Lagman: Anti-terrorism law is ‘presumed unconstitutional’

MANILA, Philippines — A Supreme Court decision contradicts the claims made by proponents of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 that the measure enjoys the “presumption of constitutionality,” Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman said Wednesday.

Lagman said the Supreme Court, in the case of Social Weather Stations vs. COMELEC, ruled that “a law which is challenged for imposing a prior restraint on the freedom of expression is presumed unconstitutional.”

“Ordinarily, the presumption is that a law is constitutional. However, in cases involving the suppression of free speech, the presumption is reversed because the questioned statute is presumed unconstitutional and it is the burden of the government to prove its constitutionality,” Lagman said in a statement.

In the said decision, Lagman said the Supreme Court voided the provision in the Fair Elections Act which prohibited the publication of election survey results within 15 days prior to an election affecting national candidates and within seven days before an election affecting local candidates because it imposed a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of expression.

Further, Lagman said the decision categorically held that “… such a (contested) measure is vitiated by a weighty presumption of invalidity. Indeed, ‘any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity… The Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such restraint’.”

Four petitions have so far been filed before the Supreme Court contesting the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. One of the petitions was filed by Lagman on Monday.

“All of the four petitions so far filed with the Supreme Court have protested that among the unconstitutional provisions of the ‘Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020’ is its criminalization of ‘threat,’ ‘proposal,’ and ‘inciting’ to commit terrorism because it has chilling effects deterring the exercise of free speech and the right to dissent,” Lagman said.

In his petition, Lagman raised several issues including the redefinition of the crime of terrorism, which the lawmaker said was cast in vague and ambiguous language.

The lawmaker likewise raised concerns over the provisions of the law delving into the number of days of detention of a suspect without a judicial warrant, among others.

President Rodrigo Duterte earlier signed the controversial measure into law even despite massive opposition from various sectors and on social media.

Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said the enactment of the measure, now known as Republic Act No. 11479, shows the commitment of the Duterte administration to eradicate terrorism.

/MUF