MANILA, Philippines — Even oral arguments through video conference would require the gathering of a number of people in violation of the government protocol against mass gathering, Solicitor General Jose Calida told the Supreme Court as he pleaded for the cancellation of the oral arguments for filed petitions against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
In an urgent motion, the government’s principal lawyer also pointed out that some of the 25 participants to the oral arguments are senior citizens, which are directed to stay at home at all times under the rules issued by the Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases.
“Oral arguments through video conference would still require to gather in a confined space and, in turn, violate the prohibition against mass gatherings,” Calida said.
He explained that for the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) alone, at least 25 individuals – including himself, seven Assistant Solicitors General, at least eight Solicitors, eight support staff, and four IT personnel – would have to converge in one place for the oral arguments.
To date, 29 petitions have been filed against the new anti-terror law and the high court has tentatively set the oral arguments by end of September “at the earliest”.
“The conduct of oral arguments via videoconference would also undermine the efforts of the OSG to mitigate, if not prevent, any potential localized transmission of the virus,” Calida said.
According to the Solicitor General, 14 OSG employees and four staff/security guards under his office have contracted SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes serious respiratory illness COVID-19.
Calida said OSG has been trying its best to protect its employees from virus exposure that it has limited the number of employees reporting for work through a combination of alternative work arrangements – work-from-home and skeleton workforce plus the required face masks and face shields and declaration forms.
Moreover, Calida cited the number of parties to the case and the uneven quality of local internet service that could likewise affect the video conference.
He then noted that even the US Supreme Court has canceled several oral arguments due to the pandemic, a first since 1918.
Calida’s urgent motion, however, did not mention that the US Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the tax records of President Donald Trump pushed through online.
OSG also reiterated that the petitioners failed to satisfy the requisites of judicial review and that the conduct of oral arguments is not mandatory.
So, in lieu of the oral arguments, OSG proposed the following alternatives: the submission of memoranda, clarificatory questions, and written opening statements.
OSG said memos would serve “to augment the parties’ position on the issues,” Justices could issue clarificatory questions by issuing a resolution and directing parties to respond within a given period, while written opening statements would cover the parties’ responses to the Justice’s inquiries.
KGA
RELATED STORIES
Solgen replies to petitions vs anti-terrorism law
Lawyers, journalists, activists file 27th petition vs terror law