Labor groups have petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 unconstitutional on the ground that it has a “destructive chilling effect” on workers’ rights to organize and conduct activities to petition the government for redress of grievances.
READ: SC orders government to justify legality of anti-terror law
The petition—the ninth filed so far against the new law—also asked the justices to issue a temporary restraining order to stop its implementation on July 19.
The new law, they said, would allow the detention of persons on mere suspicion of committing terrorist acts.
“While petitioners recognize the efforts of those who sincerely keep our people safe, they strongly oppose the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (otherwise known as Republic Act No. 11479) in its present form which runs contrary and repugnant to the Constitution,” the petitioners said.
“Their greatest concern is that the unrestrained power given to the executive department by the assailed law would be an instrument to terrorize the ordinary citizens who are not terrorists — or be used to aggravate the situation of the workers who are already victims of terrorism or terrorist acts,” they added.
The labor groups told the court that workers’ right to organize is enshrined in the Constitution and warned that all the guaranteed workers’ rights are “in serious danger of being further eroded” by the enactment of the anti-terrorism law.
The law’s definition of terrorism exempts advocacy, work stoppages, and humanitarian action if they are “not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.”
The petitioners are the officials and members of the Federation of Free Workers, Nagkaisa Labor Coalition, Church Labor Conference, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Uni Global Union-Philippine Liaison Council, and the Kilusang Artikulo Trese.
Named respondents were the Office of the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Office of the Executive Secretary, and the secretaries of Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Interior and Local Government, Finance, Justice, Information and Communications Technology, and the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council.
Just like the previous petitions filed before the Court, they labor groups asked the justices to declare as unconstitutional Sections 4,5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 25, and 29 which deal, among others, the definition of terrorism; who commits terrorism; preparatory acts in the commission of terrorism; proscription against speeches and other representations that incite others to terrorism; recruitment and membership in terrorist groups; invalid delegation of legislative power; and unreasonable searches, seizures, and detention.
“The vague and overly broad provisions of a law particularly those which are penal in nature such as RA 11479 is a deprivation of the people’s right to due process,” they said.
They also said the warrantless arrest and detention of suspected terrorists are “without doubt, clear and blatant assault” on the constitutional guarantee that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
The latest petition is expected to be consolidated with the eight petitions previously lodged the past two weeks.
The first eight cases have been acted upon by the Court, which directed the Office of the President and several agencies in the Executive department and the Senate and the House of Representatives to comment on both the petitions and the pleas for TRO.
The petitioners in the first eight cases were the group of lawyer Howard Calleja and former Education Secretary Armin Luistro; Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman; the group of Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria and several professors of the Far Eastern University (FEU); the Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives led by Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate; the former head of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel Rudolph Philip B. Jurado; the group of former members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission Christian S. Monsod and Felicitas A. Aquino and their group from the Ateneo Human Rights Centerl two labor groups represented by the Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR) and the Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center (PLACE), and the party-list organization Sanlakas.
READ: Sanlakas joins call vs Anti-Terror Law
The Palace, meanwhile, bristled at a letter sent by 45 US lawmakers to the Philippine ambassador to the United States to raise concern that the new law would be a tool to repress peaceful dissent and a threat to human rights.
READ: ‘Peaceful nights’ as anti-terror law takes effect Sat.
Presidential spokesman Harry Roque said the Philippines was no longer a US colony and American lawmakers should stop interfering in the country’s internal affairs.
“American lawmakers calling for the repeal of the Philippines’ anti-terror law should stop intervening,” Roque said in a press briefing.
“Do not interfere. You’re no longer our colonial masters. We’re an independent country now,” Roque said.
He said the fate of the controversial measure was up to the country’s Supreme Court.
“We have a working judicial system and we can rely on our judicial system to rule on the constitutionality of the Anti-Terror Law,” Roque added.
President Duterte signed Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act early this month despite calls to junk it over provisions that critics said violate human rights and are prone to abuse.
READ: Sanlakas joins call vs Anti-Terror Law
Senate President Vicente Sotto III said US lawmakers who urged the Philippine government to repeal Anti-Terrorism Law should mind their own business.
“Offhand, I would say they are misinformed. Why don’t they look at their own laws? Their Homeland Security Act? That’s very strict,” Sotto said in Filipino.
He also said the US lawmakers were merely basing their conclusions on what they read on social media, and were unaware of the safeguards that are in place.
“Philippine senators are better than their senators,” he said. “Why are they interfering here? They should look after their own country.”
READ: Anti-terror law critics ask SC to suspend it