SC chief assures public safety and security in new ATA rules

    0
    5

    CHIEF Justice Alexander Gesmundo has assured stakeholders that the Special Rules on Anti-Terrorism Cases that the Court is now drafting would protect individual fundamental freedoms and the effective implementation of the law for the protection of the public.

    In his speech before the participants in the dialogue on the proposed judicial rules on anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism financing cases, CJ Gesmundo said the procedural rules proposed by the ad hoc committee tasked to formulate the special rules are currently being reviewed and deliberated by the Court en banc.

    Retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno has been designated to head the ad hoc committee.

    “Now, through this Dialogue, it is hoped that Members of the Judiciary as well as other stakeholders invited in this activity will share their concerns on the substantive laws and their suggestions on judicial procedures so that the proposed ATA [Anti-Terrorism Act] Rules can, all the more, achieve its objective of protecting fundamental rights under the backdrop of effective law enforcement,” CJ Gesmundo said.

    On the other hand, the CJ also acknowledged the need to allow “a more proactive approach” to security with the advancement of technology   to discourage terrorist activities.

    The dialogue which will be held until Friday (May 5) is being held in Mandaue City, Cebu.

    It is being conducted with the help of the Australian Embassy, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Asia Foundation.

    CJ Gesmundo also acknowledged the need to allow “a more pro active approach” to security to stop terrorist activities.

    “While we accept the necessity for urgent and enhanced security measures, these must be done within the confines of the law, with proper checks and balances to guarantee that there is no undue or excessive intrusion to our rights and freedoms,” he pointed out.

    “Indeed, we must balance the need for security with the protection of individual rights and freedoms,” he added.

    It can be recalled that 37 petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479, the ATA of 2020. ATA was enacted on July 3, 2020 and enforced starting July 18, 2020.

    On December 7, 2021, the SC handed down a decision which ruled as constitutional almost all the provisions of ATA.

    On December 7, 2021, the SC handed down a decision which ruled as constitutional almost all the provisions of ATA.

    The Court struck down as unconstitutional the qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of RA 11479 which defines terrorism

    The said provision states that terrorism “shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and. other similar exercises of civil and political rights,  which are not intended to cause death serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.”

    However, the Court ruled that the qualifier “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” was  “overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.”

    Also declared as unconstitutional was the second method for designation in Section 25 (Designation of Terrorist Individual, Groups of Persons, Organizations or Associations) paragraph 2 of RA 11479.

    Paragraph 2 states: “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 Resolution) No. 1373.”

    CJ Gesmundo said “it became imperative to provide for a set of procedural rules to protect the fundamental rights of persons and entities from the ill effects brought about by abuses in the implementation of inherently overbroad penal statutes.”

    He noted that  the SC “found it necessary to promulgate a procedural framework both to demarcate a zone of legitimacy for acts by law enforcers as well as to delineate judicial reliefs against potential abuses of state agents.”

    Image credits: Bernard Testa