The supreme art of winning against terrorism is to subdue the real enemy, and not the government.
Not long after President Rodrigo Roa Duterte signed into law Republic Act No. 11479, otherwise known as the Anti-Terrorism Act, several petitions were filed assailing its constitutionality. To date, the Supreme Court consolidated eight (8) petitions filed by: 1) Atty. Howard Calleja, et al., who filed the first petition as concerned citizens and members of the Philippine Bar; 2) Rep. Edcel C. Lagman filed the second petition as citizen and Representative of the First District of Albay; 3) Bayan Muna Party List Representative Carlos Isagani T. Zarate, et al. filed the third petition as legislators and concerned Filipino citizens; 4) Atty. Melencio Sta. Maria, et al. filed the fourth petition as taxpayers and members of the Philippine Bar; 5) the Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR) as a non-governmental organization composed of taxpayers; 6) Atty. Rudolf Philip Jurado as a member of the Philippine Bar, taxpayer, and registered voter; 7) Christian Monsod, et. al. as Constitution framers and advocates of human rights; and 8) the Sanlakas as party-list organization and multi-sectoral people’s alliance.
All their petitions allege the unconstitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act, relying primarily on baseless allegations of vagueness of the law, unjustified fears of abuse, and imagined conjectures.
Today, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment on these petitions as counsel for all the respondents, explaining the validity of the Anti-Terrorism Act, with the primordial goal of putting an end to the speculations. Through this Comment, the OSG likewise wishes to allay the fears of some members of society and to remind them that the Government should not be perceived as the enemy, but rather as a guardian in safeguarding the Filipino People and ensuring the enjoyment of all of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
The OSG stresses that the Anti-Terrorism Act incarnates the State’s policy “to protect life, liberty, and property from terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the Law of Nations.”[1] This stems from the general duty of all States to protect individuals under their jurisdiction against interference in the enjoyment of their human rights. More specifically, the enactment of this law is part of the Philippines’ obligation to ensure respect for the right to life and the right to security.
The Anti-Terrorism Act is needed to fight the continuous and aggressive security threats brought about by terrorism. In its Comment, the OSG made a clear and exhaustive clarification on the issues raised against the Law.
True to its mandate as the Republic’s Defender, the OSG through its Comment, aims to protect this vital piece of legislation, not only to defend the embattled respondents, but also the welfare of the general public, who will ultimately be benefited by its enforcement. It also aims to dispel preconceived or even misconceived opinions against the law with basic truths and facts.
