The Supreme Court has upheld the controversial terror law as constitutional except for two provisions.
Tags: anti-terrorism law
Today, there have been reports that the Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of the terror law. As the country awaits the decision, Bulatlat compiled its previous reports on the controversial law.
“Fear is still there, but the need to stand by our principles always wins. We also need to continue campaigning for the welfare of our fellow government workers.”
“There was no coercion, force, deceit, misrepresentation, favor or any other act or omission that vitiated the free, prior and informed consent of the Aetas to agree to the filing of the Petition-in-Intervention…”
Jose Manuel Diokno argued that intent, for as long as it does not cross the line, should not be criminalized. He adds that the provision punishes the exercise of civil and political rights, which, for as long as it is peaceful, should be protected.
Now that the schedule has been set, the focus now is on how the members of the high court would come up with a decision on these. Considering the caliber of the lawyers questioning the ATL’s validity, will they simply brush off the arguments to put a finality on the question and allow the president to do as he wills or will they listen to the arguments and seriously put the law into question?
“No one, save its proponents, is safe from the assailed law. Thus, the issues surrounding its validity are matters of public concern of which the public have the right to be informed.”
“The advancement of broad, vague and overly abrasive definition and legislation relating to terrorism can have the opposite of the intended effect which is that by silencing voices, by cracking down on civil society, by weakening the due process and protections offered by the criminal justice system that doesn’t strengthen the States by rather weakening the due process protections offered by the criminal justice system — that doesn’t strengthen the States but rather weakens it in the long run.”
By DEE AYROSO
If this proposed law was passed, the government can start making warrantless arrest and detention 15 days after publication.
In late 2005 up to 2006 the Arroyo government tried to curtail the freedom of speech and assembly through the Calibrated Preemptive Response, silence the media through the issuance of guidelines by the PNP, and twist and bend its laws and legal procedures to run after its critics especially from the legal Left. It also…