Scribd
Upload
61 views4 pages

CD - Calleja v. Executive Secretary

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of key provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) in Calleja v. Executive Secretary. It found that: 1) A facial challenge is the appropriate standard of review to analyze provisions of the ATA that involve free speech. 2) Section 4 of the ATA was unconstitutional because the "not intended" clause was void for vagueness and had a chilling effect on free expression. 3) Rule 4.4 of the ATA's Implementing Rules and Regulations, also known as the "Not Intended Clause", was unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, and failing the strict scrutiny test. 4) Section

Uploaded by

dawnybalezlaw23
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
61 views4 pages

CD - Calleja v. Executive Secretary

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of key provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) in Calleja v. Executive Secretary. It found that: 1) A facial challenge is the appropriate standard of review to analyze provisions of the ATA that involve free speech. 2) Section 4 of the ATA was unconstitutional because the "not intended" clause was void for vagueness and had a chilling effect on free expression. 3) Rule 4.4 of the ATA's Implementing Rules and Regulations, also known as the "Not Intended Clause", was unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, and failing the strict scrutiny test. 4) Section

Uploaded by

dawnybalezlaw23
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Calleja v. Executive Secretary [G.R. No. 252578.

December 07, 2021]


CASE DIGEST

Calleja v. Executive Secretary

G.R. No. 252578. December 07, 2021

EN BANC, CARANDANG J.

Constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)

“Facial challenge” used by the petitions to nullify the ATA cannot invalidate the entire law
because a facial challenge can be used only in “free speech” case. Hence, the law cannot be
declared unconstitutional in its entirety, only in its parts involving free speech.

This Court resolves thirty-seven (37) separate petitions all challenging and assailing the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479 (R.A. No. 11479), otherwise known as the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA). Signed by President Rodrigo R. Duterte (Duterte) on July 3,
2020. Despite the legislature’s efforts to pass the law, petitioners primarily assailed the
validity and constitutionality of the ATA. Petitioners asserted that Sections 4 to 12 of the ATA,
due to their perceived facial vagueness and overbreadth that “purportedly repress free
speech.” Furthermore, it is argued that the unconstitutionality of the definition of the word
“terrorism” and its variants will leave it with “nothing to sustain its existence.”

Following the passage of the ATA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has commenced the
crafting of the law’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR) in August 2020. Succeeding
this, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) has automatically adopted the list of designated
terrorists by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The ATC has also taken grave
measures to implement the ATA, which include designating CPP/NPA and other sixteen (16)
organizations associated with the Islamic State and “other Daesh-affiliated groups in the
Philippines,” ten (10) individuals for their alleged membership in extremist groups, and
nineteen (19) other individuals due to their alleged ties with the CPP/NPA, all as terrorists.
Similarly, AMLC also issued Sanction Freeze Orders against the CPP/NPA and the Daesh-
affiliated groups. Likewise, the ATC issued several resolutions wherein several individuals
were designated as terrorists for their alleged membership in extremist groups and/or alleged
ties with the CPP/NPA.

Should facial challenge or applied challenge be used in analyzing the ATA.


YES. Facial challenge is "an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects,
not only on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or
prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or activities." Jurisprudence also dictates that facial
challenges on legislative acts are permissible only if they curtail the freedom of speech and
its cognate rights based on overbreadth and the void-for-vagueness doctrine. The Court
grants due course to these consolidated petitions as challenges only in relation to the
provisions of the ATA which involve and raise chilling effects on freedom of expression and its
cognate rights in the context of actual and not mere hypothetical facts.

Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 11479 was declared unconstitutional.

Said proviso invaded areas of protected freedoms and is void for vagueness as it has a chilling
effect on an average person. Before the protester can speak, he must first guess whether his
speech would be interpreted as a terrorist act pursuant to Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 11479 and
whether he might be indicted, arrested, and/or detained for it. The clause likewise shifts the
burden to the accused in explaining his intent. It would then allow for law enforcers to take
an “arrest now, explain later” approach in the application of the ATA to protesters and
dissenters. The vagueness of such provision would likely result in an arbitrary flexing of the
government muscle which is equally aversive to due process.

Rule 4.4. of the ATA's IRR or the "Not Intended Clause" is unconstitutional

“Terrorism shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work and so on 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 to public safety.”

The “Not Intended” clause of Section 4’s proviso is unconstitutional under the (1) strict
scrutiny test, (2) void for vagueness, and (3) overbreadth doctrines. The Court struck down
the "Not Intended Clause" as unconstitutional and categorically affirmed that all individuals,
in accordance with Section 4 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, are free to protest, dissent,
advocate, peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances, or
otherwise exercise their civil and political rights, without fear of being prosecuted as terrorists
under the ATA.

The ”Not Intended Clause” also failed the strict scrutiny test. The said test can additionally be
used to determine the validity of the clause, being a government regulation of speech. Thus,
applying this test, the government has the burden of proving that the regulation is necessary
to achieve a compelling state interest; and that it is the least restrictive means to protect
such interest. Even if a compelling state interest exists, a governmental action would not pass
the strict scrutiny test if the interest could be achieved in an alternative way that is equally
effective yet without violating the freedom of expression and its allied rights.

Sec. 25 of R.A. No. 11479 on the second mode of designation was declared
unconstitutional.
It is not the least restrictive means to achieve such a purpose. This mode of designation does
not pass the strict scrutiny test and is equally overboard. It is not the least restrictive means
to achieve such a purpose. Because this measure has the unintended consequence of stifling
free speech and related rights, it should not be implemented based on a decision made by an
executive body that lacks adequate criteria and safeguards. In conclusion, the second manner
of designation fails to withstand strict scrutiny and overbreadth for the reasons indicated, and
is thus illegal.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy