Petitioners urge SC to reconsider decision on anti-terror law

Petitioners on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling declaring most parts of the controversial anti-terror law constitutional.

Supported by 26 of the 37 petitioners, the joint motion for reconsideration said Section 10 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 provides vague and overbroad penalties for the recruitment and membership in a terrorist organization.

It also questioned the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to designate people or groups as terrorists under Section 25, which also empowers the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to freeze their assets.

"The ponente properly observed that due to its lack of proper safeguards and remedies for an erroneous designation, the third mode of designation creates a 'chilling effect on speech and its cognate rights and unduly exposes innocent persons to erroneous designation with all its adverse consequences,'" the motion stated.

"Among these 'innocent persons' are the ones already being designated de facto as 'communist terrorists' by reason of their political beliefs and affiliation with militant and progressive organizations," it added.

It mentioned the death of Lumad schoolteacher and petitioner Chad Booc, who was killed, along with four others, last week in Davao de Oro, allegedly as a result of a skirmish between the military and communist rebels.

"Groups condemned the killings as a brutal massacre of unarmed civilians," it said.

The motion also appealed against the expansion of the period of warrantless detention for terror suspects to a maximum of 24 days as outlined under Section 29.

"Section 29 destroys the two safeguards in the Constitution to guarantee the protection against unreasonable arrests: first, that only a judge can issue warrants of arrests, and second, that warrants of arrest must be issued only upon probable cause," the petitioners said.

They called the maximum 24-day detention "odious" and "oppressive." 

"Moreover, it is also fraught with dangers to the security of the detained suspect because such prolonged detention could result to his torture to coerce a confession, which is the experience in lengthy custody, let alone the possible manufacture of 'evidence' that did not exist to start with," the motion read.

"It also denies the apprehended person of the speedy disposition of his case, to avail himself of the right to bail and petition for writ of habeas corpus or amparo."

A supplemental motion for reconsideration was also filed by a group of journalists and senators represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).

Last December, the SC declared only two parts of the law unconstitutional.

The first is a qualifier under Section 4 that states that dissent is not terrorism if it is not meant to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, endanger a person's life, or create a serious risk to public safety.

The ATC's authority to adopt a request for designation by foreign jurisdictions was also struck down by the justices as unconstitutional.

The oral arguments on the petitions took place from February to May 2021, with delays occurring in between as the Philippines battled a surge in COVID-19 cases.

President Rodrigo Duterte signed the law in July 2020. — VBL, GMA News