Carpio group urges SC to reverse decision declaring parts of anti-terror law constitutional

Retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio and his co-petitioners on Thursday urged the high court to overturn its decision on the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

Carpio's group argued in their motion for reconsideration that Section 4 (definition of terrorism), Section 3h and 3m, as well as Sections 10 and 26 (insofar as the phrase "organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism" is concerned) should be struck down as unconstitutional because they are vague and overbroad.

“Justice [Rosmari] Carandang opined that this phrase was ‘impermissibly vague’ as 'there is nothing in the law which provides rules or guidelines to determine and verify the nature of an organization, association, or group as one organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism,'" the motion read.

"Likewise, Justice Carandang found the phrase 'organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism' as an unnecessary 'overreach into innocent and protected membership.'"

The petitioners also called on the court to nullify Sections 12, 25 and 29.

They said Section 29 of the law violates the rights to due process, to bail, to association, the presumption of innocence, and infringes upon the separation of powers.

The group stressed that, under the 1987 Constitution, only a judge can issue an arrest warrant, as it questioned the provision that allows authorities to detain a suspected terrorist for up to 24 days. 

"To extend the maximum period of detention to 24 days, which is eight times the constitutional limitation (three days), is to state that terrorism goes beyond even the constitutionally-recognized extraordinary circumstances of rebellion or invasion, which the Office of the Solicitor General itself expressly declared to be not the case," the motion stated.

Separate appeals were filed on Wednesday by a group of journalists and senators represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) as well as 26 petitioners.

Last December, the SC declared two parts of the controversial law unconstitutional following months of oral arguments.

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