Anti-terrorism law legal

Supreme Court rules 14-0 to favor RA 9372

The controversial Anti-Terrorism Law has been declared legal and constitutional by the Supreme Court (SC). With a unanimous vote of 14-0, the High Court en banc junked all the six consolidated petitions seeking to declare as unconstitutional Republic Act (RA) 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007, or popularly known as the Anti-Terrorism Law.

In a 45-page ruling written by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the High Court ruled that the petitioners have no legal standing to assail RA 9372 since “none of them faces any charge” under the said law.

Besides Morales, the other magistrates who concurred in the ruling were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Catral Mendoza and Maria Lourdes Sereno. Associate Justice Antonio Carpio is on official leave and failed to vote on the issue.

Junked by the High Court were the petitions filed Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc. et al; Kilusang Mayo Uno, et al; Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), et al; Karapatan Alliance For the Advancement of People’s Right, et al; The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, et al; and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Souther Tagalog.

In their respective petitions, the groups insisted on filing a suit against RA 9372 on grounds that they are suspected “communist fronts” by the government, while the individual petitioners invoked the “transcendental importance” doctrine and their status as citizen citizens and taxpayers.

Despite the High Court’s acknowledging that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), New People’s Army (NPA) and the Abu Sayyaf group have been classified by the United States and the European Union as foreign terrorist organizations, no case has been filed yet before any court seeking to declare the CPP and NPA as domestic terrorist groups.

“RA 9372 has been in effect for three years now. From July 2007 up to the present, petitioner-organizations have conducted their activities fully and freely without any threat of, much less an actual, prosecution or proscription under RA 9372,” the court stated in its decision.

The High Court also stressed that petitioners should have shown an actual, imminent or direct injury as a result of the implementation of RA 9372, which the groups failed to prove.

Furthermore, the High Court stressed that the petitioners failed to prove that there is an actual controversy that would warrant their intervention, and that the court cannot scrap a law based on allegations that the groups are under surveillance or being tagged as communist groups.

“The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA 9372 does not avail to take the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined. Such possibility if not peculiar to RA 9372 since the exercise of any power granted by law may be abused,” the High Court said.

“Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,” the court added.

Allegedly violates Constitution

The High Court also struck down the contention of the petitioners that RA 9372 violates the Constitutional provisions on unreasonable searches and seizures, the provisions which ensure the right of the people to travel and freedom of expression.

The groups stated in their petition that under RA 9372, a warrant is no longer necessary in arresting a person. As a substitute for the warrant, the law requires a written authority to be issued by the Anti-Terrorism Council. They added that, under Section 18 of RA 9372, an arrest may be based on mere suspicion, since it uses the term “suspected terrorist.”

Also, the petitioners insisted that RA 9372 is void for being vague and regulates speech, which the High Court countered by saying “What the law seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech.”

But in a separate opinion, Justice Abad argued that the High Court ruling does not uphold the validity of RA 9372 since the grounds for dismissal “are more procedural than substantive.” Thus, the majority ruling was anchored on technicality alone.

“The specific questions raised by the petitioners against RA 9372 may be raised in the proper forum if and when an actual controversy arises and becomes ripe for adjudication,” Abad stated. –JOMAR CANLAS REPORTER, Manila Times