Case Digest (G.R. No. 252578) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves a consolidation of 37 separate petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479, known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA), under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The petitioners hail from diverse sectors including party-list representatives, former and incumbent congress members, lawyers, teachers, students, journalists, religious groups, civil society organizations, indigenous peoples, and ordinary citizens. They assail various provisions of the ATA as void for vagueness, overbroad, and violative of fundamental constitutional rights such as the rights to due process, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, academic freedom, right against unreasonable search and seizure, among others.
The law was enacted to replace the Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. 9372), which was deemed insufficient in countering the growing threats of terrorism both locally and globally, especially after incidents such as the Marawi siege in 201
Case Digest (G.R. No. 252578) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and Terrorism in the Philippines
- Terrorism is a historical and global phenomenon characterized by violence or threats for political effect.
- The Philippines ranked 10th worldwide in the 2020 Global Terrorism Index, with over 3,000 deaths from 2002 to 2019, including notable incidents such as the Marawi Siege (2017) and several bombings.
- The Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA) was the initial anti-terrorism legislation but proved insufficient.
- To strengthen counterterrorism, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA, RA 11479) was enacted, repealing the HSA.
- The ATA complies with international obligations, particularly UN Security Council Resolution No. 1373, to which the Philippines is a party.
- The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA)
- The law defines terrorism broadly, covering acts regardless of the stage of execution, including intent, purpose, and the nature and context of conduct.
- It establishes various offenses, such as terrorism, threats, planning, training, inciting, recruitment, membership, and material support.
- It empowers the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to designate terrorists based on probable cause and adopt the UN Security Council's Consolidated List.
- The law provides for proscription of terrorist organizations through judicial process.
- There are provisions for warrantless arrests and extended detention without judicial warrant for terrorism suspects, with specific conditions and procedural requirements.
- The law contains a “Not Intended Clause” excluding advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action from terrorism if not intended to cause death, serious harm, or public danger.
- Legal Challenges and Proceedings
- Thirty-seven (37) petitions for certiorari and/or prohibition were filed challenging the constitutionality of the ATA.
- Petitioners come from diverse sectors including party-list representatives, human rights groups, journalists, academics, and lawyers.
- Issues raised include alleged vagueness and overbreadth, infringement on fundamental rights (due process, free speech, privacy, right to bail, freedom of association), unconstitutional delegation of powers, and improper legislative procedures.
- The Court had to delimit issues appropriate for facial or as-applied challenges and to address procedural requisites such as standing, justiciability, and hierarchy of courts.
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Whether petitioners have legal standing to sue (personal and substantial interest).
- Whether there is an actual, justiciable controversy and the issues are ripe for adjudication.
- Whether direct recourse to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 is proper.
- Whether facial challenge is proper given the nature of a penal law.
- Whether ATA should be declared unconstitutional in whole if the definition of terrorism or ATC’s powers are defective.
- Substantive Issues
- Whether Section 4 (definition and penalty of terrorism) is void for vagueness or overbroad, violating rights to due process and free speech.
- Whether Sections 5 to 14 (threats, planning, inciting, recruitment, material support, etc.) are unconstitutional on vagueness, overbreadth, due process, freedom of religion, association, non-detention, and ex post facto grounds.
- Whether the uniform penalties in Sections 4 to 14 violate the prohibition against cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.
- Whether surveillance provisions (Sections 16 and 17) violate rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, privacy, and due process.
- Whether the ATC’s powers under Section 25 (designation of terrorists), Section 26 (proscription), Section 29 (warrantless arrest and detention), and related provisions are unconstitutional for encroaching on judicial power, lack of due process, absence of clear standards, and violating separation of powers.
- Whether Section 27 on preliminary and permanent proscription orders violates prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.
- Whether detention period under Section 29 contravenes constitutional limits and international obligations on arbitrary detention.
- Whether Section 34 restricts travel and other rights unconstitutionally.
- Whether Section 35 and 36 on AMLC investigation and asset freezing violate constitutional provisions and separation of powers.
- Whether Section 49 (extraterritorial application) is constitutional.
- Whether Section 54 delegating rule-making powers to the ATC and DOJ is an undue delegation.
- Whether repeal of HSA under Section 56 violates mandates related to compensation and due process.
- Whether ATA violates Indigenous Peoples’ and Moros’ rights to self-determination and self-governance.
- Whether the enactment of the ATA complied with constitutional procedural requirements.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)