REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

JEREMIAH BARREJA
ELEONOR A. BULATAO
KIMBERLY MARGARETTE CABOTE
JERAMIE CORPIN

Petitioners;

G.R. No.______________________

(Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

-versus-
with Urgent Prayer and for a
Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and/or Other
Injunctive Remedies)

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL

SECURITY ADVISER, SECRETARY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SECRETARY OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, SECRETARY OF
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARY OF FINANCE, SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE, SECRETARY OF INFORMATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMLC),

Respondents.

x ----------------------------------------------------------x
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila

JEREMIAH BARREJA, ELEONOR BULATAO,

KIMBERLY MARGARETTE CABOTE, JERAMIE
CORPIN

Petitioners;

G.R. No._______
-versus-

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL

SECURITY ADVISER, SECRETARY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SECRETARY OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, SECRETARY OF
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARY OF FINANCE, SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE, SECRETARY OF INFORMATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMLC),

Respondents.

x ----------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

(with Urgent Prayer and for a Temporary Restraining Order,
Writ of Preliminary Injuction and/or Other Injunctive
Remedies)

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the

Revised Rules of Court which seeks to annul (a) Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11 and 12; (b) Sections 25, 26, 27 and (c) Section 29 of the
Anti-Terror Act of 2020; and special action for prohibition under the
same rule which seeks to prohibit all respondents or any person,
entity, member, officer, representative or agent acting independently
or jointly with them from enforcing the Anti-Terrorism Act for being
repugnant to The 1987 Philippine Constitution, is being invoked by
herein petitioners. The implementation shall have a serious and
dangerous chilling effect on the citizens and other person‟s freedom of
expression and speech as well as the fundamental rights such as but
not limited to substantial and procedural due process, right to privacy
and freedom of association.
Pursuant to Judiciary‟s constitutional power to pass upon the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order instruction,
ordinance, or regulation, as enshrined in Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution;
SECTION 5: The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:

I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE

On the July 3, 2020, the President, Rodrigo Roa Duterte,

signed into law the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which replaces the
Human Security Act of 2007, and be effective after the lapse of fifteen
(15) days from publication.
At first look, the said law is unconstitutional, specifically, on
the following Sections therefore:
a) Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 to such extent, as
they define the crime of terrorism and related acts and penalize the
same;
b) Sections 25, 26 and 27 to such extent, as they provide for
the appellation of terrorist individuals, groups of persons,
organizations and associations, and the declaration and proscription of
them as such; and
c) Section 29, to such extent, as it provides for the arrest
without a judicial warrant of persons suspected of committing
terrorism or any of the acts punishable under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11 and 12 thereof.
If the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 and its unconstitutional
provisions will be allowed to take effect, irremediable harm will be
sustained by Filipino people. The implementation of the law will
trample the rights and freedom of the Filipino people that they fought
so hard. It eliminates any democratic space, silence criticism of
Filipinos, even those who are living and working abroad, and further
worsen the already appalling human rights condition in the country.
Amidst a global pandemic and health crisis, worsening
economic condition and loss of livelihood for the Filipino people,
implementing the said law will be a waste of vital financial resources
during this trying times.

Hence, this Petition.

II. PARTIES

Petitioner JEREMIAH BARREJA, a Chief Strategic Communication

Officer of the Philippines‟ National Human Rights Institution;

JERAMIE CORPIN, ELEONOR BULATAO and KIMBERLY

MARGARETTE CABOTE are Filipinos, of legal ages, taxpayers and
members of Women of Influence, an organization of influential women
created to advocate and strengthen the voice and influence of women
with an office address at D Makitakita St., Lumang Ilog, Pasig City,
where they may be served with pleadings, orders and other processes
of this Honorable Supreme Court.

Petitioner Barreja is a Chief Strategic Communication Officer of the

Philippines‟ National Human Rights Institution;
 III. NATURE OF THE PETITION

IV. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Republic Act No. 11479, otherwise known as the Anti-Terror
Act of 2020, was signed into law by the President on July 3, 2020 and
will take effect after fifteen (15) days from publication. Significantly,
the signed law was posted in Official Gazette website on the same
date. If the posting shall be considered publication, then the law shall
take effect on July 19, 2020.
Hence, the petition is being filed within thirty (30) days within
the period specified under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

V. LEGAL STANDING/LOCUS STANDI OF THE PETITIONERS

V. APPLICABILITY OF THE “FACIAL CHALLENGE”

Facial challenge is allowed for this petition because the Anti-

Terrorism Act of 2020 touches the fundamental constitutional rights,
like the rights against warrantless arrests and right for privacy and free
exercise of freedom of speech and expression.
A facial challenge, even without actual injury, may be raised,
and would render the instant petition ripe for judicial determination.
The majority of the Honorable Court, have agreed and adopted the
observations of Justice Mendoza in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,
369 SCRA 394, 441 (2001) and in Southern Hemisphere
Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No.
178552, 5 October 2010 as follows:
“A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague
statute and one which is overbroad because of possible
„chilling‟ effect upon protected speech. The theory is that
 when a statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily
apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle 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 status with no requirement that the person making the
attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be
regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity. The
possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected
speech to go unpunished 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.”
Moreover, there is an extreme urgency and necessity to
resolve the present petition in view of the impending implementation
and enforcement of the questioned provisions of the Anti-Terrorism
Act which are not only patently unconstitutional, but will also result in
grave and injury to the nation, its citizens and taxpayers (including
herein petitioners.)

VI. GROUNDS RELIED UPON FOR THE PETIITON

Petitioners most respectfully invokes the Honorable Supreme
Court‟s power of judicial review pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court to correct and/or check the grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in implementing Anti-Terrorism Act of
2020, particularly on the following grounds:
A.
IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION WHICH STATES THAT “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”.
B.
IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION WHICH STATES THAT “NO LAW
SHOULD BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE PRESS, OR THE
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEBLY ASSEMBLE AND
 PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES.”
C.
IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 3 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION PARAGRAPH (1) WHICH STATES THAT
“THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND
CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE EXCEPT
UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT, OR WHEN
PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE,
AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.”
D.
IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 18 PARAGRAPH 1
WHICH STATES THAT “NO ONE SHALL BE DETAINED
SOLELY BY REASON OF POLITICAL BELIEFS AND
ASPIRATIONS.”
E.
IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 WHICH STATES
THAT “ 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.”
F.
IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS AS IT CREATED AN ANTI-TERRORIST
COUNCIL (ATC) THAT EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY OF
A JUDGE TO WHETHER OR NOT ISSUE WARRANT OF
ARREST.

VII. DISCUSSION

A. IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 OF THE 1987

CONSTITUTION WHICH STATES THAT “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 definition of the terrorism under the Anti-Terror Act of

2020, as an act committed with purpose of intimidating the general
public or a portion of it to create an atmosphere of fear, intimidate the
government, destabilized political, economic, social structures of the
country which creates an emergency and seriously undermine public
safety - is VAGUE, ARBITRARY and violates Article III, Section 1 of
the Constitution or our right to due process.

Human Security Act of 2007 The Anti-Terror Act of 2020

SEC 3. Terrorism. - Any person commits Sec 4. Terrorism. - Subject to Section
an act punishable under any of the 49 of this Act, terrorism is committed by
following provisions of the Revised any person who, within or outside the
Penal Code: Philippines, regardless of the stage of
execution:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and
Mutiny in the High Seas or in the (a) Engages in acts intended to cause
Philippine Waters); death or serious bodily to any person,
or endangers a person‟s life;
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or
Insurrection); (b) Engages in acts intended to cause
extensive damage or destruction to a
c. Article 134-a (Coup d‟ Etat), including
government or public facility, public
acts committed by private persons;
place or private property;
d. Article 248 ( Murder);
(c) Engages in acts intended to cause
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious extensive interference with, damage or
Illegal Detention); destruction to critical infrastructure;

f. Article 324 (Crimes involving (d) Develops, manufactures, possesses,

Destruction), or under acquires, transports, supplies, or uses
weapons, explosives, or of biological,
(1) Presidential Decree No. 1613 ( The
nuclear, radiological or chemical
law on Arson);
weapons, and
(2) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic
(e) Release of dangerous substances, or
Substances and Hazardous and
causing fire, floods or explosions
Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
when the purpose of such act, by its
(3) Republic Act No. 5207 (Atomic
nature and context, is to intimidate the
Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of
general public or a segment thereof,
1968);
create an atmosphere or spread a
(4) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti- message of fear, to provoke or
hijacking Law); influence by intimidation the
government or any international
(5) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-
organization, or seriously destabilize or
Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law
destroy the fundamental political,
of 1974); and
economic, or social structures of the
(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as country, or create a public emergency
amended (Decree Codifying the Laws or seriously undermine public safety,
on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, shall be guilty of committing terrorism
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or and shall suffer the penalty of life
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or imprisonment without the benefit of
Explosives) parole and the benefits of Republic Act
No. 10592.
thereby sowing and creating a condition
of widespread and extraordinary fear
and panic among the populace, in order
to coerce the government to give in to
an unlawful demand shall be guilty of
the crime of terrorism and shall suffer
the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment, without the benefit of
parole as provided for under Act no.
4103, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended

In the 2007 Human Security Act, if the crimes are committed

to sow fear and panic, they would be punished by up to 40 years in
prison without the benefit of parole. On the other hand, The Anti-
Terror Act of 2020 adds qualifications for crimes to be punishable by
life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and good conduct time
allowance (GCTA): if the crimes are done to intimidate the general
public or if they seriously destabilize or destroy the
fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the
country.
The 2020 Anti-Terror Act could punish or at least discourage
legal activity and exercise of freedom of speech and association in any
form or platform, inside or outside the country, because of the
BROAD and VAGUE definition of what the terrorism is.
In ROMUALDEZ V. SANDIGAN BAYAN, The Supreme
Court held that “a statute can be voided for vagueness when it fails
to establish a criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that persons
of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by
statute. The broad definition of Terrorism could give rise to various
interpretations by the law enforcement agents and can be subject to
abuse as this leaves law enforcement officers a wide array of
discretion on what acts can be considered as terrorism.”
Furthermore, the said “safeguards” under Section 4 which
stated:
“Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this section shall not
include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or
mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights,
which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to
a person, to endanger a person‟s life, or to create a serious risk of
public safety”
However, there is a caveat at the end of this clause that says
dissent is not exempted if it creates a serious risk of public safety. In
this context, rants on Twitters and Facebook by individuals during the
pandemic had been used as grounds to charge them with inciting to
sedition. The danger herein lies with how the law enforcement agents
construe legitimate acts of dissent within this definition - it may give
law enforcers free rein in determining who are suspected terrorists.
Even an ordinary citizen airing grievances on social media may fall
within its extent.
The construction of the safeguard provision in Section 4
raises concerns as it makes it seem that rights are exclusions rather
than a general rule protected under the constitution. What‟s even
more concerning is that, upon looking further into construction, the
intent will be determined by law enforcement agency which makes it
easy for law enforcers to say that such protest endangers public safety
thus, easily tagged people as terrorists. It shifts the burden to the law
enforcement agencies to prove person‟s guiltiness rather than the
person‟s assumption of innocence which supposed to be a
“constitutional guarantee” as well.

B. IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 OF THE 1987

CONSTITUTION WHICH STATES THAT “NO LAW
SHOULD BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE PRESS, OR THE
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEBLY ASSEMBLE AND
PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES.”
 The Anti-Terror Act of 2020 added crimes such as threat,
planning, training, facilitating, proposal and inciting to terrorism, as
well as recruitment and membership to a terrorist organization, on top
of conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Human Security Act of 2007
SEC 4. Conspiracy to commit Terrorism
- Person who conspire to commit the
crime of terrorism shall suffer the
penalty of (40) years of imprisonment.
There is a conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of the crime
of terrorism ad defined in Section 3
hereof and decide to commit the same
The Anti-Terror Act of 2020
Sec. 5. Threat to Commit Terrorism. -
Any person who shall commit any of the
acts in Section 4 hereof shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12)
years.
Sec. 6. Planning, Training, Preparing
and Facilitating the Commission of
Terrorism. - It shall be unlawful for any
person to participate in the planning,
training, preparation and facilitation in
the commission of terrorism, possessing
objects connected with the preparation
for the commission of terrorism, or
collecting or making documents
connected with the preparation of
terrorism. Any person found guilty of
the provisions of this Act shall suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment without the
benefit of parole and the benefits of
Republic Act No. 10592.
Sect. 8. Proposal to Commit Terrorism. -
Any person who commit terrorism as
defined in Section 4 hereof shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve
(12) years.
Sect. 9. Inciting to Commit Terrorism. -
Any person who, without taking any
direct part in the commission of
terrorism, shall incite others to the
execution of any of the acts specified in
Section 4 hereof by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems,
banners, or other representations
tending to the same end, shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve
(12) years.
Sec. 10. Recruitment to and
Membership in a Terrorist Organization.
- Any person who shall recruit another
 to participate in, join, commit o support
terrorism or a terrorist individual or any
terrorist organization, association or
group of persons prescribed under
Section 26 of this Act, or designated by
the United National Security Council as
a terrorist organization, or organized for
the purpose of engaging in terrorism,
shall suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment without the benefit of
parole and the benefits of Republic Act
No. 10592.

Sec. 9 provides a penalty for a person who shall incite others

to the execution of any acts of terrorism by means of speeches,
writings or other representations to same end. This violates our
freedom of expression guaranteed by Article III Section 4 of the
Constitution and creates a CHILLING EFFECT on protected speech.
This results in a situation wherein a Filipino would not have a way of
knowing whether his or her speech constitutes a crime.
In DISINI V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, The Supreme
Court provides that “when a penal statute encroaches upon the
freedom of speech, a facial challenge grounded on void-for-vagueness
doctrine is acceptable. Also, petitioner may mount a “facial” challenge
to the constitutionality of a statue even if he claims no violation of his
own rights under the assailed statute where it involves free speech on
grounds of over-breath or vagueness of the statute. The rationale for
this exception is to counter the “chilling effect” on protected speech
that comes from statutes violating free speech.”
A person who does not know whether his or her speech
constitute a crimes under an overboard or vague law may simply
restrain himself or herself from speaking in order to avoid
being charge of a crime. The overboard or vague law thus
chills him or her into silence.
Moreover, Sec 10 of the law aims to stifle the very essence of
democracy. It penalizes the recruitment and membership in a
“terrorist” organization thus violates Filipino peoples‟ right to
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO
PEACEBLY ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES guaranteed under Article III Section 4 of
the Constitution.
 The Supreme Court ruled in PBM EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION V. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS that “the rights
of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights
but also political rights essential to man‟s enjoyment of life.”
With its overboard wordings, the law violates the right of an
individual to freely associate and express themselves since the
wordings of the provision is susceptible to wide interpretation.

C. IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 3 OF THE 1987

CONSTITUTION PARAGRAPH (1) WHICH STATES THAT
“THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND
CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE EXCEPT
UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT, OR WHEN
PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE,
AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.”
Section 3 of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 defines Surveillance
Activities as an act of tracking down, following, or investigation
individuals or organizations or recording of messages, conversations,
discussions, spoken or written works of individuals engaged in
terrorism.

Human Security Act of 2007 The Anti-Terror Act of 2020

SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Sec. 16. Surveillance of Suspects and
Interception and Recording of Interception and Recording of
Communications. - The provisions of Communications. - The provisions of
Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known
Tapping Law) to the contrary as the “Anti-Wire Tapping Law” to the
notwithstanding, a police or law contrary notwithstanding, a law
enforcement official and the members enforcement agent or military personnel
of his team may, upon a written order may, upon a written order of the Court
of the Court of Appeals, listen to, of Appeals secretly wiretap, overhear
intercept and record, with the use of and listen to, intercept, screen, read,
any mode, form, kind or type of surveil, record or collect, with the use of
electronic or other surveillance any mode, form, kind or type of
equipment or intercepting and tracking electronic, mechanical or other
devices, or with the use of any other equipment or device or technology now
suitable ways and means for that known or may hereafter be known to
purpose, any communication, message, science or with the use of any other
conversation, discussion or spoken suitable ways and means for the above
written words between of a judicially purposes, any private communications,
declared and outlawed terrorist conversation, discussion/s, date,
organization, association, or group information, messages in whatever
of persons or of any person form, kind or nature, spoken or written
charged with or suspected of the words
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
(a) between members of judicially
commit terrorism.
declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, as provided in
Section 26 of this Act;
SECT. 10. Effective period of Judicial
Authorization. - Any authorization (b) between members of a
granted by authorizing division of the designated person as defined in
Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 9 Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No.
(d) of this Act, shall only be effective for 10168; or
the length of time specified in the
(c) any person charged with or
written order of the authorizing division
suspected with or suspected of
of the Court of Appeals, which shall
committing any of the crimes
not exceed a period of thirty (30)
defined and penalized under the
days from the date of receipt of the
provisions of this Act;
written order of the authorizing division
of the Court of Appeals by the applicant
police or law enforcement official.
Sect. 19. Effective Period of Judicial
Authorization. - Any authorization
granted by the Court of Appeals,
pursuant to Section 17 of this Act, shall
only be effective for the length of time
specified in the written order of the
authorizing division of the Court of
Appeals which shall not exceed a
period of sixty (60) days from the
date of receipt of the written order by
the applicant law enforcement agent or
military personnel

While both, Human Security Act and Anti-Terror Act, allow

surveillance on not only judicially declared terrorists, but also
suspected terrorists, there are more people who can be subjected to
surveillance. These include those suspected of threatening, planning,
training, facilitating, proposing and inciting to terrorism - unlike the old
law where only the suspected terrorist and conspirator can be
subjected to surveillance.
Furthermore, Section 16 of Anti-Terror Act allows a law
enforcement agent of military personnel upon written order of the
Court of Appeals to secretly wiretap, record or collect communications
between persons judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization and any person charged with or suspected of committing
any of the crimes defined herein. Another proviso of the law is that
the law enforcement agent, upon application of an Order before the
Court of Appeals, is allowed to compel telecommunications service
providers and internet service providers to produce customer
information as well as text and call information and its content.
The Supreme Court in OPLE V. TORRES stated therein that
“essence of privacy of right to be let alone. The concept of limited
government has always included the idea that governmental powers
stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen.
Protection of this private sector - protection, in other words, of the
dignity and integrity of the individual - has become increasingly
important as modern society has developed.”
Even persons merely suspected of committing acts in violation
of this Act can be surveilled upon. In effect, this gives wide discretion
in favor of the law enforcement authority in determining who will be
subjected to surveillance which encroaches on our right to privacy.
D. IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 18
PARAGRAPH 1 WHICH STATES THAT “NO ONE SHALL
BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF POLITICAL
BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS.”
Under Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, detention
without judicial warrant of arrest will be implemented to the person
suspected of committing act of terrorism within a period of fourteen
(14) calendar days counted from the moment the said suspected
person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into
custody by the law enforcement agent or military personnel. The
period of detention may be extended to a maximum period ten (10)
calendar days if it is established that (1) further detention of the
person/s is necessary to preserve evidence related to terrorism or
complete the investigation; (2) further detention of the person/s is
necessary to prevent the commission of another terrorism; and (3) the
investigation is being conducted properly and without delay.
It also widen the scope of the detention period in Section 18
of the Human Security Act of 2007, in which a person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism shall be detained within a period of
(3) days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected
person has been taken or arrested.
The prolonged period of detention provided in this new law
may be lead to injustice to any person not only that it impaired his/her
rights to exercise his own political beliefs and aspirations but as well as
already persecuted as he/she is already subject to detention for a
minimum of fourteen (14) calendar days to maximum of twenty four
(24) calendar days if extended without having first the right to be
heard and to defend himself.
Furthermore, we believe that voicing out criticism, be it
positive or negative, is vital for a democratic country like the
Philippines where in the masses exhibit free exercise of beliefs and
opinions. Therefore, the creation of Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is
blatant oppression of beliefs and opinions of the voice of the Filipino
people.

E. IT VIOLATES ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 WHICH

STATES THAT “ 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.”

Under Section 29 of Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, the law

allows suspects to be detained without judicial warrant of arrest for
fourteen (14) calendar days and can be extended by up to ten (10)
calendar days, by the police or military.
It was clearly stated under the Constitution that “ No search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause”
but under Section 29 of Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, the law allows
suspects to be detained without judicial warrant of arrest for fourteen
(14) days and can be extended by up to ten (10) calendar days, by
the police or military. Section 29 does not also state the requirement
of the existence of “probable cause” for arrests to be made, despite
that it being mandated by the Constitution. Instead, merely states that
persons could be taken into custody even if they are merely
“suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized” by
the law. Suspected meaning doubtful of something wrong without
proof or on slight evidence.
Under the Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5, a warrantless
arrest, also known as “citizen‟s arrest,” is lawful under three
circumstances:
1. When, in the presence of the policeman, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense. This is the “in flagrante delicto” rule.
2. When an offense has just been committed , and he has probable
cause to be believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it. This is
the “hot pursuit” arrest rule.
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment.
Warrantless arrests pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5 of the
Revised Rules of Court cannot be invoked as the legislative intent of
Section 29 of this Act because based on Senate deliberations of the bill
show that there was no mention of any intention to add another
exception to the requirement of securing a warrant of arrest. And if it
will be the basis for Section 29, the provision on warrantless of arrest
should properly be interpreted in the following cases:
A.) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
B.) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it;
In addition, even if we assume that Section 29 applies only to
warrantless arrests under Rule 113, then law enforcement agents and
military personnel can never detain the arrested person for more than
36 hours, effectively reinstating Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
mandating a maximum of 36-hour detention without judicial charge.
In short, in warrantless arrests under Rule 113, there is no
need for additional time to gather more evidence to strengthen the
case against the arrested person for purposes of denying bail because
the evidence of guilt of the arrested person is obviously strong not the
same with the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 that detention period is
fourteen (14) calendar days and can be extended for another ten (10)
calendar days for purposes of gathering more evidence against the
alleged terrorist person.
 F. IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS AS IT CREATED AN ANTI-TERRORIST
COUNCIL (ATC) THAT EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY OF
A JUDGE TO WHETHER OR NOT ISSUE WARRANT OF
ARREST.
Separation of powers is a doctrine of constitutional law under
which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and
judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks
and balances. Each branches is given certain powers so as to check
and balance the other branches.
Whereas, it is cited in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution
that “no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge.”
Also, under Section 18 of the original law, the Human Security
Act of 2007 or Republic Act No. 9372 it states that:
“The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall,
before detaining the person suspected of the crime of
terrorism, present him or her before any judge at the latter‟s
residence or office nearest the place where the arrest took
place at any time of the day or night. It shall be the duty of
the judge, among other things, to ascertain the identity of the
police or law enforcement personnel and the person or
persons they have arrested and presented before him or her,
to inquire of them the reasons why they have arrested the
person and determine by questioning and personal
observation whether or not the suspect has been subjected to
physical, moral or psychological torture by whom and why.”
However under Section 29 of the new law which is the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2020 it allows law enforcers to arrest suspects on the
basis not a judicial warrant, but a mere authorization from the Anti-
Terrorism Council (ATC), which is composed of several Cabinet
secretaries and security officials as well as executive director of Anti-
Money Laundering Council. Notably, these people are part of the
executive branch of government and are not independent in theory
like judges that are part of the judicial branch of the government.
VIII. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners, respectfully

pray that judgment be rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court:

1. GIVING DUE COURSE to the instant Petition for

Certiorari and Prohibition with Urgent Prayer for a Temporary
Restraining Order, Writ of Preliminary Injuction and/or Other Injuctive
Remedies;
2. DECLARING the entirety of the Anti-Terrorism Act of
2020 null and void for being repugnant to the 1987 Philippine
Constitution;
3. PROHIBITING all Respondents or any person, entity,
member, officer, representative or agent acting independently or
jointly with them from enforcing the above-mentioned sections of Anti-
Terrorism Act; and
4. ISSUING a Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of
Preliminary Injuction and/or Other Injuctive Remedies to prevent the
enforcement of Anti-Terrorism Act beginning 19 July 2020, as having
been published in the Official Gazette on 3 July 2020.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

Pasig City for the City of Manila

25 July 2020

IX. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING
X. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE/MAILING