{"id":260773,"date":"2020-07-07T22:49:54","date_gmt":"2020-07-08T02:49:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=260773"},"modified":"2020-07-07T22:49:54","modified_gmt":"2020-07-08T02:49:54","slug":"sc-asks-palace-to-comment-on-petitions-vs-anti-terror-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/07\/07\/sc-asks-palace-to-comment-on-petitions-vs-anti-terror-law\/","title":{"rendered":"SC asks Palace to comment on petitions vs. anti-terror law"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_198344\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-198344\" style=\"width: 640px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/640px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-198344 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/640px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/640px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines.jpg 640w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/640px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines-300x225.jpg 300w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/640px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines-20x15.jpg 20w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-198344\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">&#8220;The Supreme Court ordered the consolidation of the four petitions, and required the respondents to file their respective comments on the petition and application for TRO (temporary restraining order) within a period of 10 calendar days from notice,&#8221; SC spokesman Brian Keith Hosaka told reporters at the end of the high court&#8217;s en banc session. (File <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=9855986\">Photo By Mike Gonzalez (TheCoffee) &#8211; Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday asked the executive department to comment on the petitions questioning the legality of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Supreme Court ordered the consolidation of the four petitions, and required the respondents to file their respective comments on the petition and application for TRO (temporary restraining order) within a period of 10 calendar days from notice,&#8221; SC spokesman Brian Keith Hosaka told reporters at the end of the high court&#8217;s en banc session.<\/p>\n<p>No TRO sought by the petitioners was handed down by the court in the meantime.<\/p>\n<p>The suits were originally filed on Monday separately by lawyer Howard M. Calleja, Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, lawyer Melencio Sta. Maria and Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Carlos Zarate.<\/p>\n<p>Among other things, the petitioners assailed issues on powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council, provisions on the forms of speech and expression, surveillance, and detention.<\/p>\n<p>The petitions also questioned the definition of the crime of terrorism under the law claiming it as vague and ambiguous, the maximum of 24 days of prolonged detention of a suspect without a judicial warrant or without charging him, the maximum of 90 days technical surveillance and wiretapping of communications, the maximum of six months investigation of a suspect\u2019s bank accounts and the freezing of assets and the authority to designate a person or association as a terrorist without judicial intervention.<\/p>\n<p>President Rodrigo Duterte signed the measure into law on July 3 which repeals Republic Act 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MANILA\u00a0\u2013 The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday asked the executive department to comment on the petitions questioning the legality of &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":198344,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-benjamin-pulta","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260773","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260773"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260773\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":260774,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260773\/revisions\/260774"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/198344"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}