Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 197 views

    Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council

    Uploaded by

    Lev Alvarez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have proper locus standi or present an actual case or controversy to challenge the constitutionality of the Human Security Act of 2007. The petition for certiorari was also deemed improper as the respondents did not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Additionally, the Court found that the definitions of terrorism under the law were not vague or overbroad.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council

    Uploaded by

    Lev Alvarez
    197 views21 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have proper locus standi or present an actual case or controversy to challenge the constitutionality of the Human Security Act of 2007. The petition for certiorari was also deemed improper as the respondents did not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Additionally, the Court found that the definitions of terrorism under the law were not vague or overbroad.

    Original Title

    Southern-Hemisphere-Engagement-Network-case-report-on-human-security-act

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have proper locus standi or present an actual case or controversy to challenge the constitutionality of the Human Security Act of 2007. The petition for certiorari was also deemed improper as the respondents did not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Additionally, the Court found that the definitions of terrorism under the law were not vague or overbroad.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    197 views21 pages

    Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council

    Uploaded by

    Lev Alvarez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have proper locus standi or present an actual case or controversy to challenge the constitutionality of the Human Security Act of 2007. The petition for certiorari was also deemed improper as the respondents did not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Additionally, the Court found that the definitions of terrorism under the law were not vague or overbroad.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 21

    Southern Hemisphere Engagement

    Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council


    632 SCRA 146
    Date Promulgated: October 5,
    2010
    Southern Hemisphere Engagement
    NGO
    Network, Inc.

    GR No. 178552
    Concerned
    Atty. Soliman Santos, Jr. citizen, taxpayer,
    and lawyer

    GR No. 178554 KMU, NAFLU-KMU, CTUHR citizens

    BAYAN, GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL,


    COURAGE, KADAMAY, SCW, LFS,
    certiorari
    PAMALAKAYA, ACT, HEAD, Guingona, Jr.,
    and
    Lumbera, Constantino, Jr., Sr. Manansan,
    GR No. 178581   prohibition
    OSB, Dean Paz, Atty. Lichauco, Ret. Col.
    Cunanan, Siguion-Reyna, Dr. Pagaduan-
    Araullo, Reyes, Ramos, De Jesus, Baua,
    Casambre

    GR No. 178890 SELDA, EMJP, PCPR  

    IBP, CODAL, Senator Madrigal, Osmena III,


    GR No. 179157  
    and Tañada

    BAYAN-ST, other reg’l chapters and orgs


    GR. No. 179461  
    mostly based in Southern Tagalog
     Anti-Terrorism Council, composed of:
    o Chairperson Eduardo Ermita
    o Vice-Chair Raul Gonzales
    o Acting Defense Secretary Alberto Romulo
    o National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales
    o DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno
    o Finance Secretary MargaritoTeves

     AFP Chief of Staff General HermogenesEsperon

     PNP Chief General Oscar Calderon


     PGMA
     Support agencies of the Anti-Terrorism Council, namely:
    o National Intelligence Coordinating Agency
    o NBI
    o Bureau of Immigration
    o Office of Civil Defense
    o Intelligence Service of the AFP
    o Anti-Money Laundering Center
    o Philippine Center on Transnational Crime
    o PNP intelligence and investigative elements
    Facts:

    • This case consists of 6 petitions challenging the


    constitutionality of RA 9372, “An Act to Secure
    the State and Protect our People from
    Terrorism,” aka Human Security Act of 2007.
    • Petitioner-organizations assert locus standion
    the basis of being suspected “communist
    fronts” by the government, whereas individual
    petitioners invoke the “transcendental
    importance” doctrine and their status as
    citizens and taxpayers.
    • KARAPATAN, Hustisya, Desaparecidos, SELDA,
    EMJP, and PCR allege they have been subjected
    to “close security surveillance by state security
    forces,” their members followed by “suspicious
    persons” and “vehicles with dark windshields,”
    and their offices monitored by “men with
    military build.” They likewise claim they have
    been branded as “enemies of the State.”
    • BAYAN, GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL, COURAGE,
    KADAMAY, SCW, LFS, Anakbayan, PAMALAKAYA,
    ACT, Migrante, HEAD, and Agham would like the
    Court to take judicial notice of respondents’ alleged
    action of tagging them as militant organizations
    fronting for the CPP and NPA.

    • They claim such tagging is tantamount to the


    effects of proscription without following the
    procedure under the law.
    • Meanwhile, IBP and CODAL base their claim of
    locus standi on their sworn duty to uphold the
    Constitution.
    • Petitioners claim that RA 9372 is vague and
    broad, in that terms like “widespread and
    extraordinary fear and panic among the
    populace” and “coerce the government to give in
    to an unlawful demand” are nebulous, leaving
    law enforcement agencies with no standard to
    measure the prohibited acts.
    ISSUE #1

    • Whether or not petitioners’ resort to certiorari is


    proper – No.
    Ruling
    • Petition for certiorari is improper.

    ▫ Certiorari does not lie against respondents who do not exercise judicial or
    quasi-judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states that
    petition for certiorari applies when any tribunal, board, or officer exercising
    judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
    jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
    jurisdiction.

    ▫ The power of judicial review has 4 requisites:


     There must be an actual case or controversy.
     Petitioners must possess locus standi.
     Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity.
     The issue of constitutionality must be the lismota of the case.

    • The present case lacks the 1st 2 requisites, which are the most essential.
    Issue #2

    • WON petitioners have locus standiNO


    Ruling
    • Petitioners lack locus standi.
    ▫ Locus standi or legal standing requires a personal stake in
    the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete
    adverseness.
    ▫ For a concerned party to be allowed to raise a
    constitutional question, he must show that:

     He has personally suffered some actual or


    threatened injury;
     The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action;
    AND
     The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable
    action.
    Issue #3

    • WON petitioners can invoke the “transcendental


    importance” doctrine NO.
    Ruling:
    • In Kilosbayan v. Guingona,to invoke the transcendental
    doctrine, the following are the determinants:
    ▫ The character of the funds or other assets involved in the
    case
    ▫ The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional
    or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or
    instrumentality of the government;
    ▫ The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific
    interest in the questions being raised

    • In the case at bar, there are other partiesnot before the


    Court withdirect and specific interests in the questions
    being raised.
    Issue #4

    • WON petitioners were able to present an actual


    case or controversy NO.
    Ruling:
    • Petitioners fail to present an actual case or controversy.
    None of them faces any charge under RA 9372.
    ▫ Judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or
    controversy. An actual case or controversy means an existing case or
    controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not
    conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would
    amount to an advisory opinion.

    • Petitioners have yet to show any connection between the purported


    “surveillance” and the implementation of RA 9372. Petitioners obscure
    allegations of sporadic “surveillance” and supposedly being tagged as
    “communist fronts” in no way approximate a credible threat of
    prosecution. From these allegations, the Court is being lured to render
    an advisory opinion, which is not its function. If the case is merely
    theorized, it lies beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness.
    Issue #5

    • WON RA 9372 is vague and broad in defining


    the crime of terrorism NO.
    Ruling:
    • The doctrines of void-for-vagueness and
    overbreadth find no application in the present
    case since these doctrines apply only to free
    speech cases and that RA 9372 regulates
    conduct, not speech.
    ▫ Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan: The overbreadth and the
    vagueness doctrines have special application only to free
    speech cases, and are not appropriate for testing the validity
    of penal statutes.

    ▫ Romualdez v. COMELEC:A facial invalidation of criminal


    statutes is not appropriate, but the Court nonetheless
    proceeded to conduct a vagueness analysis, and concluded
    that the therein subject election offense under the Voter’s
    Registration Act of 1996, with which the therein petitioners
    were charged, is couched in precise language.
    • The aforementioned cases rely heavily on Justice Mendoza’s
    Separate Opinion in the Estrada case: Allegations that a penal
    statute is vague and overbroad do not justify a facial review of its
    validity. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute
    and to one, which is overbroad because of possible chilling
    effect upon protected speech. This rationale does not apply
    to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in
    terrorem effect.

    • If facial challenge is allowed, the State may well be prevented from


    enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. Overbreadth and
    vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free
    speech cases. They are inapt for testing the validity of penal
    statutes.

    You might also like