Manila: The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday declared as unconstitutional two portions of Republic Act 11479 — the Anti-Terrorism Act — local media reported on Thursday.
The top court declared unconstitutional the so-called “killer caveat” of the anti-terror law (Republic Act 11479) — which would have made dissent or protest a crime if “it had an intent to cause harm”.
In a 12-3 vote, the country’s apex court struck down the provision for being “over-broad” and "violative" of freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, an advisory issued by the court’s Public Information Office states Thursday.
Through the magistrates voted on Tuesday, the decision was announced on Thursday, December 9. Partially granting the petitions, the SC voided the phrase “which 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” in the caveat under Section 4.
“The qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of R.A. 11479 is declared as unconstitutional for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression,” the Supreme Court Public Information Office stated in its Thursday advisory.
The caveat, found in Section 4e, exempted dissent from the definitions of a terroristic act — but it had a “qualifier” — it would have exempted dissent only “if there’s no intent to cause harm”.
Petitioners contested this Section 4e, by saying intent is highly “subjective” — and opens the way for law enforcement agents to abuse their authority.
Majority of the judges agreed and, with that phrase voided, Section 4(e) now staters: “Provided, that terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights.”
Important win
Former Supreme Court spokesperson, lawyer Ted Te, a counsel and a petitioner in the case, said the declaration of the qualifier as unconstitutional is “nonetheless an important win as it strengthens the protections for civil liberties that the proviso in Section 4 carves out.”
In addition to the “killer caveat”, the petitioners asked the court to scrap the entire Section 4 for what they said were very vague definitions.
In calling for a total strike down of Section 4, the petitioners hoped the entire law could be voided for having no definition. The top court, however, did not grant this.
Request for designations
Another portion that has been stricken down is the second method for designation under Section 25.
The second method of Section 25 states that “Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR (UN Security Council Resolution) No. 1373.”
The public information office stated that other provisions subject to the more than 30 petitions “are not unconstitutional.”
“The main ponencia (main decision) and the various opinions contain interpretations of some of the provisions declared in these cases as not unconstitutional,” according to the SC-PIO’s advisory.
• The law was the subject of 37 petitions before the Supreme Court, making it the most contentious law to date.
• In addition to the 37 petitions, several reiterative motions were also filed by various petitioners after some of its petitioners have been arrested or “red-tagged” by government forces as having ties with armed communist groups.
• Critics have labeled the provision as "vague" and may be open to abuse and human rights violations. Government officials have repeatedly dismissed these claims, saying there are enough safeguards in place to protect the rights of citizens.
2 items found unconstitutional
1. On December 7, in an en banc session, the justices struck down a part of Section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Law for "being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression." (Vote: 12-3)
2. The Supreme Court justices also declared the second part of Section 25 as unconstitutional (Vote: 9-6).
It refers to the line "request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR (United Nations Security Council Resolutions) NO. 1373."
Other provisions left untouched
All other portions challenged by the petitioners were upheld:
• The warrantless arrest and 24-day detention are still enforceable.
• Under the law, suspected terrorists can be detained for up to 24 days even without charges as long as the law enforcement agent or military personnel are authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council — which are composed of Cabinet officials.
• Surveillance of proscribed, designated, and suspected terrorists could also last up to 90 days under the law (vs. 60-day period prescribed in the repealed Human Security Act of 2007).
