Human rights groups,
victims' organizations seek SC intervention versus Arroyo's terror law
Press Release
By KARAPATAN
August 7, 2007
QUEZON CITY,
Philippines – The Supreme Court is being sought by human rights
groups and victims' organizations to "strike down the Anti-Terror Law
that is hiding behind the cloak of countering terrorism and ensuring
human security."
The human rights
umbrella organization Karapatan along with the Ecumenical Movemenet
for Justice and Peace, Promotion of Church Peoples' Response and
victims' organizations SELDA, Desaparecidos and Hustisya filed their
petition for certiorari and prohibition Monday at the Supreme Court in
Manila.
The rights groups
argue that the terror law is not only vague and overbroad, but
contravenes the bill of rights and many provisions of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, such as the presumption of innocence and
prohibition against incommunicado.
"The law allows for
punishing without first prosecuting, thus violating the very basic
right of every person to due process," says Karapatan.
Karapatan said that
the high court must act immediately and prevent injury because even
prior to the enactment of Arroyo's terror law, countless have already
been victims of state terrorism.
The rights groups, in
its petition said the foregoing: "Perhaps this Honorable Court can
take judicial notice of the long-running and consistent public
insinuation, labeling and vilification by Respondents Executive
Secretary, DOJ Secretary, DND Acting Secretary and National Security
Adviser and by AFP Chief of Staff, among others, of Petitioner
Karapatan.
"Such vicious labeling
continues to this very day and are incitements to hatred and violence
against Petitioners and is tantamount already to the effects of
proscription under R.A. 9372 without even the modicum of following
first the requirements and process, questionable as they are, in the
subject law."
Indeed, it is quite
unnecessary for Petitioners to expose themselves to actual arrest or
prosecution or injury to make a constitutional challenge as these
threats are not "imaginary or speculative" (Though not on al fours,
vide for instance, Steffel v. Thompson, [415 US 452; 1975])."