the stirring exchange between Leonen and Molo, the SC ended the oral arguments at exactly 5:30 pm, a defiance from the usual practice where justices can proceed up to the evening if they wanted to.
Next round
Looking ahead to the upcoming sessions, Colmenares expressed his positive belief that they indeed have a strong case. Although he expects the court to go on with the procedural aspects, Colmenares was hopeful to get to the substantive parts to question whether ATL violates constitutional human rights such as freedom of speech, civil rights and political rights.
The next session for the oral arguments will proceed today, February 9, at 2:00 pm.
