Transcribe-April-27 on Anti-Terrorism Act PDF

Preview

Summary

This afternoon session: presentation of respondents' arguments. The Solicitor General is given 45 minutes to make his opening statements. Thereafter interpolation that the justices shall proceed. After the interpolation of the justices, the court will hear amicus curiae. (Before proceeding, Justice ...

Description

This afternoon session: presentation of respondents' arguments. 1. The Solicitor General is given 45 minutes to make his opening statements. 2. Thereafter interpolation that the justices shall proceed. 3. After the interpolation of the justices, the court will hear amicus curiae. (Before proceeding, Justice Mario Lopez has requested time to address the petitioners. Justice

Justice Mario Lopez: I would like to point out the dichotomy of this crime of terrorism. Invariably, all crimes are intended for prevention, deference, retribution, and rehabilitation, ALL CRIMES. While in terrorism, in addition to all of these purposes, there is the theory of self-defense, which is espoused by these kind of crime. Now, because of this, there may be a possible qualification of the application of our jurisprudence, particularly the case of the Southern Hemisphere, vis-a-vis the case of disini (203335). In other words, in so far as terrorism is concerned, so far, if we have to classify this terrorism as self defense, then I would say southern hemisphere will apply and not disini. I am asking this opportunity, so that the petitioners could clarify through their memorandum if ever this matter will come out. And I think that is very important, so as to delineate what really is the jurisprudence properly applicable in this case.

Solicitor General Jose Calida (opening statement): “Terrorism must be outlawed by all civilized nations – not explained or rationalized, but fought and eradicated. Nothing can, nothing will justify the murder of innocent people and helpless children”

I just quoted Elie Wiesel, (Nobel laureate, Professor, political activist and Holocaust survivor). Not long ago, a fraction of a second was all it took for the terrorists to detonate the bombs and kill 23 innocent Filipinos in Jolo Cathedral. And just recently, at least 15 more in Jolo, add to these hundreds more of wounded victims and bereaved families whose lives are forever marred by terror. In a blink of an eye, the terrorists created fear to intimidate our people. Our nation is outraged. Every second counts in the fight against terrorism. A fleeting moment could spell the difference between lives lost and lives saved. My mission as Solicitor General is to see to it, that the anti-Terrorism Act will not be derailed by 37 frivolous lawsuits. I respectfully invite your honors to help our nation's battle against terrorism. Let us start by junking repetitions.

“Outright dismissal is the only choice available in this case” Outright dismissal is the only choice available in this case. Because 1. first, there are other parties not before this court with direct and specific interests. Examples are Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos who we're facing criminal cases before the RTC of Olongapo. 2. Second, the anti-Terrorism Act presents a political question.

3. And third, the nullification of the anti-Terrorism Act would compromise our international economic commitments and endanger our economic survival as a nation. Let me elaborate:

1. One. supervening events warrant the outright dismissal of the petitions. Let's look at the first ground of dismissal. There are already cases involving implementation of the anti-Terrorism Act. Two aetas, namely Jr. Ramos and Japer Gurung are facing cases before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City and another three cases against three individuals in Negros Occidental. This was stated by 23 petitioners in their joint motion dated November 26 2020, as well by the petitioners in bayan, in their compliance and manifestation dated November 18 2020. Furthermore, four criminal cases have been filed in Jolo Sulu against 13 individuals and several John and Peter Does for violation of sections 4a and 4b of the anti-terrorism Act. The accused in these cases led by mud zimar… are indicted for the August 24 2020 Jolo bombings. Another case for violation of Section 4b is pending before the RTC of Gubat Sorsogon. Recently, the ATC applied section 25 of the anti-Terrorism Act and designated the Communist Party of the Philippines, New People's Army as terrorist organization. In the case of the southern hemisphere versus ATC, this honourable court ruled and I quote, “More important, there are other parties not before the court with direct and specific interests in the question being raised, our recent development is the filing of the first case of proscription under Section 17 of RA 9372 by the Department of Justice before the Basilan Regional Trial Court against the Abu Sayyaf group. Petitioner organizations do not in the least allege any link to the Abu Sayyaf group.” These individuals and groups now stand to sustain direct and personal injury as a consequence of the implementation of the law. In stark contrast, herein petitioners cannot even make the same claim. It is the duty of petitioners to demonstrate actual cases, and controversy worthy of judicial resolution. Despite the braggadocio of the petitioners, they did not do it. The persons now facing charges for violation of anti-Terrorism Act are not before this honorable court. Instead, they are now litigating their cases before the Regional Trial Courts ergo any resolution in this case will be purely academic and hypothetical. A clear waste of this honorable court’s, time and resources.

2. Political Questions Number two: Political Questions are beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny. As to the second ground for outright dismissal. Congress, in its wisdom passed a new anti-Terrorism Act. A political question is the reason behind this enactment. The doctrine of separation of powers, barricades it from judicial scrutiny. The determination on this matter exclusively rests upon Congress. Due deference from the courts, including this honorable court is expected.

In Garcia vs. Drilon. This honorable court categorically stated that the exercise of discretion with respect to what motivates Congress to enact law and how it wishes to accomplish its intentions are matters solely within the prerogative, which the judiciary should not supersede. The global terrorism index of 2018 ranked the Philippines as the 10th country, most negatively impacted by terrorism. We are grouped with countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan and Somalia. In fact, our country experienced the highest negative impact from the terrorism among states in the Asia Pacific region. Meanwhile, the house of representatives noted that the Philippines rose to ninth place in the 2019 global terrorism index. Both houses of Congress expressed the same sentiments that a stronger, proactive and responsive law is urgently needed. The anti-Terrorism Act was passed to combat terrorism, effectively shield Filipinos from terrorist’s brutal attacks and prevent the country from becoming a haven for extremist groups. According to the 2020 global terrorism index, the Philippines still retains its dubious distinction as the only Southeast Asian country to be ranked in the 10 countries most impacted by terrorism. Undeniably terrorism has devastating economic, social and security consequences. Thus, well planned and calculated policies were adopted by the political departments of the government to eradicate terrorism. Those who connive with the implement abominable atrocities against the Filipino nation must be put behind bars. Our lawmakers enacted the anti-Terrorism Act primarily for the peace and security of our country. The ATA protects the economy, the economic and financial security of Filipinos against the adverse effects of grey listing or worse black listing by the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF. Questions on the propriety and timelessness of the law’s enactment, as raised by petitioners are purely political questions. And as such, beyond the ambit of this honorable court's power of judicial review.

3. Essential to compliance with International Obligations Number three, the ATA is essential to the Philippines compliance to international obligations. Concerning the third ground for outright dismissal. The Congress stressed the need for antiTerrorism Act because the FATF set a deadline for the enactment of an unpaid terrorism statute. If our country fails to comply, the Philippines will be in danger of being included in the high risk and non-cooperative jurisdictions of the global anti money laundering watchdog. Without such a law, the Philippines will be treated as a leper. FATF will see to it to either blacklist us or with us on grey list, the framers of the anti-Terrorism Act were guided by our existing international obligations when they crafted its provisions. The enactment of the antiTerrorism Act made us compliant with our obligations under the United Nations Resolution Number 1373 and the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. As a member of the United Nations, the Philippines should fulfil in good faith. The obligations it assumed in accordance with the UN Charter, and should agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the UNSC. Under UNSCR number 1373, member states such as the Philippines are mandated to prohibit the nationals from making funds, financial services, or economic resources available to those who commit terrorist acts. The latest mutual evaluation report of the FATF rated the Philippines as only compliant to

UNSCR number 1373. The UNSC found Philippines efforts in preventing terrorist financing as grossly deficient. Grey listing reduces investor and lending confidence. It may also result in limited access to banking and financial services. Millions of OFW's and their families will be severely affected by the higher cost of remittances which reduce the amount of their support. Philippine banks will also increase loan interest to borrowers. With higher interest rates, the effect will trickle down to businesses of the country, which will have higher costs of operations. Clearly, grey listing will seriously affect the country's international trade, remittances, and humanitarian financial flows that support the country's economic growth and development. The anti Terrorism Act most especially sections 25 and 36, thereof, serves as a lifeline to the continued strength of the Philippine financial system. If the country fails to adopt a legal framework, compliant with our international obligations, greylisting is not a risk, but an inevitability. Petitions are formally defective. While we could have ended our presentation and the foregoing grounds for outright dismissal, we notice that the petitions are insufficient in form and substance. The revised Rules of Civil Procedure states: “Section 3 Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to comply with these rules, or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon the motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. In Abogado vs. DENR, this court ruled and I quote: “As with a procedure in special civil actions for certiorari prohibition and mandamus. This procedure also requires that the petition should be sufficient, informed and with substance, before a court and take further action. Failure to comply may be the basis for the petitions’ outright dismissal.”

All 37 petitions must be dismissed due to formal violations and noncompliance with your resolution to this court. 1. One, the following petitions lacked verification and certification of non-forum shopping or detached defective ones. And they have been done with the Center for youth participation and development initiatives et al, Dr. Ramon Guillermo et al, Harun al Rashid et al, Lagman et al, and Lawrence Eyerbo(?). 2. Two, the following petitions failed to state the required attestations found in Section 4 rule 7 of the said rules, center of trade human rights San Lakas federation of free workers et al. Algamar lapu concerned online citizens et al, and Anak Mindanao partylist. 3. Three, the following petitions has not to this day submitted a special power of attorney to allow the counsel to represent their interest in this case, et al. 4. Number four, the following petitions failed to number the paragraphs in their respective petitions contrary to the directive of Section 2 rule 7 of the rules of the revised rules of court. Santa Maria et al, Algamar Latif, Hindi Abendan of the center for youth participation and development initiatives et al. Monsod et al and Lawrence Eyerbo. The petitions are riddled with procedural infirmities that warrant no less than dismissal.

5. Number five, petitioners have no locus standi to file the subject petitions . Not only, the petition suffer from formal defects, but these also failed to establish requisites for judicial review. Again, 37 petitions were filed assailing constitutionality of the anti-Terrorism Act. In these consolidated cases, petitioners invoke their diverse capacities, hoping to justify and establish their legal standing that will merit the consideration of this honorable court. The principle of locus standi has long been settled. It was for more than just a generalized grievance. It must be a personal and substantial interest, whereby a person will incur direct injury due to the governmental act assailed. It should be material, not merely incidental. There should be a present substantial interest, and not a mere expectancy, or a future contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. Majority of the petitioners invoked and repeated harp on the doctrine of transcendental importance to justify their obvious lack of direct and personal interest in our cases. Moreover, they violated, outright, the hierarchy of courts. In the absence of an exact definition, jurisprudence provides the following as determinants of the application of the doctrine. 1. Number one, the character of the funds and other assets involved in the case. 2. Number two, the presence of a clear case of disregard by constitutional and statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government. 3. And number three, the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised. There are now exists parties with more direct and specific interest in the very issues being raised before the Supreme Court than herein petitioners. To reiterate, criminal cases have been filed already against 2 aetas at the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City for violation of the anti-Terrorism Act. Petitioners do not also allege any link to the two aetas. This automatically divests petitioners, the right to invoke the doctrine of transcendental importance, on which their whole theory for locus standi depends on. Unlike the 2 aetas who lost their liberty, the petitioners did not suffer any direct or indirect injury that will vest them with locus standi. 6. Number six, there exists no actual controversy in this case. Apart from the petitioner's lack of standing, there is also a complete absence of any actual justiciable controversy to be settled in this honourable court. Justice Leonen pointed out this fatal defect of the petitioners during the interpolation. An actual case of controversy is one which involves a conflict of legal rights and assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution, as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. Courts will decline to pass upon constitutional issues through advisory opinions, the bereft as they are of authority to resolve hypothetical or moot questions. Similarly, petitioners obscure allegations of future and contingent surveillance and red tagging, among others, are not credible threats of prosecution, that would make the petitions as actual justiciable cases or controversies. Clearly, the present petitions grossly failed to show the existence of an actual case or controversy over which this honorable court may exercise its judicial power.

7. Number seven, direct resort to this honorable court is unjustified . Another fatal flaw in the direct resort to this honorable court to challenge the anti-Terrorism Act, is the failure of petitioners will follow the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Let me quote Amicus curiae, Justice Jardeleza, speaking for this court in GIOS-Samar versus DOTC and I quote, “The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that direct course, recourse to this court is allowed only to resolve questions of law, notwithstanding the invocation of paramount, or transcendental importance of the action.” This doctrine is not to be taken lightly. A petitioner has no unfettered discretion to compel this honorable court to jump over the hierarchy of courts. Therefore, the petitions must be dismissed. 8. Number eight, this honorable court is not a Trier of facts. Majority of the petitioners cited factual allegations relating to supposed red tagging the truth or falsity of which are clearly doubtful. There is a question of fact when the doubt arises, as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. It is well settled that this honorable court is not. And I repeat, not a Trier of facts as provided for in Section 2 rule 3 of this Court's internal rules. We quote a portion from the GIOS-Samar case penned by Amicus curiae justice Jardeleza, and I quote, “This court, however, is not a Trier of fact. We cannot resolve these factual issues at the first instance.” For raising questions of fact, the foregoing petitions should be dismissed. 9. Number nine, a facial challenge against the ATA is improper. We shall now controvert pertinent issues raised in the advisory, to assuage the fears of the public from those who demonize the anti-terrorism act, despite its noble intent to protect the public. A caveat on persons reliance on the petitioners’ reliance of facial challenge. In Humambil versus Cafe. The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on a constitutional question, and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. In Romualdez vs. Comelec. This court ruled that under no case may penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge, and should not be declared unconstitutional for overbreadth and vagueness. This principle has been affirmed as good law by this court as recently as 2019 in Madrilejos vs Gatdula. Amicus curiae Justice Jardeleza quoted from Romualdez vs. Comelec that facial challenge against a penal statute is at best, amorphous and speculative. It would essentially force the court to consider third parties who are not before it. As emphasized by Justice Mario Lopez, never before anywhere has the facial challenge been mounted against a penal statute, defining and punishing crimes against national security. The rule must stand constitutionality of the anti-Terrorism Act may only be assailed in actual criminal trial. 10. The ATA is a valid exercise of the police power of the state. Several petitioners question the constitutionality of the ATA, on the grounds that the law does not satisfy the tests of a valid exercise of police power. They are wrong. In Zabal vs. Duterte. This honorable court described police power as the inherent and Plenary Power of the state, which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of the society. The strict scrutiny test requires that law: 1. is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. And number two, 2. it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.

- On the first requirement, no less than the constitution declared as principle the primary duty of the government to serve and protect the people and to secure the sovereignty of the state and the integrity of its national territory. -The second requirement of strict scrutiny, the adoption of Least Restrictive means has always been fully complied with. The anti-Terrorism Act adopts narrowly drawn mechanisms to avoid conflict with constitutional rights. Since the anti Terrorism Act is a penal statute, the Congress meticulously put safeguards in the anti Terrorism Act to avoid abuses. Among these are the prohibition against torture, or coercion in investigation and interrogation and the upholding of the constituti...