Oral arguments on Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 at Supreme Court

Oral arguments on the anti-terrorism law started on Tuesday, a week after the Supreme Court (SC) denied Solicitor General Jose Calida's bid to have it cancelled over COVID-19 fears.

In a January 19 resolution, the SC said it will proceed with oral arguments on February 2, and wait until the proceedings are concluded before acting on the petitioners' requests to stop the implementation of the law while the case is pending.

In the same resolution, the court denied a motion by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking the cancellation of the event over concerns that it would contribute to the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, including its new variant from the United Kingdom.

The court earlier rescheduled the oral arguments from January 19 to February 2 after an assistant solicitor general and some staff who will attend tested positive for COVID-19.

The oral arguments will be held over six months after the anti-terrorism law took effect.

Thirty-seven groups of petitioners selected 13 lawyers — seven main and six alternates — to argue on the issues set by the SC for oral arguments.

They are the following:

• Former solicitor general Jose Anselmo Cadiz, with Integrated Bar of the Philippines official Randall Tabayoyong as alternate;
• FLAG chairman Jose Manuel Diokno, with former SC spokesman Theodore Te as alternate;
• University of the Philippines College of Law political law cluster chair Alfredo Molo III;
• Human rights lawyer Evalyn Ursua, with National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) Assistant Secretary General Josalee Deinla as alternate;
• Former Bayan Muna representative and NUPL chair Neri Colmenares, with NUPL Secretary General Ephraim Cortez as alternate;
• Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, with Ateneo law professor Howard Calleja as alternate; and
• Algamar Latiph of the Bangsamoro Transition Commission, with human rights lawyer Bantuas Lucman as alternate

Each of the seven main lawyers will argue on a cluster of issues ranging from whether the SC should issue a temporary restraining order to whether the powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council violate the Constitution.

The SC had asked for eight lawyers from the petitioners but they selected only seven, with a request to allow the six alternates to physically attend the oral arguments to assist those who will argue.

They have a total of 45 minutes to present their arguments.

Calida, who represents the government, may bring only up to three lawyers with him in the first oral arguments the SC will be conducting during the COVID-19 pandemic.

All attendees have to present a negative COVID-19 RTC-PCR test result taken within 72 hours before the oral arguments, the SC said.

Retired SC justices, lawmakers, activists, students, artists, journalists, labor groups, and many others filed petitions against the anti-terrorism law, raising concerns it could violate basic rights and legitimize supposed state attacks against government critics and activists. -MDM, GMA News