GR 252578 J Lopez (Digest)
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 include individuals, party-list representatives, labor groups, and civil society organizations. The respondents are various government officials and bodies, including the Executive Secretary, members of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), and legislative houses. The petitions raise issues concerning the law’s provisions on detention, surveillance, designation, and the powers of the ATC, alleging violations of constitutional rights to due process, privacy, free speech, and association.
ISSUE
The core issue is the constitutionality of specific provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 ( R.A. No. 11479 ), with the provided text focusing on arguments related to the period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest.
RULING
The provided text is from a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion and does not contain the main decision’s ruling. It presents arguments against the constitutionality of the detention provision. The opinion argues that extending the detention period without a judicial warrant from three days under the old law to 14 days (extendable by 10 more days) under Section 29 of R.A. No. 11479 is unconstitutional. It contends this prolonged detention constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The opinion cites constitutional commission records emphasizing the importance of the three-day period for filing charges, references the Villavicencio v. Lukban case on the writ of habeas corpus, and includes legislative deliberations where lawmakers expressed concerns that a 15-day detention period would be a deprivation of liberty without due process. The opinion challenges the majority’s view that the provision is a permissible warrantless detention, arguing it effectively sanctions prolonged detention without judicial intervention.