[ad_1]
MANILA – Oral arguments on petitions challenging the Anti-Terrorism Law before the Supreme Court will be approved on January 19, according to a revised notice published Friday.
The Superior Court has not yet released the proposal of the former attorney general and veteran lawyer Estelito Mendoza to appear as amicus curiae or friend of the court, offering his long experience as a government lawyer, litigator and member of the faculty of the Faculty of Law from the University of the Philippines. provide expert advice to the judges of the SC.
In a motion to clarify his situation dated November 20 but received by one of the petitioners only on Thursday, Mendoza asked the SC to resolve his petition, which also asked the National Court to admit his comment where he expressed his opinion of that petitions against the Antiterrorist Law should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, based on their reading of the petitions presented by attorney Howard Calleja and retired senior associate judge from SC Antonio Carpio.
The Supreme Court publishes a revised notice for oral arguments on 37 petitions against the Antiterrorist Law established on January 19, 2021 at 2 pm The counseling reiterates 21 previously identified problems. Each side now has a total of 45 minutes to discuss their position (from just 30 minutes before). pic.twitter.com/8L1dbAKdzt
– Mike Navallo (@mikenavallo) January 8, 2021
Carpio and his fellow petitioners have rejected Mendoza’s “expertise”, saying that he is not an “impartial” lawyer and that he lacked relevant experience.
An amicus curiae is an experienced and impartial attorney whose opinion is requested by the Supreme Court to resolve certain issues.
Carpio noted that Mendoza’s experience as Attorney General developed during martial law under a different legal regime and that Mendoza had no experience in laws related to counter-terrorism measures.
The retired Supreme Court judge also doubted Mendoza’s impartiality, noting that the latter had already requested the total dismissal of the petitions, calling him a “friend of the Defendants.”
In his comment, Mendoza said that the Superior Court could not attend the petitions because there was no real controversy since no act has allegedly been committed.
He explained that you cannot make a facial challenge (challenge the law based on your language) against a criminal statute.
Carpio and his fellow petitioners said that a facial defiance of a law is allowed in cases of the right to freedom of expression and of the press.
LIMITED PHYSICAL PARTICIPANTS, MORE TIME TO DISCUSS
In its revised warning on Friday, the Supreme Court limited the number of participants who could physically attend oral arguments.
Only 8 attorneys on the petitioners’ side will argue on 21 issues previously identified by the court, while Attorney General José Calida may only bring 3 attorneys.
Each side will be given 45 minutes to discuss all points, 15 minutes more than the initial 30 minute period given to each side in November.
Other petitioners whose attorneys are not among the 8 arguing their case may send 1 attorney each as their representative.
All participants attending in person must submit a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test result, taken within 72 hours prior to oral arguments on January 19 at 2 p.m.
Among the problems the SC had previously identified were:
- whether the petitioners have legal capacity to sue
- if they can, they take their petitions directly to the Supreme Court through a facial challenge.
Each side will also have to address whether the Court should issue a temporary restraining order or similar relief pending resolution of the petitions.
The substantive issues will deal with the definitions of terrorism and related crimes, the powers of the Antiterrorist Council and the Anti-Money Laundering Council, as well as the constitutionality of detentions without a court order, surveillance and proscription, among others.
Petitions were filed against the controversial anti-terrorism law for provisions that are alleged to lead to human rights abuses. President Rodrigo Duterte enacted the measure in July, despite strong protests.
Antiterrorist Law, Supreme Court, RA 11479, Estelito Mendoza, Attorney General, Former Attorney General Mendoza, Antiterrorist Law, SC, Petitions Antiterrorist Law
[ad_2]
