Statement of the Issue

This case raises the issue of whether or not the passage of the Republic Act No. 11479
or otherwise known as The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 violates the provisions of
the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

Or

Whether the passage of the Republic Act No. 11479 or otherwise known as The Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2020 violates the provisions of the Bill of Rights under the
Constitution?

Summary of the Argument

Every citizen of the Philippines has always wanted to be safe from different threats
given by different terror groups or wants to be away from the presence of communist
groups. Philippines has experienced many terror incidents, from the Zamboanga Siege
to the Marawi Siege. People are always uncertain regarding their safety because of the
laws not properly imposed against the committing of terrorism. The intention of Anti-
Terrorism Act is to protect the people and the national security of the Philippines.
However, several provisions under the Anti-Terrorism Act have already contradicted
what are stated under the Constitution. The implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act
will bring more danger and chaos to the country compared to what it seek, the
protection of the people and the country.

Advanced Arguments

Section 1, Article III of the Constitution states that: “Section 1. No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person
be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

The right to Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the
right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude (Rubi, et al. V. Provincial
Board, G.R. No. L-14078, March 7, 1919)
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which states “No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Paragraph 1 of Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution states that “Any
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. xxx xxx ,or, If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.”
Note: decide whether to include the whole paragraph or only until with the xxx xxx
mark. (may opt to include the whole paragraph or not)

Paragraph 1 of Section 18 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution states that “No
person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.”
Note: it can also be “Section 18 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution” but the last
part shall include xxx mark.

NOTE: Vagueness of the definition

The right to liberty means that people must not be arrested and detained, unless
provided for by law. Every citizen is given the right to do whatever he wants do as
long as it do not violate any provisions provided for in the law.
Under Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, this allows any law enforcement
agent or military personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-
Terrorism Council to detain any person who is suspected of committing Sections 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Act. The detention, however, may be made without the
presence of any judicial warrant. A suspected person may be detained for 24 days (14
days, adding another 10 calendar days for further detention). In Pestilos v. Generoso
(746 Phil. 301), in which the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless arrests should be
“based on probable cause to be determined by the arresting officer based on his
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed a criminal offense.” Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act does not state
the requirement that there should be a "probable cause" for arrests, despite the fact
that it is mandated by the Constitution. Instead, it simply states that persons may be
taken into police custody even if they are merely "suspected of committing any of the
acts defined and punished" under the Anti-Terrorism Act. A mere suspicion towards
the actions of a person is not sufficient and cannot be the basis of a warrantless arrest.
The guilt of one person cannot be assumed unless evidence are properly established
against the accused.

Further, Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code suggests that a person may be
detained if there is a warrantless arrest for:

 12 hours, for light offenses, which are punishable by light penalties

 18 hours, for less grave offenses, punishable by correctional penalties
 36 hours, for grave offenses, punishable by capital penalties

In other words, the maximum period a person may be detained without a warrant is
three (3) days, which results to a big difference compared to that of fourteen (14) to
twenty-four (24) days under the Anti-Terrorism Act. This provision of the Anti-
Terrorism Act just plainly tells us that whoever is suspected to be a terrorist or
someone who has been assumed to have a plan to commit terrorism can just be
captured by the authorized law enforcement without the presence of any arrest
warrant. By the presence of that alone, the Anti-Terrorism Act is already considered
unconstitutional as the due process of law is being neglected. Under the Constitution,
the person accused must know the reasons for his arrest at the time of his arrest. A
warrantless arrest will never let a person accused know what are the reasons of his
arrest.

Section 34, or the restriction on the right to travel, of the Anti-Terrorism Act lets the
government to restrict to travel the person accused even if the person has not yet been
charged. This is done by applying the Precautionary Hold Departure Order, which
may prevent a suspect from leaving the country. This provision of the Anti-Terrorism
Act also violates the constitutional right of a person. The liberty of a person is being
limited as the restriction to travel may be imposed without any charges or without an
actual conviction.

Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the definition of terrorism also includes “inciting
others through speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners and other
representations tending to the same end”, for which can be punished with up to 12
years in prison, which results to the impairment of the Section 4, Article III of the
Constitution. One of the important rights given to every citizen of the country is the
freedom of expression. It strengthens all other human rights, it enables society to
develop and make progress. The ability to express our own opinions and to speak
freely is essential to bring in the society. Criticisms are normal to the nature of the
human beings, however, these criticisms are the ones which also fuels someone to be
able to do better and also to take account what are the possible reasons why are there
criticisms present. Therefore, this/that provision of the act impairs the freedom of
speech and expression of the people, in which under the Constitution is not allowed.

Under the Constitution, any person under investigation for the commission of a crime
or offense, the person shall be informed his right to remain silent and shall have a
competent and independent counsel of his own. The right to remain silent is
emphasized because any statement a person will give can be used against the person
in court. Therefore, the person accused cannot be compelled to talk or to admit
anything without the presence of his preferred counsel.

Muslims in the Philippines are also most likely to be one of the groups who will suffer
injustices and abuses because of the passage of the law. Paraphrasing a portion of the
petition of Latiph, et al. v. Senate (G.R. No. 252759), “We, the people of Mindanao,
who has been always at the center of the war against terrorism, want nothing more
than the peace of our land.” The minority in Mindanao are being easily tagged to be
part of the different extremist groups such as the so-called ISIS or The New People’s
Army (NPA). With the passage of the law, it would do injustice to the people of
Mindanao to be perceived easily like that, or worst, they may be jailed for weeks just
because they are being tagged as being part the said groups without showing
sufficient evidence. The government's verbal promises cannot guarantee that no
violations in its compliance will be committed.
Lastly, under the Constitution, no person shall be detained solely for his political
beliefs or aspirations. Most likely, activists or those who are in the opposition may
also be targeted upon the passage of the law. It is a well-known fact that persons who
engage in activism or persons in the opposition usually criticize the works of the
government. The passage of the law will greatly give a disadvantage towards the
aforementioned persons as they have a different political position compared to that of
the government.

Possible arguments of respondents or questions from the panel (?)

Lack of merit - petitioners had no legal standing, that there was no actual justiciable
case arising from the law and that the wisdom and necessity behind the enactment of
the law were political questions beyond the ambit of judicial scrutiny.
Suggested (?) answer: the principle of judicial review

14 day detention is not arbitrary nor unjustified - countries which implemented terror
law has longer detention period: 14 days in Sri Lanka and Australia; Bangladesh, 15
days; Indonesia, 21; Pakistan, 30; Malaysia, 59; and Singapore, 730.
Suggested (?) answer: under the rpc, the maximum period for detention
without arrest warrant is 36 hours or equivalent to 3 days.