The Supreme Court (SC) has declared Anti-Terror Law constitutional except for its two sections that are quoted as “violative of freedom of expression” in an advisory issued by the court’s public information office (PIO) on Thursday, Dec. 9
In a 12-3 vote, the high tribunal voted a qualifier to the provision of Section 4 and the second paragraph of Section 25 of Republic Act 11479 as unconstitutional. The advisory said that Section 4 is overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.
“The qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of RA 11479 i.e… “which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety” by a vote of 12-3 is declared as unconstitutional for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression”, the SC-PIO advisory said.
The Section 4 of the law states that terrorism shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole.
Meanwhile, SC struck Section 25, paragraph 2 of the law in a 9-6 vote.
The Section 25 states that the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) will automatically adopt the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List of designated individuals or groups designated as a terrorist, one who finances terrorism, or a terrorist organization.
Paragraph 2 of Section 25 states that a request for designation by other jurisdictions of supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR No. 1373.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 was signed by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte on July 3, 2020 and took effect on July 18. It has received 37 petitions seeking to nullify its measures, making it one of the most challenged laws to date.
Other provisions of the law were declared constitutional by the high tribunal.
The main court decision is set to be released by the public information office (PIO) along the separate opinions of the magistrate that contains their interpretation on some parts of the Anti-Terror Act that are declared unconstitutional.
“The main ponencia and the various opinions contain interpretations of some of the provisions declared in these cases as not unconstitutional,” it added.
Meanwhile, Acting Presidential Spokesperson Karlo Nograles said that the Palace has yet to issue a statement until they have secured a copy of the latest Supreme Court decision.
“Upon receipt of the decision, the Office of the Executive Secretary will study the ruling and, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, thereafter consider the next course of action,” Nograles said.
He also reiterated that Republic Act Number 11479 underscores their commitment to seriously address terrorism and to uphold the rule of law. – Report from Kenneth Paciente / CC-rir
