Petitioners against the Philippine terror law argued m before the Supreme Court that the controversial law suffers from overbreadth and impermissible vagueness. During the oral arguments, they called on SC to declare the law unconstitutional even before it causes more harm than the evil it is supposed to fight.
In their petition, the two Aetas decried that the law’s definition of terrorism is “impermissibly vague.” They also argued that it is “overly broad that it sweepingly stifles even innocent and legitimate acts, including the exercise of protected freedoms.”
The barricaders didn’t retreat to their classrooms but embraced the streets, marching arm-in-arm with farmers, workers, jeepney drivers, echoing their call for national democracy.
Bulatlat looks back at the decisions of the high court which affect the public the most, and the Filipino people’s fundamental rights and welfare.