Oral arguments in the Supreme Court regarding 37 petitions against the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 or anti-terror law began on Tuesday.
Among the petitioners’ lawyers who laid down their arguments against the anti-terror law are:
- Former Solicitor-General Jose Anselmo Cadiz
- Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman
- Human Rights lawyer Chel Diokno
- Evalyn Ursua
- Algamar Latiph
- UP Constitutional Law Prof. John Molo III
- Former party-list representative Neri Colmenares
Cadiz laid down their argument that the petitioners have legal standing in the case because the ATA affects the bill of rights, and there is a credible threat to them.
The former SolGen also believes that there was a serious abuse of discretion in passing the controversial law.
According to Diokno, the anti-terror law violates the alleged fundamental rights of Filipinos such as civil and political rights.
Diokno added that because of the ATA, anyone who posts on Facebook criticizing, for example, a telecom company that may be close to the President, can be interpreted as a move to overthrow the government.
Oral arguments in SC on petitions vs anti-terror law begins
Molo, on the other hand, questioned the vague definition of “terrorism” which he said could affect the meaning of other crimes related to terrorism, such as “inciting to terrorism.”
According to the lawyer, since 1987, there has been no law that violates constitutional rights. He said there is no law that threatens the judiciary by removing its power and leaving it to the executive.
Ursua, another human rights lawyer, cited the freezing of the assets of the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines or RMP, based only on the allegation that it funded some communist activities.
According to Ursua, it is even clearer that the RMP is an organization of women and men and religious and lay workers, whose purpose is for their missionary works.
He added that the ongoing red-tagging of activists and other critics of the government has already resulted in the deaths of others.
Colmenares stressed that the ATA is invalid under the constitution.
He said its provisions are vague. And under the ATA, legal acts can be punished or interpreted as terrorism, based on the statements of the authorities using vague definitions of law.