[ad_1]
TWO groups of petitioners have opposed the motion presented by the Attorney General’s Office (OSG) requesting the Supreme Court (SC) to cancel the oral arguments on their petition that seeks to declare the 2020 Antiterrorist Law (ATA) unconstitutional.
Opposition to GSO’s motion was led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) general secretary, Renato Reyes, Jr., and the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) group led by Lemuel Gio Cayabyab, SK President of Barangay Maglaking San Carlos City , Pangasinan,
The petitioners indicated that the CV should proceed with the oral arguments that were supposed to be scheduled for the third week of September.
Likewise, they reiterated to the SC the need to immediately grant their motion
for a status quo ante order, or a temporary restraining order (TRO) and / or a preliminary injunction, against the implementation of the disputed law.
They argued that the current Covid-19 pandemic should not be used as a basis for canceling oral arguments on the petition.
The petitioners indicated that the CS adjusted to the situation and put in place a system that would allow the Judiciary to continue operating, as can be seen from the editions released by the CS and the Office of the Judicial Administrator (OCA) to adapt to the varying degrees of community quarantine.
The OSG, according to the petitioners, must not undermine the CS’s ability to balance the overriding public interest and the safety of the parties, their attorneys, and members of the Court when making oral arguments.
The petitioners said that the SC has the option of holding videoconference sessions, with the parties and their attorneys participating remotely in small groups and wearing masks and face shields and being subjected to non-contact temperature scans and observing physical distancing and washing of frequent hands.
Concerns about slow internet connections can be avoided by providing the necessary infrastructure and competent technical support before scheduled sessions, they said.
They also argued that GSO’s urgent motion was premature as the Court has yet to determine the manner and manner in which it will conduct oral arguments.
In seeking the cancellation of oral arguments, Attorney General José Cálida said it is “unsafe and impractical” due to the increase in Covid-19 cases in the country.
Calida said that the Court also does not have jurisdiction to hear and resolve the case since the petitions raised are factual accusations.
He also noted that conducting an oral argument is not mandatory, so it can be dispensed with.
Calida also said that conducting oral arguments through videoconferences is not advisable as it would not guarantee smooth procedures considering the large number of parties and lawyers and the uneven quality of the local internet service.
A total of 32 petitions have been presented to the CS, questioning the constitutionality of the 2020 ATA.
Opponents of the 2020 ATA argued that the definition of terrorism under the law is “vague and too broad,” that it can be used as “a weapon against constitutionally protected speech and speech-related conduct.”
The petitioners noted that the ATA creates the new offense of speech of incitement to terrorism in Section 9 and then links it to a new definition of the offense of terrorism found in Section 4.
The ATA definition of terrorism, according to the petitioners, encompasses constitutionally protected speech and conduct, including non-violent gatherings such as the 1986 People’s Power uprising.
