By DEE AYROSO
Tags: Anti-Terrorism Council
The Supreme Court has upheld the controversial terror law as constitutional except for two provisions.
The Anti Terrorism Council has designated the National Democratic Front of the Philippines as a terrorist organization, a resolution dated June 23 read.
Critics of the anti-terror law have long assailed that it will be used to silence dissent. A year on, progressives said the law has left bank accounts of non-profit organizations and political prisoners frozen on allegations that they are financing or supporting terrorism.
Can SC magistrates ‘seek the right balance’? A second look at the highlights of the oral arguments on the PH terror law
Will it be enough to straighten out its vagueness and overbreadth, as argued by petitioners? Or should the high court’s magistrates strike it down due to vagueness and overbreadth that can bring more harm than the evils it promises to destroy?
“Under a regime that takes pride in treason, tyranny, mass murder and plunder, the legal standards are degraded to the level of murderers and the standard of learning is also demeaned when Marxism or communism is merely equated to terrorism.”
Justice Edgardo Delos Santos questioned the “undue delegation of power” provided to the council, saying that the law is silent on how it will arrive at the conclusion in designating persons or groups as terrorists.
Human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares assailed Solicitor General Jose Calida for red tagging him and other progressive legislators during the online oral arguments on the Anti-Terror Law, April 27.
Under the Anti-Terrorism Act or Republic Act 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Council is given vast powers, including the power to designate individuals and groups as terrorists without due process.
The Anti-Terrorism Act violates international standards on human rights and countering-terrorism with its vague and overboard definitions of “terrorism” as well as the excessive powers it grants to the Executive branch of the government.