MANILA, Philippines — An individual may spend up to 24 days in prison without being charged under the antiterror law, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has told the Supreme Court anew, a provision that several justices had already flagged for disregarding the three-day constitutional limit on warrantless detention.
In its 812-page memorandum, the OSG reiterated that groups behind the 37 separate petitions contesting Republic Act No. 11479, or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, had no legal personality to seek the high court’s intervention since none of them would suffer “imminent injury” with the implementation of the contentious law.
The state lawyers said the petitioners, among them retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, erred in claiming that the law might be subjected to a facial challenge for being vague and overbroad. A facial challenge opposes a statute for being unconstitutional on its face without citing any existing legal controversy.
“In sum, there is no actual case or controversy that is ripe for this honorable court’s adjudication,” the OSG argued in asking the magistrates to junk the petitions.
“Indubitably, for failure to comply with the strict requisites of judicial review, the consolidated petitions must be dismissed outright,” it said.
The petitioners earlier pointed out that the high tribunal had struck down as unconstitutional portions of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, and RA 10354, also known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, through a facial review.
They said the magistrates had ruled that a petitioner need not suffer directly if the law being questioned would infringe on basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The terror law, they claimed, would restrict freedom of speech and expression, right to assembly, right to due process and other fundamental freedoms. In defending Section 29 of the antiterror law, the OSG said prolonging the warrantless detention of a terror suspect was necessary to allow authorities to gather more evidence and prevent terror acts from being committed.
It played down the concerns of some magistrates that allowing a longer period of detention of terror suspects without a court order would disregard the provisions of the Anti-Torture Act, which prohibited prolonged interrogation. In addition, the OSG stressed that the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), a body composed of nine Cabinet members, did not have judicial or quasijudicial function as alleged by the petitioners.
It said while the ATC had no power to order the arrest of a terror suspect, it could authorize law enforcement agents to detain up to 24 days an individual held earlier through a valid warrantless arrest.
Under Section 18, Article 7 of the Charter, a person should be released immediately if the government fails to file a complaint within 72 hours during the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
On the other hand, Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly limited to 36 hours the warrantless detention of an individual suspected of committing a capital offense.