The government expects petitions will be filed against the Supreme Court decision that ruled all but two provisions of the anti-terror law as constitutional.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said the government’s next move will be made after all parties have had the chance to seek a reconsideration.
“It is expected that parties affected by the Supreme Court’s decision will file motions for reconsideration. So nothing is final yet as of this time,” Guevarra told reporters in a text message on Friday.
“Assuming, however, that the ruling on the invalidated provisions would remain, the corresponding provisions in the IRR (Implementing Rules and Regulations) will automatically cease to exist, too, without any action on the part of the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council),” he added.
Guevarra said it is a litigant’s statutory right to seek a reconsideration of any judgment that is deemed adverse.
“That is the essence of our judicial system,” he said.
The SC en banc on Thursday upheld the validity of Republic Act (RA) 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 except for Sections 4 and 25.
At least 37 petitions were filed questioning the law.
Twelve of the 15 justices ruled as too broad and “violative of freedom of expression” Section 4 that states public protests, dissent, work stoppages and other exercises of political rights would not be considered as acts of terrorism as long as these “are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm.. or to create a serious risk to public safety.”
A vote of 9-6 also struck out Section 25, which allows the ATC to designate people and groups as terrorists based on the requests of other countries or international organizations.
Several petitioners who challenged the constitutionality of Anti-Terror Act have signified their intention to seek a reconsideration of the SC’s decision.
In a press conference, Bayan Muna chairman Neri Colmenares said his group will file a motion on the ATA provision on the extended period of detention even without sufficient evidence as well as the powers of the ATC.
Another petitioner, lawyer Howard Calleja said his group, said they will pursue all legal remedies.
“Definitely, we feel strongly about having other questionable provisions declared unconstitutional as well. We will continue to make our case in our motion for reconsideration. Hopefully the Supreme Court will reconsider. But for now, we take our victories and use them as inspiration moving forward,” Calleja said.
Human rights lawyer Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno said he is not discounting the possibility of filing a motion for reconsideration.
“We were hoping that the Court would accept our arguments, especially with respect to inciting to terrorism and Section 29 among other provisions,” Diokno said.
A copy of the Court decision and the opinions handed down by almost all the justices have not been made public. The decision and the opinions may be released next week.
The Department of Justice on Friday again assured the public that there is nothing to fear from the ATA, except those who are actually involved in acts of terrorism.
“You have nothing to worry about,” Justice Undersecretary Adrian Ferdinand Sugay said, in a media briefing.
“Because of this, the people who are not involved in acts of terrorism and are not affiliated with groups involved in terrorism have nothing to worry about,” Sugay added.
Senator Panfilo Lacson, the principal author of the law, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, saying the law provides the government the legal backbone to fight armed groups.
“Peace wins over terror. That much is clear," said Lacson, who is running for president under Partido Reporma.
He said this would go hand in hand with development and livelihood programs to deter the return of the armed groups once they are neutralized.
"One of our top priorities is peace and order, not only for urban centers but also for remote areas where there is little government presence," Lacson said.
Senator Francis Pangilinan said the people's efforts led to a partial victory in the Supreme Court ruling on the Anti-Terror Law.
“Relentless efforts by fellow petitioners and the people led to our partial victory," he said, but added that dangerous provisions of the law remain.
“For instance, the provisions on prolonged detention and warrantless arrests we believe run contrary to the Bill of Rights and can be abused by law enforcers," said Pangilinan, who is running for vice president, along with Vice President Leni Robredo, who is running for president.
Pangilinan is one of the petitioners seeking to declare the law as unconstitutional.