Ex-OGCC head files latest petition vs anti-terror law
LOOK: Former Govt Corporate Counsel Philip Jurado files 5th petition against Anti-Terrorism Law before the Supreme Court. @inquirerdotnet pic.twitter.com/nEq7qWQRJT
— tetch torres-tupas (@T2TupasINQ) July 8, 2020
MANILA, Philippines — Former Office of the Government Corporate Counsel head Philip Jurado files the latest petition against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, saying the manner the controversial law was passed is a violation of the requirements set under the 1987 Constitution.
Jurado is the fifth party to challenge the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act before the Supreme Court.
In his petition, like the other petitioners, he also sought for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.
Without delving into the law itself, the manner in which the law was passed has shown how the House of Representatives “callously” brushed aside the “constitutionally mandated procedure in passing a bill.”
“Since such act, by itself, already constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of its jurisdiction, the people are in no obligation to wait for the effectivity of law to question the constitutionality of Congress’ actions, or in this case, inactions in passing a bill,” the petition stated.
Article continues after this advertisementThe Anti-Terrorism Bill was certified as urgent by President Rodrigo Duterte.
Article continues after this advertisementBut Jurado said Section 26 (2) Article VI of the 1987 Constitution has limited the President’s power to certify a bill’s immediate enactment to situations where there is a need “to meet a public calamity or emergency.”
“Needless to say, strengthening the law on certain matters, such as terrorism, which matters are already covered by existing laws (i.e., Human Security Act of 2007), cannot be considered as public calamities or emergencies,” Jurado said in his petition.
He further stated that if that is the case, then “all amendatory laws should be deemed as public calamities and emergencies.”
The bill passed the second reading on June 2, and third reading on June 3, without the constitutionally mandated printed copies of the bill’s final form and the three-day rule depriving lawmakers enough time to study the legalities of the provisions of the bill that they would vote for.
“Not being afforded a reasonable period to read and study the contents of the newly overhauled House Bill No. 6875, the Members were extremely misinformed that not one of them was able to realize (before voting) how the Senate ambiguously defined a certain act of terrorism,” Jurado said.
He said this explains why there are some who withdrew their votes.
Like the first four petitioners, he also questioned the legality of the law’s Section 29.
“Clearly, Section 29 of Senate Bill 1083 (now House Bill 6875) allows ATC to waive the application of Article 125 of the RPC, even when such waiver is vested solely in the hands of the detainee—the person to whom the right, which is to be waived, is actually vested,” said Jurado in his petition.
“For indeed, it is elementary that only the person who enjoys the right can waive the same, as it would be perilous if someone can waive the rights of another without the latter’s consent,” he added.
The respondents in the petition are the ATC, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr., Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, Interior and Local Government Secretary Eduardo Año, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III, National Security Adviser Secretary Hermogenes Esperon Jr., Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Felimon Santos Jr., Philippine National Police Director General Archie Francisco Gamboa, the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives.
