SC turns down suit challenging anti-terror law

The Supreme Court (SC) has turned down six suits questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 9372, otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007.

In a 45-page decision by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the SC en banc held that the petitioners have no legal standing to assail RA 9372 since “none of them faces any charge” under the said law.

Concurring with the ruling were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Justices 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.

The petitions were filed by the Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc, Kilusang Mayor Uno (KMU), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), Karapatan Alliance For the Advancement of People’s Right, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Southern Tagalog (Bayan-ST).

The groups said their legal standing to file the suit is on the basis of being suspected “communist fronts” by the government while individual petitioners invoke “transcendental importance” doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers.

While the high trobunal acknowledged that the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People’s Army 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 SC said.

It added the mere invocation of the petitioners that the issues raised are of transcendental importance is not enough for the high court to rule on the petition.

The SC stressed that petitioners should be able to show an actual, imminent or direct injury as a result of the implementation of RA 9372, which the petitioners have failed to prove.

Aside from legal standing, the SC also held that the petitioners failed to prove that there is an actual controversy that would warrant the high court’s intervention.

The petitioners, the SC noted, are seeking to scrap the law based on allegations that they are under surveillance or being tagged as communist groups.

The high tribunal ruled that such claims does not “approximate a credible threat of prosecution” under RA 9372.

“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 SC 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,” it added.

The groups argued that the HSA violates constitutional provisions on unreasonable searches and seizures.

It also violates the provisions which ensure the right of the people to travel and freedom of expression.

The petitioners noted 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, as it uses the term “suspected terrorist.”

Also, the petitioners insisted that RA 9372 is void for being vague and regulates speech.

But contrary to the claim of the petitioners, the SC held that based on its reading of the definition of the crime of terrorism in Section 3, RA 9372, “what the law seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech.”

The high court further explained a review of the validity of the said law for being vague is “legally impermissible absent an actual or imminent charge” against the petitioners.

In his concurring opinion, Abad clarified that the SC’s ruling does not uphold the validity of RA 9372 since the grounds for dismissal “are more procedural than substantive.”

“The specific questions raised by the petitioners against RA 9372 may be raised in the proper forum if and when an actual controversry arises and becomes ripe for adjudication,” Abad said. –Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune