Case Digest (G.R. No. 252578)
Facts:
In Anti-Terrorism Act petitions, the respondents were Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, President Rodrigo R. Duterte, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), and other officials and agencies impleaded in the consolidated cases. The petitions assailed Republic Act No. 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which President Duterte signed on July 3, 2020 and which took effect on July 22, 2020. The petitioners, numbering in all to thirty-seven consolidated petitions for certiorari and/or prohibition under Rule 65, Rules of Court, included lawyers, legislators, religious leaders, civil society groups, labor organizations, media groups, and private individuals such as Bayan Muna Party-List Representatives Carlos Isagani T. Zarate, Ferdinand Gaite, and Eufemia Cullamat, Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, GABRIELA, Inc., Coordinating Council for People’s Development and Governance, Inc., Rey Claro C. Casambre, and others. They alleged that the law chilled speech and lawful dissent, and that its implementation had already produced concrete harm through red-tagging, designation, freezing of accounts, surveillance, and threats of arrest. They pointed to, among others, the ATC’s resolutions designating persons and organizations, the AMLC’s freeze orders, and the case of Rey Claro C. Casambre, who was designated as a terrorist. They also relied on allegations that petitioners’ organizations had been publicly tagged as communist fronts by government officials and that some had been subjected to account freezes, investigations, or surveillance.
The challenged law followed an extensive legislative process. Senate and House deliberations on SB No. 1083 and HB No. 6875 took place in 2019 and 2020, and the enrolled bill was transmitted to the Office of the President on June 9, 2020. The Court also took note of post-enactment implementing actions, including the DOJ’s promulgation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) on October 14, 2020, and the ATC’s designation resolutions, notably Resolution No. 10 on automatic adoption of the UNSC Consolidated List, Resolution Nos. 12 and 13 on the designation of the CPP/NPA and Daesh-affiliated groups, and later resolutions designating individuals. The petitions were filed directly with the Supreme Court, and the Court consolidated them. It later gave the petitions due course only in part, admitted only a limited set of petitions for merits review, and dismissed others, including Balay Rehabilitation Center, Inc. v. Duterte and Yerbo v. Offices of the Hon. Senate President and Hon. Speaker, for want of merit or defective form and substance. The controversy centered on the constitutionality of Sections 4 to 14, 16, 17, 25 to 29, 34, 35, 36, 49, 54, and 56 of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
Whether the Court could entertain the consolidated petitions as facial challenges to R.A. No. 11479.
Whether the “Not Intended Clause” in the proviso of Section 4 of R.A. No. 11479 was unconstitutional for vagueness, overbreadth, and infringement of free speech.
Whether Sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of R.A. No. 11479, which penalized threat, training, proposal, incitement, recruitment and membership, and material support, were unconstitutional on their face.
Whether the designation and proscription scheme under Sections 25 to 28 of R.A. No. 11479 violated due process, separation of powers, and the prohibition against vague and overbroad laws.
Whether Section 29 of R.A. No. 11479, and its IRR provisions, validly allowed detention without judicial warrant for the per...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)