BASTION OF RIGHTS The Supreme Court building in Ermita, Manila. INQUIRER file photo / EDWIN BACASMAS
MANILA, Philippines — Two retired Supreme Court justices have called on the high court to require the Office of the Solicitor-General to explain if the statement of Lt. Gen. Antonio Parlade Jr. that red tags and threatens all those against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is the government’s position.
In a manifestation and motion submitted by petitioners, retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and retired Associate Justice and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales also want the high court to also order the Office of the Solicitor-General to give Parlade’s basis for issuing such statements including details on the source, circumstances behind the intent.
Parlade, current commander of the Southern Luzon Command of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and member of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac) posted on Facebook, a portion of which states that the individuals, groups, and organizations that oppose the law should be monitored.
The military official made the post a few days prior to the Jan. 19 oral argument on the petitions questioning the legality of the Anti-Terror Law.
While the post did not mention Carpio and Carpio-Morales, a part of Parlade’s post said: “The SC will soon be hearing petitions against the Anti-Terror Law. Let’s be watchful of these individuals, groups, and organizations opposing a law that will protect our citizens from terrorists. What’s their agenda?”
Carpio and Carpio-Morales are among the more than 30 petitioners questioning the legality of the law.
Parlade’s posts also said the petitioners claim to speak the voice of the people but “these protesters, the noisy and belligerent minority–as if they represent the Filipino people.”
“The Day of Judgment is upon you and the Filipino people, who have suffered enough from the malignant hands of the CPP NPA NDF of which you are part of, sit in judgment. Very soon, blood debts will be settled. The long arm of the law will catch up on you, and your supporters,” read Parlade’s Facebook post.
“Petitioners believe this is a matter of serious concern that requires judicial remedy,” read the motion adding that the post is “designed to intimidate (blood debt will be paid).”
“The post also amounts to interference with the Honorable Court’s power to administer Justice, as it is directed to the Parties and their counsel days before the matter is heard by the Honorable Court,” the motion added.
Parlade’s act itself, according to the retired magistrates can be considered a violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act itself particularly Section 4, subparagraph 4 (a) which punishes anyone who “engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life…when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear…” as having committed the crime of terrorism.
JPV
RELATED STORIES:
Solgen replies to petitions vs anti-terrorism law
Anti-Terror Law’s first hit: Two Aetas from Zambales – group