GOVERNMENT lawyers have allayed fears raised by several associate justices of the Supreme Court that the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2021 will not result in violation of the basic human rights of the people guaranteed under the Constitution.
The assurance was made during Tuesday’s 7th oral argument on the 37 petitions seeking to declare the ATA as unconstitutional.
During interpellation, Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul Inting and Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier both questioned government lawyers on the apprehension of the petitioners that the ATA would lead to rampant violations of human rights and the Bill of Rights.
Justice Inting questioned Assistant Solicitor General Marissa dela Cruz Galandines whether the President, his Cabinet officials and leaders of law enforcement agencies have issued statements assuring full respect to human rights.
“I’m asking this question in order that the public will be assured that the ATA will be implemented in full respect with human rights and the Bill of Rights,” Justice Inting told Galandines.
In response, Galandines assured Justice Inting that the government has lined up several measures and programs for the efficient implementation of the law.
She also noted that Solicitor General Jose Calida even echoed the President’s previous statement where he assured those who do not have any involvement in any terrorism activities should not worry about the ATA.
The assistant solicitor general also told the Court that the Anti-terrorism Council (ATC) released last April 21 a report detailing various programs being undertaken by different departments of the government in relation to ATA.
“The ATC has taken the lead of developing and publishing a handbook for police and military personnel. There is also a continuous rollout of trainings and workshops for law enforcers,” Galandines said.
She added that the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA) has published on its web site a primer of frequently asked questions about the ATA.
Furthermore, Galandines told the Court that the government has already started the implementation of the national action plan on preventing and countering violent extremism.
On the other hand, Justice Javier asked Assistant Solicitor General Raymund Rigodon for his response on the fears expressed by petitioners, some of them former members of the Court, of possible massive rights violations “in view of what petitioners refer to as a grant of excessive and uncheck of powers under the law.”
Rigodon branded the claim as “speculative” and told the Court that a possibility of abuse “is not a ground to invalidate the law.”
Javier also asked Rigodon on what the government has done so far to allay the fears of the public towards the ATA.
Rigodon echoed Calida’s opening statement where the latter pointed out that the government is not the enemy in connection with the ATA’s implementation but the terrorists.
He added that the President has assured the people that they have nothing to fear as long as they are not part of any activity related to terrorism.
“Is that enough? Enough to allay the fears, the apprehensions, the suspicion and repugnance of the public toward ATA? Is lip-service enough?” Justice Javier asked.
Justice Javier also raised the possibility that law enforcers would have varying interpretation with regard to the implementation of the ATA as the very definition of terrorism under the law “relies on intent, which is a statement of mind.”
“The ATA tasks the law enforcement officers and military personnel to ascertain intent based on nature and context. But one law enforcer’s reading of nature and context may differ from one another,” Justice Javier pointed out.
“Without any definite criteria or guide on how to read nature and context, law enforcers may have different ideas as to what constitute terrorism. So what has the government done to ensure that the members of the police and the military will not have varying interpretations and understanding of the ATA,” she asked.
Justice Javier specifically asked Rigodon whether the government has conducted seminars, lectures and other initiatives to ensure that there would be no misunderstanding in the implementation of the ATA “at the expense of human lives.”
Rigodon told the Court that the ATC has released guidelines for police officers and military personnel with respect with the implementation of the ATA.
Justice Javier, however, expressed doubts that the issuance of guidelines would be enough “considering that law enforcers are non-lawyers and the ATA is such a technical and legal thing.”
“How does the government assure the people and make sure that the understanding is one and the same so that we will avoid the ‘misimplementation’ of the ATA,” she asked.
The Court has yet to hear amici curiae legal opinions of former Chief Justice Reynato Puno and former SC Associate Justice and Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza on the issue.
Puno and Jardeleza have been designated by the Court as amici curiae (friends of the court) to give their expert opinion on the matter.
Read full article on BusinessMirror
