Supreme Court oral arguments on petitions vs Anti-Terrorism Act resume, now on Day 4.
7 more justices expected to interpellate petitioners.
7 more justices expected to interpellate petitioners.
Former Supreme Court spox Ted Te appears on behalf of FLAG. It was Dean Chel Diokno who appeared in the previous 3 sessions of the SC oral arguments on ATA.
Retired SC Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, amicus curiae, also present.
Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier continues her interpellation, this time, asking UP Law Prof. John Molo if a court can review factual basis of detention authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council.
Lazaro-Javier raises executive privilege, asking how security of country and people affected if state secrets affecting national security are disclosed.
Molo says there's need to balance interests of individuals and State especially if penalty is life imprisonment.
Molo says there's need to balance interests of individuals and State especially if penalty is life imprisonment.
Molo: In fighting a fire like terrorism, we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. We preserve the constitutional order by being different from terrorists. If we don't, we end up making them win, we are no different from the lawless elements we are fighting.
Molo says he will never favor terrorism, saying his father was a soldier and his grandfather was a police officer.
On the powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council, Lazaro-Javier points to its composition and some safeguards under the law, including requirement to inform nearest court and Commission on Human Rights.
In discussion on wiretapping, Lazaro-Javier says it will only be allowed if authorized by the Court of Appeals, which she says, is composed of justices of proven competence, probity, integrity and independence. Shouldn't ATC members be entitled to same presumption?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
