CASE DIGEST
Calleja v. Executive
Secretary
G.R. No. 252578.
December 07, 2021
EN BANC, CARANDANG J.
Constitutionality of
the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)
This Court resolves thirty-seven (37) separate petitions all challenging and assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479 (R.A. No. 11479), otherwise known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA). Signed by President Rodrigo R. Duterte (Duterte) on July 3, 2020. Despite the legislature’s efforts to pass the law, petitioners primarily assailed the validity and constitutionality of the ATA. Petitioners asserted that Sections 4 to 12 of the ATA, due to their perceived facial vagueness and overbreadth that “purportedly repress free speech.” Furthermore, it is argued that the unconstitutionality of the definition of the word “terrorism” and its variants will leave it with “nothing to sustain its existence.”
Following the passage of the ATA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has commenced the crafting of the law’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR) in August 2020. Succeeding this, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) has automatically adopted the list of designated terrorists by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The ATC has also taken grave measures to implement the ATA, which include designating CPP/NPA and other sixteen (16) organizations associated with the Islamic State and “other Daesh-affiliated groups in the Philippines,” ten (10) individuals for their alleged membership in extremist groups, and nineteen (19) other individuals due to their alleged ties with the CPP/NPA, all as terrorists. Similarly, AMLC also issued Sanction Freeze Orders against the CPP/NPA and the Daesh-affiliated groups. Likewise, the ATC issued several resolutions wherein several individuals were designated as terrorists for their alleged membership in extremist groups and/or alleged ties with the CPP/NPA.
Should facial challenge or applied challenge be
used in analyzing the ATA.
YES. Facial challenge is "an examination of the entire
law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on the basis of its actual
operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or prediction that its
very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or activities." Jurisprudence also
dictates that facial challenges on legislative acts are permissible only if
they curtail the freedom of speech and its cognate rights based on overbreadth
and the void-for-vagueness doctrine. The Court grants due course to these consolidated
petitions as challenges only in relation to the provisions of the ATA which
involve and raise chilling effects on freedom of expression and its cognate
rights in the context of actual and not mere hypothetical facts.
Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 11479 was declared
unconstitutional.
Said proviso invaded areas of protected
freedoms and is void for vagueness as it has a chilling effect on an average
person. Before the protester can speak, he must first guess whether his speech
would be interpreted as a terrorist act pursuant to Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 11479
and whether he might be indicted, arrested, and/or detained for it. The clause
likewise shifts the burden to the accused in explaining his intent. It would
then allow for law enforcers to take an “arrest now, explain later” approach in
the application of the ATA to protesters and dissenters. The vagueness of such
provision would likely result in an arbitrary flexing of the government muscle
which is equally aversive to due process.
“Terrorism shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work and so on 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.”
The “Not Intended” clause of Section
4’s proviso is unconstitutional under the (1) strict scrutiny test, (2) void
for vagueness, and (3) overbreadth doctrines.
The Court struck down the "Not Intended Clause" as
unconstitutional and categorically affirmed that all individuals, in accordance
with Section 4 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, are free to protest,
dissent, advocate, peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of
grievances, or otherwise exercise their civil and political rights, without
fear of being prosecuted as terrorists under the ATA.
The ”Not Intended Clause” also failed the strict scrutiny test. The said test can additionally be used to determine the validity of the clause, being a government regulation of speech. Thus, applying this test, the government has the burden of proving that the regulation is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest; and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. Even if a compelling state interest exists, a governmental action would not pass the strict scrutiny test if the interest could be achieved in an alternative way that is equally effective yet without violating the freedom of expression and its allied rights.
Sec. 25 of R.A. No. 11479 on the second
mode of designation was declared unconstitutional.
It is not the least restrictive means
to achieve such a purpose. This mode of designation does not pass the strict
scrutiny test and is equally overboard. It is not the least restrictive means
to achieve such a purpose. Because this measure has the unintended consequence
of stifling free speech and related rights, it should not be implemented based
on a decision made by an executive body that lacks adequate criteria and
safeguards. In conclusion, the second manner of designation fails to withstand
strict scrutiny and overbreadth for the reasons indicated, and is thus illegal.
No comments:
Post a Comment