Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Unayan - Stat Con Legal Opinion Finals New

    Uploaded by

    Haqim Unayan
    This legal opinion analyzes the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines. It finds that while the intent of preventing terrorism is valid, the law is partially unconstitutional as it violates due process rights. Specifically, the broad definition of terrorism and lack of opportunity for those accused to defend themselves goes against protections in the Philippine constitution. The opinion concludes that while the President's duty to protect national security allows for some constitutionality, the law's provisions must be carefully executed to prevent abuse of power and ensure constitutional rights are upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Unayan - Stat Con Legal Opinion Finals New

    Uploaded by

    Haqim Unayan
    34 views6 pages
    This legal opinion analyzes the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines. It finds that while the intent of preventing terrorism is valid, the law is partially unconstitutional as it violates due process rights. Specifically, the broad definition of terrorism and lack of opportunity for those accused to defend themselves goes against protections in the Philippine constitution. The opinion concludes that while the President's duty to protect national security allows for some constitutionality, the law's provisions must be carefully executed to prevent abuse of power and ensure constitutional rights are upheld.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This legal opinion analyzes the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines. It finds that while the intent of preventing terrorism is valid, the law is partially unconstitutional as it violates due process rights. Specifically, the broad definition of terrorism and lack of opportunity for those accused to defend themselves goes against protections in the Philippine constitution. The opinion concludes that while the President's duty to protect national security allows for some constitutionality, the law's provisions must be carefully executed to prevent abuse of power and ensure constitutional rights are upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    34 views6 pages

    Unayan - Stat Con Legal Opinion Finals New

    Uploaded by

    Haqim Unayan
    This legal opinion analyzes the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines. It finds that while the intent of preventing terrorism is valid, the law is partially unconstitutional as it violates due process rights. Specifically, the broad definition of terrorism and lack of opportunity for those accused to defend themselves goes against protections in the Philippine constitution. The opinion concludes that while the President's duty to protect national security allows for some constitutionality, the law's provisions must be carefully executed to prevent abuse of power and ensure constitutional rights are upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    Unayan, Mohammad Haqim L.

    (JD-1A)
    Legal opinion in the constitutionality of Anti-Terror Act of 2020

    December 20 2022

    Atty. Nadine Karim-Barrat


    Professor
    Statutory Construction

    Dear Maam:

    This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not


    the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 is unconstitutional or partially
    unconstitutional.

    The same will construct the opinion as well in relation to the lessons
    we have conducted in Statutory Construction.

    THE FACTS:

    On 9 December, the Supreme Court of the Philippines announced that


    Justices voted to strike down two portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of
    2020.

    The qualifier under Section 4(e) – that terrorism as defined by the law
    does not include advocacy, protest, dissent and similar actions “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”
    – is declared unconstitutional “for being overbroad and violative of
    freedom of expression”, according to the Supreme Court. With this
    decision, this part now reads: “Provided, that terrorism as defined in
    this section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of
    work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and
    political rights.”

    The Supreme Court also declared unconstitutional the power of the


    Anti-Terrorism Council to designate a person or a group as terrorists
    based on a request by another country and upon determination that it
    meets the criteria of relevant United Nations Security Council
    Resolutions.

    1
    On 3 July 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law
    the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”, which replaced the Human Security
    Act of 2007. Amnesty International had called on the Philippine
    government to reject the law on the basis that it contained dangerous
    provisions and risked further undermining human rights in the country.

    What is its description?

    The Anti-Terrorism Bill of 2020 was passed by the Senate to “prevent


    and stop” terrorist attacks in the country by directly targeting individuals
    who are profiled to be most likely to join considered terrorist groups or
    perform such acts.

    If this bill is passed into law, the executive branch of the government
    and its forces will have the absolute power in defining what constitutes
    the definition of terrorism, who are to be considered terrorists, and what
    to do with these individuals. The bill empowers an appointed Anti-
    Terror Council to assume judicial power to indict citizens not just based
    on commitment of the act of terrorism but also the intent. Therefore,
    any suspicion by state institutions such as the PNP (Philippine National
    Police) and the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) is enough basis
    for being considered terrorists.

    The terror bill also allows police, law enforcement, and military
    personnel duly authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) a
    council that the state or president will select or appoint to designate
    groups and individuals as "terrorists” and carry out warrantless arrests
    without incurring liability under Article 125, or the Revised Penal Code.
    Also, the allowable period of detention has been extended to 14
    working days, extendable by 10 days, which is against the Philippine
    Constitution.

    With this bill the government is in full position to kill dissent and
    opposition.

    The impact of Due Process:

    Butch Olano, Amnesty International Philippines Section Director


    said:

    2
    “The decision by the Supreme Court highlights key dangers of the Anti-
    Terrorism Act of 2020 – its overbroad definition of terrorism and the
    overreaching powers it grants the Anti-Terrorism Council. However,
    only two portions of the law were declared unconstitutional, and it
    remains deeply flawed and open to abuse by government authorities.”

    “Even with the Supreme Court’s decision, the law still allows the police
    and military to detain suspects without a warrant or charge for up to 24
    days, which violates international law and standards. It grants
    overbroad powers to security forces to conduct surveillance, and to the
    Anti-Terrorism Council to designate groups and individuals as
    ‘terrorists’ without due process and without clear procedures to remove
    such designation. Other dangerous provisions also remain.”

    “We reiterate our call for the government to amend the Anti-Terrorism
    Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights law and
    standards. Until this happens, the law will continue to pose a threat to
    human rights defenders, activists as well as members of marginalized
    groups and others wrongly accused of terrorism by granting the
    government excessive and unchecked powers and being susceptible
    to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

    Due process is one of the important factors in constitution as it


    clearly stipulates in the Constitution that Article III Section 1 provides
    that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
    process of law, nor any person be denied the equal protection of the
    laws.

    I cannot personally ignore the fact that section 4(e) of the Act in
    a sense, overlapped the provisions of the Constitution by merely
    describing an act of terrorism by releasing of dangerous substance, or
    causing fire, or explosions, a mere act of any of those mentioned “acts”
    are not supposed to define terrorism as we are actually experiencing
    those “acts” in this point of time without resulting to a mass destruction
    or mass effect in the public.

    The implications of that bill is tagging of an individuals or groups


    that the government accuses to have been participated in terror acts
    can be detained or jailed without the chance to appeal. As well as any
    individual who is suspected to be a terrorist can be imprisoned with a
    life sentence without bail. It doesn’t give them an opportunity to defend
    themselves from accusation as it clearly violates the provisions of the

    3
    Bill of Rights which is the “equal protection clause” which is clearly
    “verba legis” .

    Absolute power for state institutions like the PNP-AFP, permitting


    violations of the constitution and human rights

    Despite the tainted reputation of the AFP-PNP in terms of


    intelligence, credibility, and intention, the bill still assumes that they are
    the most rational institution to handle definitions such as terrorism,
    terrorist acts, etc. Practically, they'll become the "judge, jury and
    executioner."

    No check and balance for the AFP-PNP. There is an absolute


    monopoly of power in the hands of Duterte, just like what happened
    during Martial Law.

    Surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of


    communications will be allowed for 60 days, even on the basis of mere
    suspicion. The person wiretapped need not be informed.

    Proscription of any individual, organization, association, or group


    of people shall proceed ex parte. This means that the person/group
    involved need not be informed of a petition proscribing them as
    "terrorists," and they would have no realistic means to challenge this in
    the courts.

    THE APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE:

    In this case, with due respect to the proper court, The Anti-Terror Act
    of 2020, is partially UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It partially violates some of
    the important provisions in the constitution and principles of statutory
    construction.

    Due process is one of the most important right of a citizen


    because it protects them from any way of depriving them of their rights.
    As the Philippines is a democratic country, it will never be a subject of
    condition because it defines the purpose of democracy.

    Residual power and faithful execution clause was the only


    stronghold that it stood to be constitutional partially. As it withholds the

    4
    President to protect the country at all costs from the dangers of mass
    destruction such as treason, rebellion and invasion.

    ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:

    I personally cannot state that the Anti-Terror Act (ATA) is not fully
    unconstitutional as it the law in its form subjects that it prevents acts of
    terrorism in any way to suppress grave violence and stop the uprising
    of rebellion, treason or invasion. It is the duty of the President to protect
    the country at all costs, as President Duterte’s character as a protector
    will do everything for the purpose of the well-being and safety of the
    citizen of the Philippines. But even though the intention was to prevent
    terrorism, the law doesn’t concur totally for it strictly observes due
    process.

    I conclude that this act is partly unconstitutional because the


    Act’s provisions specifically section 4(e) is promoting red-tagging that
    automatically labeled as a terrorist by the government to whom they
    suspect to be one of them by merely exercising the specified acts that
    it postulates terror acts. It doesn’t give the persons suspected a chance
    to defend themselves but rather they are automatically be deprived of
    their right to bail and they can be imprisoned for life without exercising
    due process.

    In the light of its constitutionality, this Act also, with the stronghold of
    the faithful execution clause of the President, will not take this Act as a
    double-edged sword. The President has to critically observe and
    execute the act carefully because easily, it can be subjected to a grave
    abuse of discretion. It is an Act that must be observed by the three
    branches of the government. It is hard to agree and disagree to the
    statute but if the President will execute this carefully and strictly, I have
    to agree to disagree.

    You might also like