G.R. No. 252578 , December 7, 2021
ATTY. HOWARD M. CALLEJA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. (Consolidated with G.R. Nos. 252579, 252580, 252585, 252613, 252623, 252624, 252646, 252702, 252726, and 252733)

FACTS

Multiple petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479 , also known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. The petitioners, including individuals, party-list representatives, labor groups, and civil society organizations, argued that the law contains provisions that are unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, and violative of fundamental rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, due process, and privacy. The respondents are various government officials and bodies tasked with implementing the law.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether certain provisions of Republic Act No. 11479 (the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020) are unconstitutional.

RULING

The provided text does not contain the main decision of the Supreme Court. It only includes a list of the case parties, the docket numbers, and citations from what appears to be separate or dissenting opinions. Therefore, a comprehensive ruling on the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act cannot be derived from the given text. The text references arguments and definitions from other sources, such as the definition of rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code and the Court’s rule-making power under Section 5(5) of the Constitution, but it does not state the final disposition or the majority’s legal conclusions on the challenged provisions.