Unconstitutionality of Anti-

Terrorism Act
Void for Vagueness
 In repealing the Human Security Act of 2007, the Anti-Terrorism Act expanded the definition of
terrorism. Under the previous law, an act of terrorism is committed when crimes such as
piracy, rebellion, and murder are done to sow “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.
The Anti-Terrorism Act makes no mention of any predicate crime. Instead, under Section 4, a
person commits terrorism when engaging in acts that intend to endanger someone or to
damage public or private property, and certain other actions when the purpose is any of the
following:
— intimidate the public, the government, or any international organization
— create an atmosphere of or spread a message of fear
— seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political economic or social structures of
society
— create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety
It was also argued that the law falls under the void for vagueness doctrine, which
jurisprudence defines as that a “law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ to its application.”
Overbreadth Doctrine and Facial Challenge

 Without standards to limit their boundaries, these phrases suffer from serious ambiguity
and overbreadth that enables malicious criminal prosecution of innocent rights-holders,”
according to a group of petitioners led by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio
Carpio. Citizens may now second-guess whether their actions could be considered by the
state as terrorism, producing a chilling effect that violates constitutional rights to due
process, free speech, and expression, Carpio and other petitioners agreed.
 Sections 5 to 14 also penalize individuals or groups that threaten to commit terrorism;
plan, train, prepare, or facilitate the commission of terrorism; conspire, propose, and incite
to commit terrorism, as well as those who provide “material support” to terrorists. These
are all too vague, the petitions say.
 Chilling effect within the concept of constitutional law does not refer to an absolutely
chilled population. It refers to that pause, it is the hesitation inside the mind of the speaker
because of a vague and overly broad law, he doesn’t know whether the next word that he
will say will be criminal or in this case, mark him as a terrorist.
 The court declared as unlawful a provision in the anti-
terrorism law, which states that a protest could be
considered terrorism if it is intended to cause death or
physical harm, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a
serious public safety risk That provision is “overbroad and
violative of freedom of expression.”
 The high tribunal also declared unconstitutional a
designation method that would have allowed the country’s
anti-terrorism council to adopt proscriptions by
supranational authorities after a thorough criteria review.
 Is the facial challenge applicable against the ATA?

 Can facial challenge be used to invalidate the main part of

Section 4 of the ATA?

 Is Inciting to Commit Terrorism under Section 9 of the ATA

facially unconstitutional?
Conclusive Presumption

 An inference which the law makes so pre-emptory that it will not allow them to be
overturned by any contrary proof however strong.

 POWER TO DESIGNATE TERRORIST INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATIONS

Paragraph 3 of Section 25 - The ATC may designate an individual, group of persons,
organizations, or association, whether domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause
that the individual, groups of persons, organization, or association commit, or attempt to
commit, or conspire in the commission of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this Act.