Moves to contest anti-terror law’s constitutionality welcomed

Roque earlier said the Palace will abide by the SC ruling on the petition challenging the legality of the anti-terrorism law. (PNA photo)

MANILA – Malacañang on Thursday welcomed all petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 or Republic Act 11479, saying it would help shed light on its alleged questionable provisions.

Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque made this remark after retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales led the 11th group of petitioners asking the high court to declare the controversial law as unconstitutional.

“We welcome all these petitions. After all, it is the Supreme Court (SC) that will uphold the supremacy of the Constitution,” he said in a virtual Palace briefing.

Roque earlier said the Palace will abide by the SC ruling on the petition challenging the legality of the anti-terrorism law.

“Maraming salamat din po sa kanila dahil mabibigyan ng linaw kung talagang labag po sa Saligang Batas po itong bagong batas labas sa terorismo (We also want to thank them because they will shed light on whether this law against terrorism is really a violation of the Constitution),” he added.

On Wednesday, the two legal luminaries and the University of the Philippines College of Law asked the SC to stop, through a restraining order, the implementation of the law which took effect on July 18.

They specifically questioned the anti-terror law’s “vague and overbroad definition of terrorism which may result in erratic and arbitrary application by law enforcers and may chill the people into silence.”

They said “although Section 4 provides that terrorism ‘shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights,’ this qualifier is rendered pointless by the succeeding phrase ‘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.’”

“Unsuspecting citizens would second-guess whether their actions would result in ‘extensive interference’ or ‘endanger’ the life of another in some shape or form,” the petitioners said.

However, Roque reiterated that political demonstrations, even if it causes traffic, cannot be considered an act of terrorism.

“Jurisprudence says that the roads since time immemorial have always been held in trust for the people to use among others, for peaceful redress of grievances,” he said.

He said President Rodrigo Duterte is an advocate of freedom of expression, including the right to protest.

“I don’t think anyone can complain that he is one to clamp down on public gatherings. Even at the time of pandemic, several individuals were able to rally against the anti-terror law in University Avenue in [University of the Philippines],” he said.

Roque pointed out that amid the quarantine restrictions, protesters will also be allowed to hold demonstrations in Quezon City when Duterte delivers his fifth State of the Nation Address (SONA).

“That shows the commitment of the President to the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly,” he said.

Allaying fears that prosecution for inciting to terrorism may be abused, he said to be included in incitement, the person speaking must also have the capacity to do what he is inciting others to do.

“The example of course being given of course is an ordinary individual inciting if he has no way to actually carry out what he is inciting others to do then that is still subject to freedom of expression. But if the person speaking is a member of the Abu Sayyaf and fully-armed, then clearly there is a clear and present danger. Courts have had an extensive experience in the Philippines in evaluating when there is clear and present danger,” he said.

Last July 7, Duterte said law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear about the ani-terrorism law because it will only be used to defend the nation from terrorism.