R.A. No.
9372 “Human Security Act of
2007” (HSA)
● HSA was a response to the
growing problem of Terrorism.
● However, with the enactment of
HSA, there was still a prevalence
of terrorism that escalated.
R.A. No. 10168 “Terrorism Financing
Prevention and Suppression Act of
2012”
● It is pursuant to the UNSC
Resolution No.1373, in which the
member states must undertake
several measures to combat
terrorism, such as;
○ Prevent and Suppress the
financing of terrorist acts
○ Criminalize the wilful
provision or collections of
funds by their nationals or
territories with the
intentions that the funds
should be used in order to
carry out terrorist acts
○ Freeze without delay
assets of people who have
attempted to commit,
participate, and owning
any assets that may be
used in terrorism
○ Prohibit nationals from
making any funds,
financial assets, economic
resources, or financial
activities in the
commission of terrorist
acts.
● However, much like HSA, it did
little to curb incidences of
terrorism.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND
UNDERPINNINGS OF THE ATA
August 13, 2019
- Senate Committees on National
Defense and Security, Peace,
Unification and Reconciliation,
and Finance conducted a Senate
Hearing SB Nos 6,21, and 640, in
which sought to amend
provisions of HSA.
February 26, 2020
- After it was jointly submitted for
recommending approval of SB
No. 1083, The Senate approved
on third and final reading of SB.
No. 1083, entitled “An Act to
Prevent, Prohibit, and Penalize
Terrorism” and thus repealed
R.A. 9372 otherwise known as
HSA.
May 29, 2020
- The Committees of Public Order
and Safety adopted the Senate
Bill as amendment to HB NO.
6875, which repealed R.A. 9372
otherwise known as HSA.
May 30, 2020
- The committees submitted
Committee Report No. 340 to the
House of Representatives,
recommending the approval
without amendment of HB NO.
6875
June 1-3, 2020
- President Rodrigo Duterte
certified the necessity of the
enactment of HB No. 6875,
- HB 6875 was sponsored in the
plenary for second reading and
 was approved without
amendments.
- HB 6875 passed the third reading
with the House voting 173-71
with 29 abstentations.
July 3, 2020
- President Duterte Signed the
R.A. No. 11479, which is the Anti-
Terrorism Act
July 6 & 22, 2020
- The legislation was published in
Manila Bulletin and Official
Gazette
- And it took effect on July 22,
2020
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
RELATIVE TO THE 37 PETITIONS
37 Petitions of Certiorari and/or
Prohibition have been filed to challenge
the ATA and prohibit its implementation.
- Petitioner assail the validity of
Section 4 to 12 of ATA.
- Petitioners came from different
sectors of society, which include,
inter alia members of party-lists,
former and incumbent members
of Congress, members of socio-
civic, amd non-governmental
organizations, members of
Indigenous Peoples, Moros,
groups, journalists, taxpayers,
registered voters, members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), students, and members of
the academe.
In the aforementioned petitions, one of
them is Carpio, et. al v. ATC, in which
two former members of the Judiciary
filed the case, namely Associate
Justice Antonio Carpio, and Former
Associate and Ombudsman Conchita
Carpio Morales.
- Carpio, et. al asserted that they
would sustain direct injury
upon the passing of the law
due to their known activism
and criticism of the Duterte
administration and in
defending the rights of the
Philippines in the WPS dispute.
Another petition came from the Rural
Missionaries of the Philippines, which
alleged the Anti-Money Laundering
Council;
- freezing their bank accounts and
are alleged to be connected to
terrorism under R.A. 10168
Petition also came the Sisters’
Association in Mindanao, in which
they;
- Experienced harassment due to
their stand against the
Militarization of Moro and
Lumad Communities
- Sr. Emma Lupin is facing charges
of robbery-arson and perjury,
which was based on the
complaint filed by the military in
relation to the NPA attack on
military detachment.
Petitioners have also state that the
National Task Force to End Local
Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-
ELCAC), have;
- Identified some religious
groups, who are also petitioners
of the case as established by
 the Communist Party of the
Philippines in its social media
accounts.
- According to the Petitioners,
these instances demonstrate a
credible threat of prosecution
that they face under ATA.
GABRIELA also stated that;
- They have been targets of human
rights violation as perpetuated by
state forces and are constant
targets of red-baiting, and red-
tagging.
With the aforementioned petitioners,
they have concluded that ATA would
have a destructive chilling effect on
academic freedom.
In August 2020, The Department of
Justice commenced the crafting of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of R.A. No. 11479,
- In which was approved and
released by October 14, 2020
The respondent, Anti-Terrorism
Council, have done the following:
- September 13, 2020, - issued
Resolution No. 10, which
automatically adopts the list of
designated terrorists by the
UNSC, and directs concerned
agencies to impose and
implement the relevant sanctions
measures without delay.
- December 9, 2020 - issued
Resolution Nos. 12 and 13,
which designates CPP/NPA and
16 organizations associated
with the Islamic state and
“other Daesh-affiliated groups
in the Philippines” as terrorists.
- February 24, 2021 - issued
Resolution 16, in which 10
individuals were designated as
terrorists for their alleged
membership in extremist
groups designated under ATC
Resolution 13 that is based on
verified and validated information
obtained and consolidated by the
National Intelligence Committee
- April 21, 2021, issued
Resolution No. 17, which
designates 19 individuals as
terrorists due to their alleged
ties with the CPP/NPA - among
which is Petitioner Casambre.
With this, 2 aetas, namely Jasper
Gurung and Junior Ramos, were
arrested in August 2020 during the
Implementation of the ATA.
- First to be charged for violating
Section 4 of ATA for allegedly
firing at the military which led to
the death of one officer.
Issues:
Should the Court grant due course to
35 out 37 Petitions - YES, the court
gave the petitions due course in part.
According to Section 1, Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution, it provides that the
judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice,
 - Not only to settle actual
controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable
and enforceable, but also
- To determine whether or not
there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or government
With this, the court deemed that the
case at hand called for the exercise of
the court’s expanded judicial power.
This is due to the fact that the 37
petitions are concerned with the
constitutionality of the ATA, and the
aforementioned petitions mentions the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of the Congress in which enacted a law
that will violate fundamental rights.
The Court may exercise its power of
judicial review upon compliance with the
following requirements:
1. An actual and appropriate case
and controversy exists
2. A personal and substantial
interest of the party raising the
constitutional question
3. The exercise of judicial review is
pleaded at the earliest
opportunity
4. The constitutional question raised
is the very lis mota of the case
First, the court ruled that there is an
actual case or controversy that exists
especially when there is a conflict of
legal rights, an assertion of opposite
legal claims, susceptible of judicial
resolution as distinguished from a
hypothetical dispute.
- The consolidated petitions raised
concerns regarding freedom of
speech, expression, and cognate
rights, thus making it a
permissible facial challenge to
the ATA.
- Certain provisions of the ATA
show that there was a credible
and imminent threat of injury
Second, the court declared that there
was a personal and substantial interest
which concerns legal standing or “the
right of appearance in a court of justice
on a given question”
- This is due to the petitioners that
are alleged to be constant targets
of “red-tagging” or “truth tagging”,
which could result in a credible
threat of injury.
Third, the court held that the exercise of
judicial review of “earliest opportunity”
was complied with because the issue of
constitutionality was directly filed with
the Court at the First Instance.
Fourth, the court found the presence of
lis mota, which means that the Supreme
Court will not pass upon a question of
unconstitutionality, although properly
presented, if the case can be disposed
of on some other ground
Should facial challenge or applied
challenge be used in analyzing the
ATA - YES.
-