Hearings on the ATA to resume

The Supreme Court said Friday the oral arguments on the 37 petitions seeking to declare the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as unconstitutional will resume on March 23 after being suspended three times due to COVID-19 reasons.

After starting the arguments on the case on February 2, the high court suspended the arguments on Feb. 23, March 9 and 16 as preventive measures to control the spread of COVID-19 in the court.

Oral arguments are usually held at the high court’s En Banc session hall along Padre Faura Street in Manila. 

The petitioners have completed the presentation of their arguments on the alleged unconstitutionality of the ATA.

On March 23, state lawyers led by Solicitor General Jose Calida will take the podium to defend the constitutionality of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Law, and subsequently to seek the dismissal of all the petitions against it.

Calida had sought the dismissal of the petitions on procedural and substantive grounds.

On the procedural grounds, Calida said the petitioners in the cases had no legal standing to bring the cases before the high court, which was not a trier of facts.

He said the petitioners failed to point out “personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result.”

On the substantive issues, he says the ATA under Republic Act 11479 does not violate the constitutional provisions on equal protection of the laws, due process, right to privacy, freedom of speech and of expression, right to information, prohibition against incommunicado and other similar forms of detention, right to a speedy trial, right to a speedy disposition of cases, proscription against involuntary servitude, separation of powers and indigenous people’s right to self-determination.

“Now, more than ever, the response of the government against terrorism is critical. And respond it did through RA 11479… which is actually the embodiment of the State’s policy ‘to protect the life, liberty and property from terrorism… and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity and against the Law of Nations,” Calida argued.

After the high court justices interpellated Calida and other state lawyers, the high court was expected to call its two appointed “friends of the court” to share their views that may help in the resolution of the legal dispute.

The appointed “friends of the court” (amici curiae) are former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and former high court Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.

All the 37 petitions asked the high court to declare the ATA unconstitutional in its entirety.

The petitioners sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order that could stop the law’s implementation that started on July 18, 2020.