Transcription of Oral Argument on ATA (May 17, 2021)

@ 40:00 – 58:00

Former Justice F. Jardeleza: …but risk meting this barable target escape to terrorize
another day or act as best as they could try to catch him. Based on the vital although
they limited information they already have. Now Your Honors, unlike the Fictional Tact
Theory Your Honors, our brave soldiers have in fact in at least one occasion actually
being confronted a scenario I have shared with you. On May 22, 2017, our men in
uniform decided to act on intelligence they received and tried to capture Isnilon Hapilon,
one of the most notorious terrorist known to us. As an account of what we now know as
Battle of Marawi reports. The military operation on Hapilon ultimately quote “Preempted
a plant to turn the islamic city into an ISIS controlled province” end of quoute. I know of
course petitioners here represented by many of the counsels, many of the counsels
whom are my friends have offered ________________. For instance, at one hearing,
one counsel argued that and I quote “What is really lacking is good to is good to his
work and good intelligence work?” end of quote. Well Your Honors, maybe but the fact
is the Hapilon raid left 3 soldiers dead and 8 other soldiers wounded. It is also took 7
armors until 5:30 in the morning of May 25, 2017. For intrinsic raiding team by the end
of the battle of Marawi there was total of 2, 0000, 2,000 dead. In contrast, 2, 977
people, 2, 977 people. 20, I repeat, 20 of them Filipinos died in a 9/11 terror attacks.
Was the failure to predict or to interdict the 9/11 attacks a case of lack of good police
work or lack of good intelligence work? It maybe the people other than judges should
issue warrants or that detention of terrorists or up to 24days without filing any charges is
unreasonable. Or that maybe, maybe sometimes are operative could intelligence
information. It maybe intelligence are just left or maybe there just …..

(Female voice over: Justice Jardeleza)

Former Justice F. Jardeleza: (Buffering) the Court decide (buffering) the US

Supreme Court struck a provision in the Immigration and the Nationality Act for being
unconstitutionally vague. I believe that the chief justice wanted to emphasize that the
US Supreme Court decision in the Maya was based on a case record built after
hearings before No. (1) An immigration judge, No. (2) The Board of Immigration
Appeals and No. (3) the Court of Appeals for the 9 th Circuit on Appeals. My point, judges
of the RTC and justices of the Court of Appeals are not only equipped to received and
asserted the facts for this Court may also in their own right make constitutional law. I
think it is time we start hearing them first by giving them the first crop at cases such as
to this. Relatedly Your Honors, counsels for petitioners belittled the attempts of the
Department of Justice headed by Secretary of Justice Menardo Guevarra to fill in the
details of the ATA for the issuance of the Implementing Rules and Regulations or the
IRR. Your Honors, the ATA’s IRR however are far try from the usual IRR which not copy
the law and no more. The DOJ has carried at narrowing definitions as heard in order as
to save the law from being declared unconstitutional them I ask what is so wrong in
allowing the DOJ to do its share in defining constitutional law. At the May 11 hearing,
Justice Rodil Zalameda asked the very legitimate questions about the alleged
vagueness of the terms used by the ATA to qualify the definition of terrorism under
Section 4 to wit quote “To promote the government” close quote to which Justice
Benjamin Caguioa says we added the alleged vagueness of the terms quote “to create
an atmosphere of fear and quote to seriously stabilize or destroy political structures of
the Calgary” close quote.

Through Your Honors, these terms are not defined in the ATA nor in the IRR, their
important however, southern hemisphere has taught us. So I think the case of the
Holder vs. Humanitarian Project but there is a procedure by which the prosecution of
constitutional vagueness can be brought to the Supreme Court in a question of criminal
prosecution. This is by means of a so called pre-enforcement review. This is of course
in addition to the classical modes of known to us of raising the question of constitutional
vagueness that is by certiorari at the time of arraignment or on appeal from conviction.
Your Honors, unfortunately none of the petitioners, none of the petitioners absolved
case pre enforcement proceeding. Finally Your Honors, I go back to the case of Gios
Samar case which we decided in 2019. There, the Court affirmed the decision of the
hierarchy of courts as a solution to the problemof clogged court dockets. We said strict
observations of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts is a constitutional imperative that
a court matter of mere policy. Your Honors, Gios Samar cited the judiciary annual report
of 2016 which indicated a total case load of 14, 491 cases as of December 2016. In
2017 this numbered hit 14, 411 close to 15, 000 in 2018. Before dropping 14, 000 at the
end of 2019. Notably despite of Gios Samar and relentless, relentless efforts of the
Chief Justices Teresita De Castro, Lucas Bersamin and Diosdado M. Peralta introduce
forms the docket of cases pending with the Court at the close of 2019. We made at
nearly the same level as it was in 2016. To end, I would like to join the call of last March
29 by 22 organizations representing business community, 3 law school deans in Ilo-ilo
City and the Ilo-Ilo Integrated Bar. They most urgently petition this Court to declare once
and for all that the 24-month period mandated by the constitution to decide the case is
mandatory and that it should be beautifully observed by this Honorable Court we
reminded that justice delayed is justice denied. Your Honors, we hope that the Court
takes hid and notice of this appeal. Thank you.

CJ Gesmundo: Thank you Former Justice Jardeleza and also the Court, earlier
received a letter, email from Cong. Edcel Lagman who wish to address the Court. We
have the manifestation Lagman we are giving you 10 minutes for your manifestation.

Atty. Edcel Lagman: May I please, the Honorable Court. Your Honors, I was
intending to make manifestation regarding the status of our omnibus motion which filed
by Friday afternoon. Considering the statements of the Hon. Chief Justice that the
omnibus motion will have to be resolved up to the respondents are given time to
respond. And also that the recall of the National Security Advisor – Respondent
Esperon will not be continued today considering the tendency about unresolved urgent
omnibus motion then I think that there is no more need for me to elaborate on this
pending motions which required us by Friday. Thank you Your Honors.

CJ Gesmundo: Thank you Cong. Lagman. So the Court would like to reiterate its
earlier resolution for purposes of the concluding the arguments, oral arguments in this
case. So the partners are required to submit their memorandum on the basis of the
clustering agreed upon by the petitioners’ counsel as stated in their manifestation. So
the clustering would be focused on the day agreed to present during the oral argument.
The Court will issue the resolution setting forth the contents of the parties memorandum
particularly as regards respondents memorandum because the Court will issued a
resolution that contains other matters that the Court wants to be clarified on certain
issues intended for Sec. Esperon to amplify. The Court will issue that resolution by
email and the counting of the period which is 30 days non-extendible for parties’
submission of the memorandum will be based. So there being no other matters for
purposes of this met oral argument the Court concludes the oral arguments in this
petition adjourn the session.

(Male voice over: Please remain in your respective seats. Well, Chief Justice and the
Associate Justices leave the virtual session hall.