Case Summary (G.R. No. 178552)
Petitioners
– Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., and Atty. Soliman M. Santos, Jr.
– Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), National Federation of Labor Unions-KMU (NAFLU-KMU), Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR)
– Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL, COURAGE, KADAMAY, Solidarity of Cavite Workers, League of Filipino Students, Anakbayan, PAMALAKAYA, ACT, Migrante, HEAD, AGHAM, and prominent individuals (e.g., Teofisto Guingona Jr., Dr. Bienvenido Lumbera)
– KARAPATAN and allied religious and victims’-rights organizations (e.g., HUSTISYA, DESAPARECIDOS, SELDA, EMJP, PCPR)
– The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Counsels for the Defense of Liberty (CODAL), Sen. Ana Consuelo Madrigal, former Senators Sergio Osmeña III and Wigberto Tañada
– BAYAN-Southern Tagalog and regional affiliates plus local leaders and activists
Respondents
– Anti-Terrorism Council (Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita as Chair, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales as Vice-Chair, plus Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Interior and Local Government, Finance; National Security Adviser)
– President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (in relevant petitions)
– Heads of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Philippine National Police
– Support agencies: NICA, NBI, Bureau of Immigration, Office of Civil Defense, ISAFP, AMLC, Philippine Center on Transnational Crime, PNP intelligence units
Key Dates
– March 6, 2007: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signs RA 9372 into law
– July 15, 2007: RA 9372 takes effect
– July 16–17, 2007; August 6 and 29, 2007; September 19, 2007: Petitioners file six separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition
– October 5, 2010: Supreme Court issues consolidated decision
Applicable Law
– Republic Act No. 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions reference this charter)
– Rule 65, Rules of Court (certiorari)
– Doctrines on locus standi, justiciability (case or controversy), void-for-vagueness, overbreadth, and facial vs. as-applied challenges
Impropriety of Certiorari as Remedy
Petitioners invoked certiorari under Rule 65 against respondents who exercise executive, not judicial or quasi-judicial, functions. The Court underscored that certiorari lies only against tribunals or officers acting without or in excess of judicial or quasi-judicial jurisdiction. Petitioners also failed to allege any “grave abuse of discretion” by respondents, rendering certiorari procedurally improper.
Lack of Locus Standi
The Court applied the 1987 Constitution’s requirements for standing in constitutional challenges: personal stake, direct injury, and redressability. None of the petitioners faced charges under RA 9372 nor demonstrated any imminent danger of prosecution. Allegations of military surveillance or “tagging” as communist fronts were too remote and not linked to enforcement of the Act. Gendered, taxpayer or citizen status, human-rights advocacy, and IBP’s statutory duty to assist detainees did not satisfy the direct-injury requirement for invalidating a penal statute.
Absence of a Justiciable Controversy
By constitutional mandate, judicial review requires an actual and ripe case or controversy. Petitioners sought pre-enforcement and declaratory relief based on hypothetical threats and theoretical fears. The Court declined to issue advisory opinions or resolve abstract questions, highlighting that anticipatory or double-contingency challenges are non-justiciable absent an existing prosecution or concrete enforcement action under the Act.
Limitations on Facial Challenges to Penal Statutes
The Court reaffirmed that “facial” invalidation—striking down a law in its entirety—applies only in free-speech contexts to prevent a chilling effect on protected expression. Penal statutes carry inherent deterren
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 178552)
Facts
- Republic Act No. 9372 (“Human Security Act of 2007”) was enacted March 6, 2007 and took effect July 15, 2007.
- It defines terrorism, creates the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), and prescribes penalties for acts intended to sow widespread fear and coerce government.
- Six petitions for certiorari and prohibition were filed between July 16 and September 19, 2007 challenging RA 9372’s constitutionality.
- Petitioners include NGOs (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, KMU, BAYAN, Karapatan, IBP, CODAL, BAYAN-ST) and individual citizens/taxpayers.
- Respondents encompass the ATC and its members (Executive Secretary, Cabinet Secretaries, National Security Adviser), AFP and PNP Chiefs of Staff, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and support agencies (NICA, NBI, AMLC, etc.).
Procedural History
- Consolidation of G.R. Nos. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157, and 179461.
- Verified petitions alleged lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, and overbreadth/vagueness of RA 9372.
- Office of the Solicitor General filed collective opposition; cases argued before the En Banc Court.
- Decision was rendered October 5, 2010.
Issues
- Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge a statutory enactment.
- Whether petitioners possess locus standi to assail RA 9372.
- Whether an actual case or controversy exists to render constitutional review.
- Whether the definitions and penalties in RA 9372 are void-for-vagueness or impermissibly overbroad.
- Whether RA 9372 regulates protected speech or merely proscribes conduct.