Professional Documents
Culture Documents
013 Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council
013 Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council
Anti-Terrorism Council
SCRA Citation: 632 SCRA 146
Date Promulgated: October 5, 2010
Respondents:
Anti-Terrorism Council, composed of:
o Chairperson Eduardo Ermita
o Vice-Chair Raul Gonzales
o Acting Defense Secretary Alberto Romulo
o National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales
o DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno
o Finance Secretary MargaritoTeves
AFP Chief of Staff General HermogenesEsperon
PNP Chief General Oscar Calderon
PGMA
Support agencies of the Anti-Terrorism Council, namely:
o National Intelligence Coordinating Agency
o NBI
o Bureau of Immigration
o Office of Civil Defense
o Intelligence Service of the AFP
o Anti-Money Laundering Center
o Philippine Center on Transnational Crime
o PNP intelligence and investigative elements
FACTS:
This case consists of 6 petitions challenging the constitutionality of RA 9372, “An Act to Secure the State
and Protect our People from Terrorism,” aka Human Security Act of 2007.
Petitioner-organizations assert locus standion the basis of being suspected “communist fronts” by the
government, whereas individual petitioners invoke the “transcendental importance” doctrine and their
status as citizens and taxpayers.
KARAPATAN, Hustisya, Desaparecidos, SELDA, EMJP, and PCR allege they have been subjected to
“close security surveillance by state security forces,” their members followed by “suspicious persons” and
“vehicles with dark windshields,” and their offices monitored by “men with military build.” They likewise claim
they have been branded as “enemies of the State.”
BAYAN, GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL, COURAGE, KADAMAY, SCW, LFS, Anakbayan, PAMALAKAYA, ACT,
Migrante, HEAD, and Agham would like the Court to take judicial notice of respondents’ alleged action of
tagging them as militant organizations fronting for the CPP and NPA. They claim such tagging is
tantamount to the effects of proscription without following the procedure under the law.
Meanwhile, IBP and CODAL base their claim of locus standi on their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
Petitioners claim that RA 9372 is vague and broad, in that terms like “widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace” and “coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand” are nebulous,
leaving law enforcement agencies with no standard to measure the prohibited acts.
ISSUES:
1. WON petitioners’ resort to certiorari is proper NO.
2. WON petitioners have locus standiNO.
3. WON the Court can take judicial notice of the alleged “tagging” NO.
4. WON petitioners can invoke the “transcendental importance” doctrine NO.
5. WON petitioners can be conferred locus standi as they are taxpayers and citizens NO.
6. WON petitioners were able to present an actual case or controversy NO.
7. WON RA 9372 is vague and broad in defining the crime of terrorism NO.
8. WON a penal statute may be assailed for being vague as applied to petitioners NO.
9. WON there is merit in the claim that RA 9372 regulates speech so as to permit a facial analysis of its validity
NO.