Militant groups challenge legality of terror law’s rules in SC

MANILA, Philippines — Militant groups led by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) on Monday questioned in the Supreme Court the legality of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for the terror law, saying these merely reflected the controversial legislation’s unconstitutional provisions.

At the same time, they reiterated their plea for the high tribunal to act swiftly on their petition, one of 37 separate pleadings pending in the court that contest the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479, or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. According to the multisectoral groups, the IRR published by the Department of Justice on Oct. 14 only amplified the dangers faced by activists and even celebrities who speak up on various social issues due to the government’s “Red-tagging” policy.

“The IRR reproduced the objectionable, broad and vague definition of terrorism … and even added new provisions or mechanisms not present in the law itself,” Bayan and the other petitioners said in a 12-page pleading.

“With all due respect, at this stage, in light of the issuance of the IRR, the dangers brought by the enforcement of [the law can] no longer be ignored. It constitutes a grave and immediate threat which [we] implore the court to address by way of resolution of [our] pending applications for provisional injunctive relief,” they added.

The petitioners said a perusal of the IRR showed that these contained the “same objectionable and unconstitutional aspects of the assailed law” and even went beyond the limits set in RA 11479.

“The IRR’s definition of terrorism—even in this regard alone—obviously exceeds what was explicitly laid out in the already objectionable statutory definition. It also encroaches on an even wider area of constitutionally-protected speech,” they argued.

“[The] IRR now expressly provide that advocacy, protest, dissent, strike, mass action etc. may be considered terrorism because of a subjective determination or even a malicious imputation of intent and purpose,” they said.

According to them, “the enforcement of [the law] and the IRR during the litigation would work a grave injustice to the petitioners, especially those who have been Red-tagged and labeled as ‘terrorists,’ ‘terrorist front organizations’ or supporters thereof by various security officials.”

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has initiated a meeting among the lawyers of 37 groups of petitioners to discuss arrangements for the oral arguments.

Domingo Cayosa, IBP president, said Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta had given assurance that the oral arguments would be held next month.