SC junks bid to declare Human Security Act unconstitutional
see: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20101010-296988/SC-junks-bid-to-declare-Human-Security-Act-unconstitutional
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court, voting 14-0, dismissed the petitions seeking to declare as unconstitutional Republic Act 9372, otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007.
In a 45-page decision, the high court, through Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales ruled that the petitioners which include Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. et al; Kilusang Mayor Uno (KMU), et al; Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), et al; Karapatan Alliance For the Advancement of People’s Right, et al; The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), et al; and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Souther Tagalog (Bayan-ST) have no legal standing to question the validity of the law because “none of them faces any charge” under the said law.
In their petitions, the groups asserted their legal standing to file the suit on the basis of being suspected “communist fronts” by the government while individual petitioners invoke “transcendental importance” doctrine and their status as citizen citizens and taxpayers.
But the high court said that while the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People’s Army and the Abu Sayyaf group have been classified by the United States and the European Union as foreign terrorist organizations, no case has been filed yet before any court seeking to declare the CPP and NPA as domestic terrorist groups.
“R.A. 9372 has been in effect for three years now. From July 2007 up to the present, petitioner-organizations have conducted their activities fully and freely without any threat of, much less an actual, prosecution or proscription under R.A. 9372,” the high court said.
The high court added that the petitioners failed to show an “actual, imminent or direct injury as a result of the implementation of R.A. 9372.”
Also, the high court said it cannot nullify a law based on allegations that the petitioners are under surveillance.
“The possibility of abuse in the implementation of R.A. 9372 does not avail to take the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined. Such possibility if not peculiar to R.A. 9372 since the exercise of any power granted by law may be abused,” the SC said.
“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,” it added.
Petitioners said the HSA violates Constitutional provisions on unreasonable searches and seizures.
It likewise violates the provisions which ensure the right of the people to travel and freedom of expression, they said.
The petitioners noted that under RA 9372, a warrant is no longer necessary in arresting a person. As a substitute for the warrant, the law requires a written authority to be issued by the Anti-Terrorism Council.
They added that under Section 18 of RA 9372, an arrest may be based on mere suspicion, as it uses the term “suspected terrorist.”
The petitioners also insisted that R.A. 9372 is void for being vague and regulates speech.
But the high court said that based on its reading of the definition of the crime of terrorism in Section 3, R.A. 9372, “what the law seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech.”
The Court further explained a review of the validity of the said law for being vague is “legally impermissible absent an actual or imminent charge” against the petitioners.
Concurring with the ruling were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama, Jr., Jose Catral Mendoza and Maria Lourdes Sereno. Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura is on leave.
