EN BANC G.R. No. 252578 — ATTY. HOWARD M. CALLEJA, ef al, Petitioners. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, er al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252579 — REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, Petitioner v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ef al., Respondents, G.R. No. 252580 - MELENCIO S. STA. MARIA, ef al., Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al, Respondents, GR. No. 252588 - BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE, ef al., Petitioners. v. PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, et al, Respondents. G.R. No. 252613 — RUDOLF PHLLIP B. JURADO, Petitioner v. THE ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252623 -- CENTER FOR TRADE UNION AND HUMAN RIGHTS, ef al., Petitioners v. HON. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, et.al, Respondents, G.R. No. 252624 — CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, et al., Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al, Respondents. G.R. No. 252646 — SANLAKAS, Petitioner v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252702 — FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ¢7 al., Petitioners v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ¢7 al., Respondents. GR. No. 252726 - JOSE J. FERRER, JR. Petitioner v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ef al, Respondents. G.R. No. 252733 - BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN, ef al., Petitioners v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252736 — ANTONIO T. CARPIO, et ¢t., Petitioners v. ANTI- TERRORISM COUNCIL, ef al., Respondents.Separate Opinion 2 G.R. Nos. 252578, ef al. G.R. No. 252741 - MARIA CERES P. DOYO, et al., Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ef al, Respondents. G.R. No. 252747 — NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ef al, Petitioners vy ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252755 —~ KABATAANG TAGAPAGTANGGOL NG KARAPATAN, et al., Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al., Respondenis. G.R. No. 252759 — ALGAMAR A. LATIPH, ef al., Petitioners v. SENATE, et al., Respondents. G:R. No. 252765 ~ THE ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., et al, Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al., Respondenis. G.R. No. 252767 — BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO, et -al., Petitioners vy. PRESIDENT RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, ef al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252768 - GENERAL ASSEMBLY BINDING WOMEN FOR REFORMS INTEGRITY, EQUALITY, LEADERSHIP AND ACTION, INC., ef al., Petitioners vy, PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252802 - HENRY ABENDAN OF CENTER FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, et al., Petitioners. v. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ef al, Respondents. G.R. No. 252809 — CONCERNED ONLINE CITIZENS, e¢ al., Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ef al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252903 — CONCERNED LAWYERS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES, ef al, Petitioners v. PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252904 — BEVERLY LONGID, ef ai., Petitioners v. ANTI-Separate Opinion 3 GAR. Nos. 252578, ef al. TERRORISM COUNCLL, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252905 — CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW, INC., at al, Petitioners v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252916 — MAIN T. MOHAMMAD, ef al., Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252921 — BRGY. MAGLAKING, SAN CARLOS CITY, PANGASINAN SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN CHAIRPERSON LEMUEL GIO FERNANDEZ CAYABYAB, ef al., Petitioners v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, ef al., Respondents. G.R. No. 252984 — ASSOCIATION OF MAJOR RELIGIOUS SUPERIORS IN THE PHILIPPINES, ef al., Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 253018 — UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES SYSTEM FACULTY REGENT DR. RAMON GUILLERMO, et al., Petitioners v. HE. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 253100 — PALLIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 253118 ~ BALAY REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., ef al., Petitioners v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 253124 — INTEGRATED BAR OF 'THE PHILIPPINES, et al, Petitioners v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ef al, Respondents. G.R. No. 253242 — COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR PEOPLE'S DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNANCE, INC., ef at., Petitioners v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 253252 — PHILIPPINE MISEREOR PARTNERSHIP, INC., et al., Petitioners vy. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al., Respondenis. flSeparate Opinion 4 GR. Nos. 252578, ef al. G.R. No. 253254 — PAGKAKAISA NG MGA KABABATHAN PARA SA KALAYAAN, et al., Petitioners vy. ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL, et al, Respondents. G.R. No. 253420 — HAROUN ALRASHID ALONTO LUCMAN, IJR., et al, Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al., Respondents. GR. No. 254191 [Formerly UDK 16714]. | — ANAK = MINDANAO PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE AMIHILDA SANGCOPAN, ef al., Petitioners y, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al., Respondents. UDK 16663 — LAWRENCE A. YERBO, Petitioner v. HONORABLE SENATE PRESIDENT, e¢ al., Respondents. Promulgated: December 7, 2021 SEPARATE OPINION In a country dubbed as a haven for terrorists,’ there is a constant threat on human security, the nation's economy ‘and social order. Although steps have been taken to mitigate the effects of terrorism in this country, the peril seemingly evolves and expands exponentially pushing nation countries to adopt more draconian measures to address this borderless crime against humanity. It is a struggle which is not limited to the local landscape. Relentlessly, unified efforts are gearing towards a global framework; after all, we have a common humanity to protect, with the aitainment of international peace and security as our shared goal. ‘The ponencia highlighted the peculiar nature of terrorism and the global approach t combat it. Indeed, to address the massive and prolonged atrocities caused by terrorist acts, counterterrorism measures, including the enaciment of stringent anti-tertor Iaws, are undertaken "See The Cast of Terrorism: Bombings: by the Abu Sayyaf Group in the Philippines by Amparo Pamela Fabe (last accessed on December 14, 2021),Separate Opinion 5 G.R. Nos. 252578, ef al. worldwide. It does not mean, however, that by adopting these measures, basic rights are to be disregarded. Definitely, laws must, at all times and at all cost, be in consonance with the Constitution, especially the basic rights to life and liberty enshrined under the very first Section of our Bill of Rights. The Court is once again faced with the colossal task of preventing violations of the Constitution and, in the process, must observe the balance between the nation’s need for order and the citizen's exercise of individual liberties. It bears stressing that while I concur in the results of the Court's Decision, I agree that only four out of the 37 petitions should be given due course. I vote’ that only G.R. Nos. 252585, 252767, 252768 and 253242 must be given due course considering that they are the only ones which present a justiciable controversy in relation to legal standing and actual or direct injury. As the court of last resort, petitions filed before the Supréme Court, especially those filed directly and in the first instance, must conform sirictly with the requisites of judicial review before they could be given due course. The Court's. power of judicial review which is inherent in all courts ig vested no less by the Constitution under Section 1,? Article VIII thereof. The exercise of the power of judicial review has the following requisites: (1) theré must be an actual case or justiciable controversy before this Court; (2) the question before this Court must be ripe for adjudication; (3) the person challenging the act'must be a proper party; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the very lis mota of the case.” With respect to the first requisite, an actual case or controversy is “one which ‘involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a 2 Soetion |, Article VIII ofthe Constitution provides: SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to sottle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether cr not tire has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to luck or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any braxch or instrumentality of he Government. > Kitusamg Myo Uno ». Aquino Ih, GR No. 210500, April 2, 2019, citing Araullo ». President Aquino ill, 737 Phil, 437, 332 2014); see also Francisco, Jr. v House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830 (2003); Garcia v, Executive Secretary, 281 Phil.’ 572 (1991), citing Dumlao w Commission on Elections, 184 Phil, 369 (1980), Crates » Republic, 716 Phil. 432 (2013),Separate Opinion 6 GAR. Nos, 252578, ef al. hypothetical or absiract difference or dispute.’”* This requirement must be coupled with “ripeness,” meaning the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it‘ A petitioner must show that he/she has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of§ In other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the other, concerning a real and not a mere theoretical question or issue.” An actual and substantial controversy admitting of a specific relief through a decree conclusive i nature must exist, in contrast to an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.® “Courts, thus, cannot decide on theoretical circumstances. They are neither advisory bodies, nor are they tasked with taking measures to prevent imagined possibilities of abuse.” Ripeness as an aspect of an actual case or controversy correlates to the second requisite of judicial review which is legal standing. As defined, a petitioner must allege a personal stake in‘the outcome of the controversy in that the interest of a person assailing the constitutionality ofa statute must be direct and personal.'° A party must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he/she sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he/she suffers thereby in some indefinite way." It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he/she is lawfully entitled or that he/she is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. oe Only four out of the 37 petitions have presented a justiciable controversy or a personal stake in the outcome of the case. “Belgica v. Hon. Exec: Sec. Ochoa, Jn, 721 Phil. 416, 519 (2013), citing Province of North Cotabato ¥. Gov't of the Rep. of the Phils. Pecce Panel on Anwestral Domain (GRP), 589 Phil. 387, 481 (2008). 5 he © Sps. Imbong v. Hon. Ochoa, Jr, 732 Phil. 1, 127 2014). 7 Information Technolos. Poundation of the Phils. x COMELEC, 499 Phil. 281, 305 (2005), citing Vide: De Laumen v. Repe ble, 50 OG No. 2, Febeuary 14, 1952, p. 578. 8 id, citing Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227 (193 ° Kilusang Mayo Uno ». Aquino Ill, supra note 3. Araullo ». President Aquino Ill, 737 Vhil. 457, $35 (2014), citing De Castro % Judicial and Bar Council, 629 Phil, 629, 67-678 (2010), further citing Agan, Jew Phil. International Air Terminals Co.,Ine., 450 Phil. 744, 802 (2003). "tb faSeparate Opinion 7 G.R. Nos. 252578, et al. Veritably, | agree with Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo that the Court may exercise the power of judicial review only after it has satisfied itself that a party with legal standing raised an actual controversy in a timely manner and after recourse to the hierarchy of courts, and that the resolution of the case pivots on a constitutional question, To be sure, the petitioners in the four petitions (G.R. Nos. 252585, 252767, 252768 and 253242) are either identified or tagged as terrorists (Bayan Muna Party-List Representatives Carlos Isagani Zarate, Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, ef al., General Assembly Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership and Action (GABRIFLA), Inc., ef al., and Coordinating Council for People's Development and Govemance, Inc. Ferdinand Gaite, and Eufemia Cullamat, ef al.), or cited as members of terrorist groups and are lined up for arrest and prosecution, or are individuals whose bank accounts are under investigation pursuant to The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020° (ATA) (Bishop Broderick $. Pabillo, ef ai.)."* Considering thal they face actual, direct and real effects of the enforcement of the ATA, their cases must be given due course, as opposed to those petitions which only invoke the possibility of infringement of rights should the ATA be enforced against them. The Court recognizes the exceptions to Jegal standing as carved ovt by jurisprudence, one of which is the doctrine of transcendental importance. However, as carlier established, there are already four petitions which presented a justiciable controversy in compliance with the requisites of judicial review. Thus, the transcendental importance doctrine, being the exception, has no application in the case and should not be applied liberally. Otherwise, the Court will be swamped with petitions filed by parties with no actual or direct injury with the effect of | reducing court pronouncements to mere advisory opinions with no binding force. Ultimately, the resolution of the four petitions which presented concrete actual settings and factual matters would lead to a more intelligent appreciation by the Court of the issue at hand. The case of Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. ¥. Anti-Terrorism Council!’ (Southern Hemisphere), explained this aspect of justiciability in this wise: © Ropublic Act No. (RA) 11479, approved an July 3, 2020, See Conewering and Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, pp. 7 "5 646 Phil 452 2010),Separate Opinion 8 GAR. Nos. 252578, et al Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas for decliratory relief, over which the Court has no original jurisdiction, Then again, declaratory actions characterized by “double contingency,” where both the activity the petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it of a public official are merely theorized, lie beyond judicial review for lick of ripeness. ‘The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA 9372 does not avail to take the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined. . . . Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.’ (Emphasis, underscoring and citations omitted.) Another exception to the legal standing rule is the facial challenge as espoused by all the petitioners herein.” However, a facial challenge does not apply to penal statutes."* The questioned law herein, ATA, is by no mistake, a penal law. In Southern’ Hemisphere, the Court, quoting the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,” clucidated on the parameters of a facial challenge, thus: ‘A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. The theory is that “[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vebicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn naitow specificity.” The possible harm to society in pennitting some unprotected speech to go uupunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. fd at 482-483, "See Dissenting Opinion of retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio T: Corpio in Romualdes » COMELEC, 516 Phil. 357 (2008). It states in part: ‘ne LLS. Supreme Court his created a notable exception to the prohibition against thind-party standing. Under the exception, a politioner may mount a facial challenge to the constitationality of a statute even if he claims no violation ef his own rights under the assailed statute. To mount a "factal” challenge, a petitioner has only to show violation under the assailed statute of the rights of third parties not before the court. This exception allowing "facial" challenges, however, applies only to statutes involving free speech, The ‘around allowed for a "Iacial" challenge is overbreadth or vagueness of the statute.” See Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. x. Arti-Terrorism Council, supra note 14. © 421 Phil, 290 (2001),