Justices on quarantine, ATA hearing moved

Some magistrates of the Supreme Court went on self-quarantine, prompting the High Court to postpone its regular en banc session today (Tuesday) and the scheduled continuation of the oral arguments on the 37 petitions seeking to declare as unconstitutional Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

In an advisory released by the Office of the Clerk of Court, the SC said the oral arguments have been moved to March 2 at 2:30 p.m.

“Considering that some of the justices are on self-quarantine as a health precaution against COVID-19, you are hereby informed, per instruction of the Honorable Supreme Court, of the suspension of the oral arguments scheduled on February 23, 2021,” the advisory stated.

The advisory was signed by Clerk of Court Edgardo Aricheta.

The SC justices are expected to continue to interpellate the lawyers of the 37 petitioners on their arguments against the provisions of the ATA when the hearing resumes next week.

After the interpellations, the high court will hear expert opinions of amici curiae retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno and retired Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza.

The Court earlier directed the parties in the case to refrain from discussing its merits in public in order not to affect the outcome of the petitions.

It was learned that one of the justices tested positive for the virus.

Court sources said the magistrate has immediately informed his colleagues about his test result.

While subsequent tests showed the justice has already recovered from the virus, the other magistrates opted to go on self-quarantine.

Earlier, lawyers of the 37 petitioners asked the magistrates to scrap the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and instead uphold the supremacy of the provisions of the Constitution over the controversial law.

Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Jose Anselmo Cadiz argued that Filipinos are facing “real and imminent danger” to both constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and separation of powers.

Cadiz considered the current controversy between the 1987 Constitution and the ATA as “a colossal battle.”

 “Presently, the Anti-Terror Law is running roughshod over the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights,” he said.

Human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno expressed apprehension the anti-terrorism law puts activists at the risk of being arrested and prosecuted on mere “subjective impression” of law enforcers of what their intent was.

“Anyone therefore who tweets for people to attend a peaceful rally could be arrested for engaging in acts intended to endanger a person’s life due to the danger of COVID infection,” Diokno argued.

“Anyone who posts on Facebook for the people to boycott a digital services company owned by someone close to the president or who engages in a transport strike could be arrested for engaging in acts intended to cause extensive interference with critical infrastructure since the term includes telecommunications and transportation,” he warned.

According to Diokno, if only the law had existed in 1986 when the EDSA People Power Revolution took place, “Cardinal Sin’s call for people power would easily qualify as inciting to terrorism.”