{"id":262622,"date":"2020-07-23T05:46:40","date_gmt":"2020-07-23T09:46:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=262622"},"modified":"2025-03-09T17:03:10","modified_gmt":"2025-03-09T21:03:10","slug":"moves-to-contest-anti-terror-laws-constitutionality-welcomed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/07\/23\/moves-to-contest-anti-terror-laws-constitutionality-welcomed\/","title":{"rendered":"Moves to contest anti-terror law\u2019s constitutionality welcomed"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Roque earlier said the Palace will abide by the SC ruling on the petition challenging the legality of the anti-terrorism law. (PNA photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Malaca\u00f1ang 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

buy doxycycline online www.wellthysoul.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/doxycycline.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cWe welcome all these petitions. After all, it is the Supreme Court (SC) that will uphold the supremacy of the Constitution,\u201d he said in a virtual Palace briefing.<\/p>\n

Roque earlier said the Palace will abide by the SC ruling on the petition challenging the legality of the anti-terrorism law.<\/p>\n

\u201cMaraming salamat din po sa kanila dahil mabibigyan ng linaw kung talagang labag po sa Saligang Batas po itong bagong batas labas sa terorismo<\/em>\u00a0(We also want to thank them because they will shed light on whether this law against terrorism is really a violation of the Constitution),\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

They specifically questioned the anti-terror law\u2019s \u201cvague and overbroad definition of terrorism which may result in erratic and arbitrary application by law enforcers and may chill the people into silence.\u201d<\/p>\n

They said \u201calthough Section 4 provides that terrorism \u2018shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights,\u2019 this qualifier is rendered pointless by the succeeding phrase \u2018which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person\u2019s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cUnsuspecting citizens would second-guess whether their actions would result in \u2018extensive interference\u2019 or \u2018endanger\u2019 the life of another in some shape or form,\u201d the petitioners said.<\/p>\n

However, Roque reiterated that political demonstrations, even if it causes traffic, cannot be considered an act of terrorism.<\/p>\n

\u201cJurisprudence 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He said President Rodrigo Duterte is an advocate of freedom of expression, including the right to protest.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think anyone can complain that he is one to clamp down on public gatherings.<\/p>\n

buy ampicillin online www.wellthysoul.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/ampicillin.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

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],\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

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).<\/p>\n

\u201cThat shows the commitment of the President to the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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.<\/p>\n

buy abilify online www.wellthysoul.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/abilify.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

Courts have had an extensive experience in the Philippines in evaluating when there is clear and present danger,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0\u2013 Malaca\u00f1ang on Thursday welcomed all petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 or Republic Act 11479, …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":260439,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-azer-parrocha","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262622","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=262622"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262622\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":287902,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262622\/revisions\/287902"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/260439"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}