Case Digest (G.R. No. 178552)
Facts:
The consolidated cases captioned Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., on behalf of the South-South Network (SSN) for Non-State Armed Group Engagement, and Atty. Soliman M. Santos, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157, and 179461, promulgated October 05, 2010, were decided by the Supreme Court En Banc, with Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. The consolidated petitions challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9372 (the Human Security Act of 2007), which was signed March 6, 2007 and became effective July 15, 2007 (per Sec. 62).After RA 9372 took effect, multiple civil society organizations, unions, human-rights groups, professional associations, and individual citizens filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65) directly with the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 178552 (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network; Atty. Soliman Santos, Jr.) on July 16, 2007; G.R. No. 178554 (Kilusang Mayo Uno, NAFLU-KMU, CTUHR) also July 16, 2007; G.R. No. 178581 (BAYAN et al.) on July 17, 2007; G.R. No. 178890 (Karapatan et al.) on August 6, 2007; G.R. No. 179157 (IBP, CODAL, and certain former and sitting senators) on August 29, 2007; and G.R. No. 179461 (BAYAN‑ST and allied regional groups) on September 19, 2007. The petitions alleged, among others, vagueness and overbreadth in RA 9372’s definition of terrorism and threatened application against petitioners, and sought nullification of the statute or its provisions.
Respondents impleaded included the Anti‑Terrorism Council (chaired at the time by the Executive Secretary), various Cabinet secretaries, the AFP and PNP chiefs, and, in some petitions, the President and multiple intelligence and enforcement agencies. No lower court or administrative body had resolved the merits prior to these direct Rule 65 petitions; the petitioners invoked certiorari and prohibition as the mode of ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was certiorari under Rule 65, Sec. 1 a proper remedy against respondents who are executive officers and bodies exercising non‑judicial functions?
- Do the petitioners possess locus standi to mount a facial constitutional challenge to RA 9372?
- Do the petitions present an actual, justiciable case or controversy ripe for adjudication?
- May the definition of "terrorism" in RA 9372 be facially invalidated as void for vagueness or impermissibly overbroad, or are t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)