Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
of the Department of National Defense, and Member of
the ATC; ANDAYA, Rolando, in his capacity
as Secretary of the Department of Budget and
Management; TAN, Roberto, as Officer-in-Charge
of the Bureau of Treasury; ESPERON, Gen. Hermogenes,
in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines; CALDERON,
Gen. Oscar, in his capacity as Director General
of the Philippine National Police;
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
PETITION
1. Petitioner Prof. Herminio Harry Roque Jr., of legal age, Filipino citizen,
processes through his undersigned counsel, the Roque and Butuyan Law
Offices, at Unit 1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Centre, 121 Valero Street,
2
Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, at Unit 1904, Antel Corporate Centre,
3. Petitioner Fr. Joe Dizon, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, taxpayer, is
through his undersigned counsel, the Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, at
Unit 1904 Antel Corporate Centre, 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village,
Makati City.
and processes through his undersigned counsel, the Roque and Butuyan
Law Offices, at Unit 1904 Antel Corporate Centre, 121 Valero Street,
the Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, at Unit 1904 Antel Corporate
3
7. Sec. Eduardo Ermita is Executive Secretary and Chairman of the Anti-
Chairman of the ATC. He may be served with summons and other papers
and Member of the ATC. He may be served with summons and other
and other papers and processes at the Department of Interior and Local
Member of the ATC. He may be served with summons and other papers
4
12.Sec. Rolando Andaya is the Secretary of the Department of Budget and
may be served with summons and other papers and processes at the
of the ATC. He may be served with summons and other papers and
National Police. He may be served with summons and other papers and
Metro Manila;
5
17.The Public Respondents may also be served with summons and other
the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners further hold that due to the ambiguity
disbursement of public funds for purposes provided for in the law are
illegal.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
20.As provided for in the 1987 Constitution and as a signatory of the United
duty-bound to uphold these rights and to ensure that any action of any
between the government and the citizens of the Republic ensures that the
6
latter’s rights are respected above all else. Sec. 5 of the Declaration of
that:
22.This is reinforced by Sec. 1 of the Bill of Rights, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, to wit:
the state, and the executive as wielder of the same, are prone to question,
especially when they infringe upon the rights and privileges of the
25.And the final arbiter of questions regarding this nature is the Judiciary,
7
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
is “not just a power but also a duty” under the 1987 Constitution .
26.On this aspect, the Supreme Court, in a line of decisions, has always
due to the rights of its citizens. This was what the Court, in a recent
“xxx
“Perhaps, the vital lesson that we must learn from the theorists
who studied the various competing political philosophies is that, it is
possible to grant government the authority to cope with crises without
surrendering the two vital principles of constitutionalism: the
maintenance of legal limits to arbitrary power, and political
responsibility of the government to the governed.”
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
27.At present, a silent threat exists, one that has haunted the world since the
1
Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003.
2
David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396.
8
28.Terrorism or acts of terrorism have become bywords because of one
event that changed the world’s socio- and geopolitical landscape, the
September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City
the said aircrafts into the buildings in New York City and Washington,
D.C.
29.The group Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, was blamed and later
addressed a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress and called for a “War on
Terror”. He called on all its allies to join the United States in this war.
“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end
there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has
been found, stopped and defeated.”4
31.The first salvo in this war was directed on Afghanistan, where the
When the Taliban refused to negotiate with the U.S. and its allies, war
3
“September 11attacks,” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks.html>.
4
“War in Afghanistan (2001-present),” http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript.html>.
9
was commenced. On October 7, 2001, American and British forces
32.On November 12, 2001, Kabul fell. What followed soon was the
33.In the meantime, as the “War on Terror” was being waged, Presidents
website:
34. After Afghanistan, the “War on Terror” turned towards Iraq then being
ruled by dictator Saddam Hussein. The rationale for the Iraq War was
destruction. This was offered by Pres. Bush and Prime Minister Blair to
their allies.
35.On 2 March 2003, the US led the coalition forces in the war in Iraq.
5
“For or against the War on Iraq,” <http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030324/poe/13.html>.
10
election of a democratic Iraqi government, Iraq currently remains a
36.Six (6) years into the “War on Terror,” Osama bin Laden remains at large
and Al Qaeda, with its ideological allies like Jemaah Islamiyah and the
2001 or the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Similarly, other nations followed,
Bill into law in the year 2005. Other countries also passed their own
anti-terror laws.
law.
39.On 30 June 2004, Sen. Manuel Villar initially filed Senate Bill No. 735,
Purposes. This was later on substituted along with other Senate Bills
11
Estrada, Ramon B. Magsaysay, Jr. and Alfredo S. Lim sponsored the bill
in substitution.
40.On 11 October 2005, Rep. Imee Marcos, with several Congressmen and
41.On 12 October 2005, these bills were certified by the President of the
42.The two bills were submitted to Joint Conference Committee where the
43.On 06 March 2007, the President acted on the submitted bill and
approved and signed it into law which became Republic Act No. 9372.
44.The effectivity of RA 9372 was scheduled two (2) months after the May
“xxx
After the publication required above shall have been done, the
Act shall take effect two months after the elections are held in May
2007.
12
Thereafter, the provisions of this Act shall be automatically
suspended one month before and two months after the holding of any
election.”
Justice, Raul Gonzalez, issued statements that sent chilling effects to the
he further stated:
(NUJP) called on the 14th Congress “to act posthaste on this potential
threat not just to press freedom but to democracy itself by reviewing or,
better still, repeal altogether this law that is worse than the disease it
purports to cure.”7
above, to which chairman Jose Torres Jr. and secretary general Rowena Paraan, on
13
47.On the other hand, Ambassador Alistair MacDonald, head of delegation
history of our country that is reminiscent of the Martial Law days when
allied with the Left, who are killed in a pattern that is not unique to our
49.Sec. Eduardo Ermita, in an interview with The Daily Tribune said that
9
“Anti-terror law not a license for killings -- EU envoy,” by Carla Gomez, INQUIRER.net,
July 05, 2007, < http://archive.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&story_id=74986>.
10
“Wiretap on journalists possible under anti-terror law — DoJ chief,” by Benjamin B. Pulta,
The Daily Tribune, July 5, 2007, < http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/20070705hed3.html>.
14
51.As with any law, RA 9372 requires that Implementing Rules and
have begun the preparation of the law’s IRR, as well as the publication of
52.However, due to the ambiguity of some of its provisions and given the
53.Moreover, several provisions of the said law pose a grave threat to the
life, liberty and property of Filipinos which are held sacrosanct in the
15
the petitioners’ rights as provided for in Article III of the 1987
Constitution.
LOCUS STANDI
responsibility, nay duty, to assert their public rights when there is a clear
56.Petitioner Fr. Dizon is suing as a member of clergy, stating that the law
infringes on the right of the people to freely exercise their religion, that
unconstitutional surveillance, the law itself does not recognize the right
integral part.
people and the Christian. They allege that due to the vagueness of
16
restrained, their organization and members may be classified as a
terrorist organization.
students which represents the Filipino studentry in the fight for their
59.The causes of action for this complaint, as outlined below, assail the
due process in the taking of liberty and property, and the violation of the
60.The Court has recently sustained the direct injury test in determining
person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain
direct injury as a result”11. However, the Court went on to say that it has
11
David vs Macapagal-Arroyo. G.R. No. 171396. May 3 2006.
17
“adopted a rule that even when the petitioners have failed to show direct
in public suits provided that “there must be a showing the issues raised
and is a waste of public funds. Moreover, the law does not speak where
come from, and petitioners assert that it is their right under Section 7 of
the Bill of Rights and as a taxpayer to know how the ATC and the so-
“(b) The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are
doubtful and require judicial construction;
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid
18
“(c) There must have been no breach of the documents in
question;
63.Paragraph (a) points to the subject matter of the action. The present
64.Paragraph (b) provides for the issue or cause of the action. In this
petition, the provisions of the aforesaid sections, read in their pure form,
65.Paragraph (c) requires that no damage has yet been done to the one suing
19
308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His action is not
premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal
defects. Moreover, the respondents themselves have started the
implementation of A.O. No. 308 without waiting for the rules.”
(emphasis supplied)
67.Paragraphs (e) and (f) point to the exhaustion of any and all available
remedies for adequate relief. In the case when a statute is involved, the
remedy for any questions concerning the constitutionality of the law lies
in the Judiciary.
69.The determination of the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, the
jurisprudence.
July 2007. In the aforementioned case, the petitioners therein waited for
14
Gonzales v COMELEC, 9 SCRA 230 (1963).
20
the assailed law to become effective before filing the suit; to avoid the
same approach.
71.In another decision, the Supreme Court, in Bayantel vs. Republic, which
was a petition for declaratory relief, stated that “[a]n issue is ripe for
72.Due to the national scope of the law and its application dependent on the
on the procedural aspect of the law could lead to breach of rights of any
73.The US Supreme Court in Poe vs. Ullman,15 declared that “for the Court
of the country, are indeed susceptible to prosecution for the effect of the
15
Poe vs. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961).
21
74.Subsequently, the Philippines, a staunch ally of the US global war on
at the three-day Mindanao Peace and Security Summit at the Pryce Hotel
stop you. If you are a religious terrorist, we will stop you. If you are a
rogue element of our own police or military, we will stop you.”16 And
yet, due to the still undefined word, “terrorism,” there is still confusion as
opposition, as well as those who simply earned the ire of those in power,
of RA 9372, then the said law now in effect—with all its attendant
76.Therefore, as stated, a petition for declaratory relief is the proper and only
DISCUSSION
16
“1st targets: Rogue AFP, red terrorists,” Paolo Romero, The Philippine Star, Vol. XXI, No.
346, Wednesday, July 11, 2007, p. 1.
22
Section 3 of Republic Act No.
9372 is void for being vague
since it does not provide for a
definition of “terrorism”.
77.Sec. 3 of Republic Act 9372, or the Human Security Act of 2007, states:
or under
23
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce
the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of
the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years
of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under
Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
as amended.”
demand”.
inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render
alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a
meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due
process of law.”17
application.18 Applying once again the doctrine set in the recent case of
17
Connally v General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385.
18
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association v City Mayor. 20 SCRA 849.
24
David vs Macapagal-Arroyo19, a litigant may challenge a statute if it is
81.Even though terrorism has been a common term in the past several years,
no definition has been put forth to which majority of the authorities have
concept. The extent of this vagueness can be gleaned from the comment
19
David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396
25
controlled the territory at the time, but later became
internationally respected statesmen.
26
because of these conflicting interests of sovereign states that
determine in each and every instance how a particular armed
movement (i.e. a non-state actor) is labeled in regard to the
terrorists-freedom fighter dichotomy. A “policy of double
standards” on this vital issue of international affairs has been
the unavoidable consequence.
enumerated acts already punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and
contend that this feeble attempt at defining terrorism only gives the
20
David vs. Macapagal Arroyo, ibid.
27
in describing certain acts as “acts of terrorism” without giving the people
83.Sec. 3 does not provide complete and sufficient standards to guide the
28
“Sec. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of
Communications. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping
Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the
members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or
other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use
of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication,
message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members
of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group
of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism.
communication:
86.Moreover, petitioner Fr. Joe Dizon avers that his rights as a priest as well
29
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members
person.
terrorism. Not once in the history of world jurisprudence has there been a
certain crime and thereafter decide to commit it. Being a mental act that
would only become manifest. Being a state of mind, the burden to prove
Section 18 of RA 9372 is
violative of the Due Process
Clause
30
89.The whole Sec. 18 of RA 9372 smacks of violations to the Bill of Rights.
91.Joaquin Bernas, S.J., in his book, The 1987 Consitution of the Republic
prejudiced the accused. This will allow the police or the military
22
Joaquin Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Consitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary,
(Quezon City: Rex Printing Compnay, Inc., 2003), p. 600 citing Mekin v. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74, 78 (1903);
US v. Jueves, 23 Phil. 100, 105 (1912); Roman Cath. Bishop of Lipa v. Municipality of Taal, 38 Phil. 367
(1918); Province of Camarines Sur v. Director of Lands, 64 Phil. 600(1937); Ongsiako v. Gamboa, 86
Phil. 50, 54 (1950); Tolentino v. Angeles, 99 Phil. 309, 318 (1956); Phil. National Bank v. Ruperto , G.R.
No. L-13777, June 30, 1960; Snatos v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, G.R. No. L-
16049, March 18, 1967.
31
unwarranted access to the suspects thereby increasing their exposure to
punishable under the existing RPC. It has repealed, in effect, Art. 125 of
93.Under Art 125, for crimes or offenses punishable by capital penalties, the
more than 36 hours would be liable for a felony. Under RA 9372, the
32
94.It also violates Sec. 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution which states:
December 10, 1948 where “the right to life and liberty and all other
the Philippines has a duty to uphold these principles for they are, after
“Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in degree
and rights;
33
97.Sec. 18 of RA 9372 also violates Sec. 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution stating:
98.In view of Sec. 2, Article III of the Constitution, the rule is that no arrest
examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and after
committed the crime. The exceptions when an arrest may be made even
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it;
officers who will make the arrests is based on or must result from the
34
the Act (examination of bank deposits). Court authorization is needed
for the conduct of surveillance but not for the arrests to be made.
35
101.In relation to this, in the case, Roger Posadas et. al., vs The Hon.
36
x x x (emphasis supplied)
which provides for an inviolable right of the people to travel shall not be
evidence of guilt is not strong does not fall under the exception provided
for in the Bill of Rights. The inclusion of the phrase “in the interest of
national security and public safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6
reason why such persons charged, when evidence of guilt is NOT strong,
fall under the exception. In any case, it is beyond logic and reason to say
that a person whose evidence of guilt is not strong can be the subject of
104.This grave violation of Sec. 6 Art. III of the Constitution must not
37
Section 27 of RA 9372 is
violative of Section 2, Article
III of the Constitution
106.While no mention of the words “search and seizure” can be read from
38
still fall under the term “search and seizure” mentioned in the
Constitution.
107.This provision violates Sec. 2 Art III of the Constitution, which strictly
PRAYER
of 2007;
Finance, and the Bureau of Treasury from disbursing any funds for
39
d.) restrain the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines
Quezon City.
17 July 2007.
By:
EXPLANATION
Due to distance and lack of messengers at the Law Office to effect personal
service, the foregoing PETITION was sent through registered mail.
Copy Furnished:
40
Malacañang Palace, Manila
41
Gen. Hermogenes Esperon
Chief of Staff
Armed Forces of the Philippines
Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City
42