Group Takes Parlade’s ‘Red Tagging Activities’ To Supreme Court

This combined photo shows Angel Locsin (left), Catriona Gray and Liza Soberano. INVESTIGATION FILES

Manila, Philippines – The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) took Lieutenant General Antonio Parlade’s red labeling spree to the Supreme Court on Monday, with a reiteration of his request to stop the implementation of the Republic Law 11479 or the Antiterrorist Law . 2020.

NUPL emphasized again that the new anti-terrorism law would pave the way for more human rights violations in the country.

Parlade, a high-ranking military general who is part of the National Task Force to End the Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), drew widespread criticism for issuing a statement warning actress Liza Soberano to abdicate from the group of the partisan list of women’s rights Gabriela or ella. You could end up as Josephine Ann Lapira, a young activist who died in 2017.

She also issued a warning to 2018 Miss Universe Catriona Gray, she and other celebrities should not associate with suspected members of the communist group.

Parlade further claimed that actress Angel Locsin’s sister is a “card-carrying member” of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). Then he questioned the decision of the mayor of the city of Manila, Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domagoso, to order the removal of tarps in the capital of the country that declare the members of the CPP and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA) as non person pleasant.

“The fact that these norms are promulgated with the active participation of police and military institutions” – the same institutions – with a certain General Antonio Parlade Jr. as the anointed and omnipresent spokesman, who has cruelly, ruthlessly, recklessly and baselessly red-tagged various individuals and human rights organizations and causes … it also exacerbates the injustices that would befall the petitioners and all those against whom the assaulted law would be a weapon ”, reads the NUPL demonstration with a general motion presented on Monday.

NUPL, which presented the demonstration on behalf of petitioner Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) and his Secretary General, Renato Reyes, reiterated their prayers for a status quo ante, a temporary restraining order and / or a preliminary injunction against the implementation of the Antiterrorist Law of 2020.

“The petitioners also pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and / or a preliminary prohibitive injunction requiring the same defendants to enforce the 2020 IRR of RA 11479,” he added.

The Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of the antiterrorist law, according to NUPL, have “reproduced the objectionable, broad and vague definition of terrorism”, as the condition that qualifies protests as acts of terrorism based on intent.

NUPL said that if the implementation of the 2020 Anti-Terrorism Law and its IRR is not stopped, “it would be a grave injustice to the petitioners, especially those who have been red-labeled and labeled ‘terrorists.’

“A careful review of the TIR would show that it also presents the same objectionable and unconstitutional aspects of the law under attack, including, but not limited to, a completely vague or too broad definition of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses, violation of fundamental rights and the excessive granting of powers to the Antiterrorist Council, which violates the principle of separation of powers and usurps functions reserved exclusively to the Judiciary ”, he said.

The NUPL said that the final condition of Section 4 of RA 11479, which establishes that “defense, protest, dissent, work stoppage, industrial or mass action and other exercises of civil and political rights”, can be considered terrorism. if they are “intentional to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, endanger a person’s life or create a serious risk to public safety.”

While the NUPL said this provision is “unconstitutional and invalid at first glance,” the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) expanded the definition of terrorism by including “creative, artistic and cultural expressions” among the areas covered by the criticized provision.

“This also represents an overt threat or provides a chilling effect on freedom of expression, expression and the press,” he said.

Worse still, all three ratings for intent have been expanded by the IRR of the law, according to NUPL.

“Therefore, unlike RA 11479, the TIR now expressly states that promotion, protest, dissent, strike, mass action, and similar acts can be considered terrorism due to a subjective determination or even a malicious imputation of intention and purpose instead of being based on a determinable or defined act or predicate offense and the effect and result, ”the group argued.

It also opposed the “reasonable probability of success” test in inciting terrorism, stating that it is “below the clear and present danger.”

“Clearly, this is a violation of the freedom of expression guaranteed by Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,” he said.

The NUPL further objected that the IRR grants “unjustified discretion” to the ATC to determine an impartial humanitarian organization that the State recognizes does not provide or provide material support to terrorist organizations.

Finally, NUPL objected to IRR Rule 9.11, which gives ATC the power to order an arrest without a warrant and to issue documentation that would allow detention for an initial period of 14 days, subject to a 10-day extension.

He said that “this last minute addendum by ATC is intended to cover all bases, so to speak, by allowing police and military personnel to arrest people on mere suspicion, even without proper ATC documentation, and retain his victims locked up for up to 24 days. ”

“This is a mechanism that is not found in the law or sanctioned by it,” added the NUPL.

The president of the Supreme Court Diosdado Peralta asked for an understanding of why they have not yet acted on the almost 40 petitions against the 2020 Antiterrorist Law, since they have been overwhelmed by the avalanche of allegations.

He said that most likely by mid-November, the higher court will be able to schedule an oral argument on the petitions after the judge in charge or the rapporteur of the case presents a list of common issues discussed by the petitioners. as well as the unique themes of each petition.

Peralta also said that the Supreme Court could invite two amicus curiae or friends of the court during oral arguments.

KGA

RELATED STORIES

Parlade on Liza’s Controversial Comments: Why should I apologize?

Angel Locsin fears for ‘the safety of my family and mine’ as Parlade labels her sister red again

Catriona Gray stands firm after the red tag: ‘Never let your voice be silenced’

Read next

Don’t miss out on the latest news and information.