Case Digest (G.R. No. 178552) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., Kilusang Mayo Uno, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Karapatan, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan–Southern Tagalog, and other allied petitioners (collectively “petitioners”) filed six separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court between July 16 and September 19, 2007. They assailed the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9372, known as the Human Security Act of 2007, which was signed into law on March 6, 2007, and took effect on July 15, 2007. Petitioners claimed that legislative and executive actors had tagged them as “communist fronts,” subjected them to military surveillance, and thereby risked prosecution under the new penal provisions defining and punishing terrorism. They sought to restrain the Anti-Terrorism Council, its members (including the Executive Secretary; Secretaries of Justice, Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Interior and Local Government, and Case Digest (G.R. No. 178552) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Enactment and Content of R.A. 9372
- R.A. 9372, the Human Security Act of 2007, was enacted on March 6, 2007 and took effect on July 15, 2007.
- It defines “terrorism” by reference to predicate crimes (e.g., rebellion, murder, kidnapping) and enhances penalties when such acts “sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace” or aim “to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”
- It establishes the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) and provides for judicial proscription of terrorist organizations.
- Petitions and Parties
- Six petitions (G.R. Nos. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157, 179461) were filed between July and September 2007, challenging the constitutionality of R.A. 9372 by petitions for certiorari and prohibition.
- Petitioners included NGOs (e.g., Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network), labor federations (KMU, NAFLU-KMU), mass organizations (BAYAN, GABRIELA, etc.), human rights coalitions (Karapatan), legal associations (IBP, CODAL), and regional chapters (BAYAN-ST, etc.).
- Respondents comprised the ATC officers (Executive Secretary as Chair; Secretaries of Justice, National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Interior and Local Government, Finance; National Security Adviser), the President, AFP and PNP Chiefs, and related enforcement agencies.
Issues:
- Procedural and Jurisdictional
- Is certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy against executive-branch bodies like the ATC?
- Do the petitioners have locus standi, and is there a justiciable case or controversy?
- Merits of Constitutionality
- Are the definitions and penalty provisions of R.A. 9372 unconstitutionally vague or overbroad?
- Do the void-for-vagueness and overbreadth doctrines apply to ordinary penal legislation outside the free speech context?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)