Case Summary (G.R. No. 252578)
Historical and International Context of Terrorism
Terrorism is historically complex with evolving definitions but is universally recognized as a grave threat to national and international security. The Philippines has experienced significant terrorist activities, motivating legislative responses such as the Human Security Act of 2007 and the ATA. The latter aims to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, particularly UNSCR No. 1373, and addresses the shortcomings of previous laws.
Procedural Issues and Exercise of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court exercised its expanded judicial power to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion by Congress in enacting the ATA. The Court found 35 of the 37 petitions had legal standing, involved actual cases or controversies, and raised justiciable constitutional questions—predominantly about freedom of speech and related rights. It rejected political question doctrine as a defense. The Court limited its review to facial challenges insofar as they related to chilling effects on expression and cognate rights, deferring other issues to future as-applied challenges with concrete facts.
Facial Challenge Framework and Limitations
Under Philippine jurisprudence, facial challenges are limited to free speech and its cognate rights and are disfavored except to prevent chilling effects on protected speech. Penal laws typically are not subject to facial challenges unless they encroach on freedom of speech. The ATA’s definition of terrorism and related provisions were examined under these principles, with the Court applying doctrines of vagueness, overbreadth, and strict scrutiny only within this delimited scope.
Constitutionality of Section 4 (Definition of Terrorism)
- Main Portion: The Court upheld the ATA’s main definition of terrorism, which penalizes specific overt acts coupled with intent and purpose, emphasizing prevention of serious harm, intimidation, or destabilization. These are treated as conduct, not mere speech, thus not subject to facial vagueness or overbreadth challenges. The Court noted clarity in the terms such as “intent to cause death or serious bodily injury” and “extensive damage,” within a flexible legal framework appropriate for evolving terrorist methods.
- Proviso (“Not Intended Clause”): The phrase exempting advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, and similar political rights—“which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety”—was declared unconstitutional. This provision improperly shifts the burden of proof to the accused to establish lawful intent, is vague, overly broad, and chills free speech by allowing law enforcers unbridled discretion to construe protected expression as terrorism.
Sections 5, 8, and 9 (Threat, Proposal, and Inciting to Commit Terrorism)
These provisions, directly regulating speech-related offenses, were upheld as constitutionally valid content-based restrictions on free speech, subject to strict scrutiny and the Brandenburg test. Speech or expression is penalized only if it (1) explicitly or implicitly encourages imminent lawless action, (2) is intended to produce such action, and (3) is likely to result in such action. The Court emphasized safeguards and contextual analysis incorporated into the IRR to prevent wrongful application and protect legitimate dissent.
Section 10 (Recruitment and Membership in Terrorist Organizations)
The Court found valid the penalization of voluntary and knowing membership or recruitment in organizations proscribed or designated as terrorist groups, or those organized for the purpose of terrorism—except for the phrase “organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism,” which the Court struck down for vagueness and potential overbreadth. The remaining provisions on membership require establishing knowledge and intent, thus protecting innocent association and avoiding arbitrary prosecutions.
Sections 25 to 28 (Designation and Proscription of Terrorists)
- The first mode—automatic adoption of the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List by the ATC—was upheld as an appropriate exercise of police power aligned with international obligations and existing safeguards, including listing and delisting procedures that are multilaterally controlled.
- The second mode—designation upon requests by foreign or supranational jurisdictions—was upheld against claims of unconstitutionality, given that ATC reviews such requests based on UN criteria and procedures for designation, with available delisting mechanisms.
- The third mode—designation by the ATC upon a finding of probable cause—was upheld as constitutional when accompanied by defined standards and procedures, including reference to the penal provisions of Sections 4 to 12 and provided safeguards.
Section 29 (Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest)
Section 29 was declared unconstitutional. Key points include:
- The Court rejected the majority’s interpretation that a written authorization from the ATC to detain a suspect for up to 14 days (extendible by 10 days) applies only after a valid warrantless arrest. The Court found that the statutory language—and legislative history—indicate that this written authorization is a prerequisite for taking custody, effectively functioning as an executive warrant of arrest or commitment order.
- Only judges may issue warrants of arrest or commitment orders; the delegation of this power to the ATC violates the constitutional separation of powers.
- The Detention period of 14 days plus a 10-day extension is excessive, especially considering the 3-day maximum detention period without charge during suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as mandated by the Constitution.
- The detainee is deprived of meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of detention and the basis for the ATC’s written authorization.
- Procedural safeguards required by the Constitution and international human rights law (including prompt judicial review, access to counsel, prohibition of torture, and conditions for detention) are inadequately assured, raising r
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 252578)
Background and Nature of the Case
- The case involves the consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479, known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA).
- Thirty-seven (37) petitions were filed by diverse petitioners, including party-list representatives, lawyers, journalists, religious groups, and academe members.
- The petitions primarily assail the validity of various provisions of the ATA on grounds of vagueness, overbreadth, due process violations, infringement on freedoms of speech, expression, association, and alleged usurpations of power.
- The ATA was enacted to strengthen the legal framework against terrorism in the Philippines, repealing the previous Human Security Act of 2007.
- Terrorism’s historical context, challenges in defining and combating terrorism nationally and globally, and legislative history of the ATA were thoroughly discussed.
- The Court exercised its expanded jurisdiction to review grave abuse of discretion claims, notably the constitutionality of the ATA as a legislative act.
Procedural Issues and Judicial Review Prerequisites
- The Court enumerated the requisites for judicial review: actual case or controversy, personal and substantial interest (standing), the earliest opportunity to raise the issue, and that the constitutional question is the central issue (lis mota).
- The petitions present actual and justiciable controversies, especially with certain petitioners having been designated terrorists or subject to the operation of the ATA.
- Facial challenges were disallowed for all provisions except where they implicate the freedoms of speech, expression, and their cognate rights.
- The Court affirmed the doctrine limiting facial challenges in penal statutes except for those affecting the freedom of expression.
- The case is an exception to the hierarchy of courts doctrine given the transcendental importance and urgency of the constitutional issues raised.
- Dismissals were ordered for petitions lacking legal standing or which were fundamentally flawed.
Scope and Delimitation of Issues for Substantive Review
- The Court proceeded to declare as void only specific parts of the ATA while upholding the remainder.
- Issues chosen for facial review focused principally on provisions affecting freedom of speech and expression, including:
- Section 4’s definition of terrorism and its “Not Intended Clause”
- Sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 on threats, planning, proposing, inciting, recruitment, and material support.
- Sections 25 to 28 on designation and proscription of terrorists and terrorist organizations.
- Section 29 on arrest and detention without warrant.
- Issues involving extraterritorial application, rule-making powers, and others were reserved for future cases where facts and evidentiary proofs are properly presented.
Definition of Terrorism Under Section 4
- Section 4 defines terrorism as specified overt acts intended to cause death, seri