Jump to content

Draft:Howard Calleja et.al v. Anti-Terrorism Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atty. Howard Calleja et, al. vs. Executive Secretary et, al.
CourtSupreme Court of the Philippines en banc
Full case name
Atty. Howard M. Calleja, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary, et al./Rep. Edcel C. Lagman Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Melencio S. Sta. Maria, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Baya Muna Party-List Representative Carlos Isagani T. Zarate, et al. Vs. President Rodrigo Duterte, et al./Rudolf Philip B. Jurado Vs. The Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), et al. Vs. Hon. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Christian S. Monsod, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Sanlakas, Represented by Marie Marguerite M. Lopez Vs. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Federation of Free Workers (FFW-NAGKAISA) here represented by its National President Atty. Jose Sonny Matula, et al Vs. Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, et al./Jose J. Ferrer, Jr. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) Secretary General Renato Reyes, Jr., et al. Vs. H.E. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Antonio T. Carpio, et al. Vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Ma. Ceres P. Doyo, et al. Vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al./National Union of Journalist of the Philippines, et al. Vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Kabataang Tagapagtanggol ng Karapatan Represented by Its National Convener Bryan Ezra C. Gonzales, et a. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Algamar A. Latiph, et al. Vs. Senate, represented by its President, Vicente C. Sotto, et al./The Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG) Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, et al. Vs. President Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./General Assembly of Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership and Action (GABRIELA) Inc., et al. Vs. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, et al./Lawrence A. Yerbo Vs. Offices of the Honorable Senate President and Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines/Hendy Abendan of Center for Youth Participation and Development Initiatives, et al. Vs. Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Concerned Online Citizens represented and Joined by Mark L. Averilla, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties (CLCL) Members Rene A.V. Saguisag, et al. Vs. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, et al./Beverly Longid, et al. Vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Center for International Law (CENTERLAW), Inc., et al. Vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al./Main T. Mohammad, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Brgy. Maglaking, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, et al. Vs. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./University of the Philippines (UP)-System Faculty Regent Dr. Ramon Guillermo, et al. Vs. H.E, Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Philippine Bar Association Vs. The Executive Secretary, et al./Balay Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (BALAY), et al. Vs. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Itegrated Bar of the Philippines, et al. Vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al./Coordinating Council for People's Development and Governance, Inc. (CPDG), et al. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Philippine Misereor Partnership, Inc., et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan Para sa Kalayaan (KAISA KA), et al. Vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Anak Mindanao (AMIN) Party-List representative Amihilda Sangcopan, et al. Vs. The Executive Secretary, Hon. Salvador Medialdea, et al./Haroun Alashid Alonto Lucman, Jr., et al. Vs. Salvador C. Medialdea, et al.
DecidedDecember 7, 2021 (2021-12-07)
CitationG. R. No. 252578 et, al.
Questions presented
Constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terror Act of 2020
Ruling
PonenteJustice Rosmari Carandang
Supreme Court declared the assailed legislation partly constitutional.
Court membership
Judges sittingAlexander Gesmundo, Estela Perlas Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Ramon Paul Hernando, Rosmari Carandang, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Rodil Zalameda, Mario Lopez, Samuel Gaerlan, Ricardo Rosario, Jhosep Lopez, Japar Dimaampao, Midas Marquez
Concur/dissentJustices Gesmundo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Lopez, Gaerlan, Lopez.


Atty. Howard Calleja et al. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 252578 (2020), was one of the landmark cases filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479, also known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. The petitioners argued that the law violated fundamental constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, due process, and protection against warrantless arrests.[1]

The case was among the first of several petitions filed by various groups, including lawyers, academics, and human rights advocates, seeking to nullify provisions of the controversial law. Although the Supreme Court upheld most of the law, it struck down certain provisions as unconstitutional, marking a significant development in Philippine jurisprudence on national security and civil liberties.[2]

Background

[edit]

The case of Howard Calleja et al. v. Executive Secretary et, al arose from the enactment of Republic Act No. 11479, also known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte on July 3, 2020.[3] The law aimed to strengthen the Philippines’ counterterrorism framework by replacing the Human Security Act of 2007. However, it was met with widespread opposition from various sectors, including lawyers, human rights advocates, academics, journalists, and civil society organizations, due to its alleged overbroad and vague provisions.[4]

Critics argued that the law granted excessive powers to the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), a body composed of executive officials, to designate individuals or groups as terrorists without due process. Provisions allowing prolonged detention without judicial warrant and vague definitions of terrorism were also points of contention. Petitioners claimed that these provisions violated constitutional guarantees such as freedom of speech, the right to due process, and protection against warrantless arrests.

Howard Calleja, a lawyer and civic leader, led the first petition filed before the Supreme Court on July 6, 2020. This was followed by numerous other petitions, bringing the total to 37[5], making it one of the most contested laws in Philippine history. The petitions were consolidated, and oral arguments began on February 2, 2021.

The case drew significant public attention, with protests and statements from international organizations, including the United Nations[6] and Amnesty International[7], calling for the repeal of the law. Supporters of the law, including government officials, argued that it was a necessary tool to combat terrorism and ensure national security.[8]

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld most provisions of the law in its December 2021 decision but declared unconstitutional parts of Section 4 and Section 25. Section 4’s provision on acts intended to cause harm to the public was struck down for being overbroad and infringing on freedom of speech. Section 25’s second mode of designation, which allowed designations based on requests by other jurisdictions, was also invalidated.[9]

The Petitioners

[edit]

A total of 37 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines.[10]

Citation Petition
G.R. No. 252578 Howard Calleja, et al. (includes the De La Salle Brothers led by former Education Secretary Br. Armin Luistro and other civic groups) vs. Executive Secretary, et al.[11]
G.R. No. 252579 Representative Edcel Lagman (Albay's 1st district) vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.
G.R. No. 252580 Melencio Sta. Maria, et al. (Far Eastern University Institute of Law professors) vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.
G.R. No. 252585 Carlos Isagani Zarate, et al. (Makabayan Bloc) vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.
G.R. No. 252613 Former Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) chief Rudolf Jurado vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al.
G.R. No. 252623 Center for Trade Union and Human Rights, et al. vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.
G.R. No. 252624 Christian Monsod, et al. (with Felicitas Arroyo, Framers of the Constitution with Ateneo and Xavier law professors, the Ateneo Human Rights Center, Jesuit priest Albert Alejo and the labor federation Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa (SENTRO)) vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.[12]
G.R. No. 252646 SANLAKAS party-list vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.
G.R. No. 252702 Federation of Free Workers (FFW), et al. (labor groups Nagkaisa Labor Coalition (Nagkaisa) and Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU)) vs. Office of the President, et al.[13]
G.R. No. 252726 José Ferrer Jr. vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.
G.R. No. 252733 Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), et al. (includes 44 leaders and the National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL), Movement Against Tyranny, and Karapatan) vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.[14]
G.R. No. 252736 Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, et al. (Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales with University of the Philippines law professors) vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al.[15]
G.R. No. 252741 Columnist Ma. Ceres Doyo, et al. (Senators Kiko Pangilinan and Leila de Lima, former senators Serge Osmeña and Bobby Tañada, Quezon City representative Kit Belmonte, former Quezon representative Erin Tañada, framers of the constitution Florangel Braid and Ed Garcia, journalists Maria Ressa, Chay Hofileña, Jo-Ann Maglipon, John Nery, former human rights commissioner Etta Rosales, human rights lawyer Chel Diokno—represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG)) vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.
G.R. No. 252747 National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, et al. (artists and cultural workers) vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al.[16]
G.R. No. 252755 Kabataang Tagapagtanggol ng Karapatan, et al. (16 youth groups including student organizations from De La Salle University, Ateneo de Manila University, University of the Philippines Diliman, and University of Santo Tomas, represented by young lawyer Dino de Leon) vs. Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 252759 Algamar Latiph, et al. (Bangsamoro residents) vs. Senate, et al.[17]
G.R. No. 252765 Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG) (a coalition of 18 legal resource non-governmental organizations) vs. Medialdea[18]
G.R. No. 252767 Manila Bishop Broderick Pabillo, San Carlos, Negros Occidental Bishop Gerardo Alminaza, United Church of Christ in the Philippines Bishop Emergencio Padillo and 17 others vs. Duterte, et al.[19]
G.R. No. 252768 Gabriela vs. Duterte, et al.
UDK 1663 Lawrence Yerbo vs. Offices of the Honorable Senate President and Speaker
G.R. No. 252802 Henry Abendan and other University of the Philippines Cebu students vs. Medialdea
G.R. No. 252809 Concerned Online Citizens led by Mark Averilla (popularly known as Macoy Dubs) vs. Medialdea[20]
G.R. No. 252903 Concerned Lawyers For Civil Liberties members including former Vice-president Jejomar Binay and former Senator Rene Saguisag vs. Duterte, et al.
G.R. No. 252904 Int'l Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination & Liberation global coordinator Beverly Longid, former ARMM Regional Legislative Assembly member Samira Gutoc, et al. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council
G.R. No. 252905 Center for International Law, Inc., Vera Files, Lyceum of the Philippines University College of Law faculty, et al. vs. Senate
G.R. No. 252916 Suspected Abu Sayyaf Group members Main Mohammad, Jimmy Bla and Nazr Dilangalen, and Philippine Alliance of Human Advocates vs. Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 252921 Several Sangguniang Kabataan officials led by Lemuel Gio Fernandez Cayabyab of Barangay Magtaking, San Carlos, Pangasinan vs. Duterte
G.R. No. 252984 Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines, et al. vs. Medialdea, et al.
G.R. No. 253018 University of the Philippines Faculty Regent Dr. Ramon Guillermo, et al. vs. Rodrigo Duterte et, al.
G.R. No. 253100 Philippine Bar Association Inc. vs. The Executive Secretary, et, al.
G.R. No. 253118 Balay Rehabilitation Center Inc. et, al. vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et, al.
G.R. No. 253124 Integrated Bar of the Philippines et, al. vs, Senate of the Philippines et, al.
G.R. No. 253242 Coordination Council for People's Development and Governance Inc. (CPDG) et, al. vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.
G.R. No. 253252 Philippine Misereor Partnership Inc. et, al. vs, Rodrigo Duterte et, al.
G.R. No. 253254 Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan Para sa Kalayaan (KAISA KA) et, al. vs. Anti Terrorism Council et, al.
UDK 16714 Anak Mindanao Partylist (AMIN) et, al. vs, Medialdea et, al.
G.R. No. 253420 Haroun Alrashid Alonto Lucman, et, al. vs, Medialdea, et, al.
[edit]

In the decision penned by Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang, the Supreme Court’s Revised Advisory dated January 5, 2021, identified the following issues based on a cursory reading of the petitions challenging Republic Act No. 11479:

A. Preliminary Issues


1. Whether petitioners have legal standing to sue.

2. Whether the issues raised in the petitions involve an actual and justiciable controversy.

3. Whether petitioners' direct resort to the Supreme Court is proper. 4. Whether a facial challenge is proper.

5. Whether R.A. No. 11479 should already be declared unconstitutional in its entirety if the Court finds that the definition of terrorism and the powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) are constitutionally infirm.

B. Substantive Issues


1. Whether Section 4, defining and penalizing the crime of "terrorism," is void for vagueness or overbroad, violating constitutional rights such as due process, free speech and expression, the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, and the prohibition against detention solely by reason of political beliefs. 2. Whether Sections 5 to 14, defining and penalizing threats to commit terrorism, planning, training, preparing, and facilitating terrorism, conspiracy, proposal, inciting to terrorism, material support, and other related acts: a. Are void for vagueness or overbroad, violating constitutional rights including due process, freedom of religion, association, academic freedom, and the prohibition against detention based solely on political beliefs. b. Violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

3. Whether the uniform penalties for all punishable acts under Sections 4 to 14 violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.

4. Whether surveillance under Section 16 violates constitutional rights, including due process, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, privacy of communication and correspondence, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, and the presumption of innocence.

5. Whether judicial authorization to conduct surveillance under Section 17 violates the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and forecloses remedies under the rules on amparo and habeas data.

6. Whether the following powers of the ATC are unconstitutional: a. Power to designate terrorist individuals, groups, and organizations under Section 25 for: i. Encroaching upon judicial power and the Supreme Court's rule-making power. ii. Inflicting punishment ex post facto based on the adoption of the UNSC Consolidated List of designated terrorists and other requests for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational bodies. iii. Violating due process and constitutional rights due to lack of clear parameters for designation, absence of notice and hearing prior to designation, and lack of remedies to contest wrongful designation. b. Power to approve requests for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational bodies, violating the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. c. Power to apply for the proscription of terrorist individuals, groups, and organizations under Section 26, violating due process and constitutional rights. d. Power to authorize arrest and detention without judicial warrant based on mere suspicion under Section 29, violating the separation of powers and constitutional rights to due process, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, bail, presumption of innocence, and speedy disposition of cases. e. Power to adopt security classifications for its records under Section 45, violating the right to information. f. Power to establish and maintain comprehensive database information systems on terrorism, terrorist activities, and counterterrorism operations under Section 46(e), violating constitutional rights to due process and privacy of communication and correspondence. g. Power to grant monetary rewards and other incentives to informers under Section 46(g), lacking clear parameters. h. Power to require private entities and individuals to render assistance to the ATC under Section 46(m), violating the prohibition against involuntary servitude.

7. Whether Section 27 on preliminary and permanent orders of proscription violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder and unconstitutionally punishes mere membership in an organization.

8. Whether the detention period under Section 29 contravenes the Constitution, the Revised Penal Code, the Rules of Court, and international obligations against arbitrary detention.

9. Whether the restriction under Section 34 violates constitutional rights to travel, protection against incommunicado detention, the right to bail, and R.A. No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act of 2009).

10. Whether Sections 35 and 36, in relation to Section 25, on the AMLC’s authority to investigate, inquire, and examine bank deposits, and freeze assets, violate the separation of powers and constitutional rights to due process and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

11. Whether Section 49 on the extra-territorial application of R.A. No. 11479 violates freedom of association and the prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

12. Whether Section 54 on the ATC and DOJ’s power to promulgate implementing rules and regulations constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power for failing to meet the completeness and sufficient standard tests.

13. Whether Section 56 repealing R.A. No. 9372 (Human Security Act) violates the constitutional mandate to compensate victims of torture or similar practices and the right to due process.

14. Whether R.A. No. 11479 violates the rights of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and Moros to self-determination and self-governance under the Constitution.

15. Whether the House of Representatives gravely abused its discretion by passing House Bill No. 6875 (consolidated version of bills to amend the HSA) in violation of the constitutionally prescribed procedure.


Supreme Court Proceedings

[edit]

After the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act in July 2020, 37 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, making it one of the most contested laws in Philippine history. Petitioners included lawyers, activists, labor unions, and other civil society groups. They argued that the law’s vague provisions could lead to abuse and violations of fundamental rights.[21]

During the hearings, petitioners argued that the law’s definition of terrorism was overly broad and vague, potentially criminalizing legitimate acts of dissent and freedom of expression. The government, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, defended the law, asserting that it was necessary to combat terrorism and protect national security.[22]

The oral arguments spanned several months, with petitioners and respondents presenting their cases on various constitutional questions, including surveillance, detention without a warrant, and the powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC). [23]

Supreme Court Decision

[edit]

Reaction and Impact

[edit]

Significance of the Case

[edit]

See Also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Buan, Lian (July 4, 2020). "Lawyers, civic leaders file 1st petition vs anti-terror law". rappler.com. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
  2. ^ Buan, Lian (December 9, 2021). "Supreme Court ruling 'eases fears' on anti-terror law 'but still dangerous' – lawyers". rappler.com. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
  3. ^ Ranada, Pia (July 3, 2020). "Duterte signs 'dangerous' anti-terror bill into law". rappler.com. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
  4. ^ Cepeda, Mara (June 3, 2020). "Mindanao lawmakers: Anti-terror bill will further incite violence, not end terrorism". rappler.com. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
  5. ^ Torres-Tupas, Tetch (October 23, 2020). "37 petitions vs Anti-Terrorism Act now pending before Supreme Court". inquirer.net. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
  6. ^ McCarthy, Julie (July 21, 2020). "Why Rights Groups Worry About The Philippines' New Anti-Terrorism Law". npr.org. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
  7. ^ "Philippines: Dangerous anti-terror law yet another setback for human rights". amnesty.org. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
  8. ^ Gascon, Melvin (January 3, 2024). "Ample safeguards in place to prevent abuse of anti-terror law – Lacson". inquirer.net. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
  9. ^ "Philippines' Supreme Court Says Parts of Anti-Terror Law Unconstitutional". reuters.com. December 9, 2021. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
  10. ^ "G.R. Nos. 252578, et al". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Archived from the original on November 20, 2020.
  11. ^ Navallo, Mike (July 4, 2020). "Anti-terror law faces first Supreme Court challenge". ABS-CBN News. Archived from the original on July 4, 2020. Retrieved July 4, 2020.
  12. ^ Buan, Lian (July 8, 2020). "Constitution framers, Ateneo professors file 6th petition vs. anti-terror law". Rappler. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  13. ^ Buan, Lian (July 16, 2020). "Labor groups file 9th petition vs. anti-terror law, slam 'guilt by association'". Rappler. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  14. ^ Talabong, Rappler (July 19, 2020). "10th petition vs. anti-terror law assails violation of right to bail". Rappler. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  15. ^ Nonato, Vince (July 23, 2020). "Unlimited Warrantless Arrests: Carpio, Morales, UP Law Ask SC To Nullify Anti-Terrorism Act". One News. Archived from the original on October 18, 2020. Retrieved August 24, 2020.
  16. ^ Buan, Lian (July 23, 2020). "Senators, journalists, Moros follow suit: Petitions vs. anti-terror law now 15". Rappler. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  17. ^ Nonato, Vince (July 27, 2020). "Muslim Stereotypes Lead To Mistaken Identity: Why Bangsamoro Lawyers Oppose The Anti-Terrorism Act". One News. Archived from the original on October 21, 2020. Retrieved August 24, 2020.
  18. ^ Patag, Kristine Joy (July 24, 2020). "Law groups file 17th legal challenge vs. anti-terrorism law". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on July 26, 2020. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
  19. ^ Lagrimas, Nicole-Anne C. (July 24, 2020). "Religious groups to Supreme Court: Declare anti-terror law unconstitutional". GMA News Online. Archived from the original on October 28, 2020. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
  20. ^ Buan, Lian (July 29, 2020). "TikToker, viral angry Aling Marie file 21st petition vs. anti-terror law". Rappler. Archived from the original on August 24, 2020. Retrieved August 24, 2020.
  21. ^ Lagrimas, Nicole Anne (October 8, 2020). "37 petitions in, Supreme Court yet to schedule oral arguments on anti-terror law". gmanetwork.com. Retrieved 22 December 2024.
  22. ^ Patag, Kristine Joy (May 11, 2021). "In anti-terrorism law debates, OSG lawyers asked: What is fear? What is 'to provoke' gov't?". Retrieved 22 December 2024.
  23. ^ Navallo, Mike (August 11, 2021). "SC sets oral arguments for petitions vs anti-terror law". abs-cbn.com. Retrieved 22 December 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Howard_Calleja_et.al_v._Anti-Terrorism_Council&oldid=1264608578"