NEWS | SC postpones ATL oral arguments to February 2, terror tactics imposed on opposition group
By Sean Gere Pascual
The Supreme Court (SC) postponed the Anti-Terror Law (ATL) oral arguments to February 2 last January 15, two weeks later from its initial January 19th schedule. The postponement occured after a participant from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) tested positive for COVID-19. Despite alleged tactics imposed on the opposition group, the lawyers and petitioners expressed their will to stand firm in this fight for democracy.
ATL Oral Arguments
Six months after President Rodrigo Duterte signed Republic Act №11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, 13 human rights lawyersㅡseven main, six alternativeㅡwill be given a chance to present oral arguments to the SC on behalf of several individuals and groups behind the 37 petitions seeking to declare ATL as unconstitutional. The ATL is now considered the most challenged law in SC’s recent history.
The seven main lawyers who will participate in the oral arguments include National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) Chair Neri Colmenares, Human rights lawyer Evelyn Ursua, Former Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, University of the Philippines law professor Alfredo Molo III, Free Legal Assistance Group Chair Chel Diokno, Albay Representative Edcel Lagman Cadiz, and Moro lawyer Algamar Latiph.
Diokno will argue to the SC regarding the legal standing of the petitioners in filing legal complaints and the controversiality of ATL. Meanwhile, Ursua was set to present arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Council’s powers.
Colmenares, on the other hand, will question the legality of Sections 5 to 14 of the ATL. These sections were about the penalizing threats to commit terrorism as well as the law’s violation to human rights.
In line with this, Lagman will argue the most controversial part of the law, in which suspected terrorists are allowed to be arrested without a warrant and detained without charges for up to 24 days even with the absence of judiciary processes. Lastly, Latiph was set to discuss the supposed violation of ATL on Indigenous peoples’ and Moros’ rights.
The six alternative lawyers of the oral arguments are Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Randall Tabayoyong, former Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te, NUPL’s Josalee Deinla and Ephraim Cortez, Calleja Law Firm’s Howard Calleja, and Moro lawyer Bantuas Lucman.
Delaying Tactic?
When asked whether delaying tactics are being utilized by the Department of Justice (DOJ) despite the extreme necessity of the oral arguments, Secretary Menardo Guevarra expressed that a few days of postponement is not a big deal.
Lawyer and former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, on the other hand, caused commotion on social media after his tweet which compared Solicitor General Jose Calida to a law student who gives excuses to be exempted from recitation. Calida immediately counter-attacked by calling it malicious and a pandemic downplay.
Although disappointed at the last-minute postponement of the ATL oral arguments given the utmost urgency and severe impact of the law, NUPL revealed that the petitioners and lawyers will take advantage of this by preparing themselves even more.
“It [the postponement] will give us extra time to even thoroughly prepare more and consolidate our ranks further,” NUPL’s Edre Olalia stated. “We pray though that no supervening event would transpire meanwhile that might put things in jeopardy especially now that the law seems poised to be applied at neck breaking speed.”
Surveillance continues
In light of the continued resistance against the ATL provisions, Ursua, one of the lawyers that would participate in the oral arguments, revealed that she feels being under surveillance. On a Facebook post, Ursua stated that two men recently took photos of her home and that she keeps on getting strange voice calls where only breathing can be heard on the other line.
With this, Bayan Muna Representative Ferdinand Gaite firmly condemned the surveillance experienced by Ursua, calling it a terror tactic to lawyers involved in the controversial ATL oral arguments.
“This incident shows how weak their case is. That’s why they need to resort to harassment of petitioners’ lawyers. Pero hindi tayo nasisindak,” Gaite stated. “Harassment such as this could continue even as the defenders of the ATA move to delay the SC oral arguments, so we call on the public to remain vigilant and to stand with lawyers and petitioners in this flashpoint in the fight for democracy.”
