Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
-versus-
PREFARATORY STATEMENT
“Even as we reiterate the need for all freedom loving citizens to assist the
military authorities in their legitimate efforts to maintain peace and national
security, we must also remember the dictum in Morales vs. Enrile (121 SCRA
538, 569) when this Court stated:
THE PARTIES
Page 3 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
The Office of the Solicitor General, with address at No. 134 Amorsolo
St., Legaspi Village, Makati City, is furnished with a copy of this petition as
the counsel for government agencies and pursuant to Section 3, Rule 63 of
the Rules of Court.3
3 Rule 63, Section 3. Notice on Solicitor General – In any action which involves the validity of a
statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation, the Solicitor
General shall be notified by the party assailing the same and shall be entitled to be heard upon
such question.
Page 4 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
STATEMENT OF FACTS
As the lead agency that is tasked to assume the responsibility for the
implementation of the counterterrorism policies in the country, the law
provided the following powers and functions of the ATC:
4 Darryl John Esguerra (2020, July 3). PH COVID-19 caseload tops 40K with record-high 1,531 new
cases.Inquirer.net. Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1301398/ph-covid-19-caseload-
tops-40k-with-record-high-1531-new-cases, date accessed on 3 July 2020.
Page 5 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
(f) Enlist the assistance of and file the appropriate action with the
AMLC to freeze and forfeit the funds, bank deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets and property of whatever kind and nature belonging (i)
to a person suspected of or charged with the alleged violation of any of
the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and
12 of this Act; (ii) between members of a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organization or association as provided in Section 26 of this Act;
(iii) to designated persons defined under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 10168;
(iv) to an individual member of such designated persons; or (v) any
individual, organization, association or group of persons proscribed
under Section 26 hereof;
Page 6 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Section 25 of the ATA also grants the ATC the power to “designate
individuals, groups of persons, organizations, or associations” as terrorist/s, to
wit:
Apart from the broad powers exercised by the ATC under the ATA,
the same also introduced new provisions which were not penalized under
the former HSA, which include: (a) proposal to commit terrorism;6 (b) threat
to commit terrorism;7 (c) planning, training, preparing, and facilitating the
commission of terrorism;8 (d) inciting to commit terrorism;9 (e) recruitment
to and membership in a terrorist organization;10 (f) foreign terrorist;11 and
(g) providing material support to terrorists.12
Page 7 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
A. Procedural Issues
Page 8 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
B. Substantive Issues
Page 9 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
A. Procedural Arguments
Page 10 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without
or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or
otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
Page 11 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Page 12 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
In this case, petitioners submit that a prima facie case of grave abuse
of discretion exists with respect to the passage of the ATA in view of its
serious encroachments on petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedoms
guaranteed under the Constitution, which include the freedom of expression,
assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances, the right
to due process and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures,
among others. Moreover, the existence of grave abuse of discretion is further
amplified by the vagueness and clear overbreadth of the several provisions
of the ATA, which include Sections 429, 530, 631, 732, 833, 934, 1035, 1136 and
1237 of the said law. The ambiguity and sheer overbreadth of these provisions
in the ATA run afoul of the Due Process Clause in the 1987 Constitution as
these do not provide a “fair notice” of what can be considered as criminal acts
and what are lawful acts. Accordingly, petitioners submit that the remedies
of certiorari and prohibition are availing, although the assailed
governmental action was not made pursuant to any judicial or quasi-
judicial function.
28 Ibid.
29 Sec. 4, R.A. No. 11479 – Definition of “Terrorism”.
30 Sec. 5, R.A. No. 11479 – Threat to Commit Terrorism.
31 Sec. 6, R.A. No. 11479 – Planning, Training, Preparing and Facilitating the Commission of
Terrorism.
32 Sec. 7, R.A. No. 11479 – Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism.
33 Sec. 8, R.A. No. 11479 – Proposal to Commit Terrorism.
34 Sec. 9, R.A. No. 11479 – Inciting to Commit Terrorism.
35 Sec. 10, R.A. No. 11479 – Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist Organization.
36 Sec. 11, R.A. No. 11479 – Foreign Terrorist.
37 Sec. 12, R.A. No. 11479, - Providing material support to terrorists.
38 Virginia Dio v. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., G.R. No. 189532, June 11, 2014.
39 G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2017.
40 Ibid.
41 G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015.
42 Ibid.
Page 13 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
43 Brother Mariano Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004.
44 Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013.
Page 14 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
The “as applied” approach embodies the rule that one can
challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if he asserts a violation of
his own rights. The rule prohibits one from challenging the
constitutionality of the statute based solely on the violation of the rights
of third persons not before the court. This rule is known as the prohibition
against third-party standing.
45 Ibid.
46 G.R. No. 167011, April 30, 2008, see dissenting opinion of J. Carpio.
Page 15 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
The dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio in the Romualdez case was later
adopted by this Honorable Court in the February 2014 en banc case of Jose
Jesus M. Disini, et al. v. Secretary of Justice.48 In that case, a “facial”
challenge was mounted in the Supreme Court to assail the constitutionality
of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175). In allowing a
“facial” challenge of R.A. No. 10175, particularly on Section 5 thereof on
aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrime, this Honorable Court held
that “when a penal statute encroaches upon the freedom of speech, a
facial challenge grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine is
acceptable”.49 Thus, the Court in the Disini case held that Section 5 with
respect to Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. No. 10175 is unconstitutional since its
vagueness has an “obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression.”50
47 Ibid.
48 G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014.
49 Ibid.
50 Id.
51 G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014, see dissenting and concurring opinion of J. Leonen.
Page 16 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
First, the ground for the challenge of the provision in the statute
is that it violates the freedom of expression or any of its cognates;
Sixth, the value of the speech that will be restrained is such that
its absence will be socially irreparable. This will necessarily mean
balancing between the states interests protected by the regulation and the
value of the speech excluded from society.”52
52 Ibid.
53 G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014.
54 Ibid.
Page 17 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Page 18 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
This liberal attitude on legal standing has been adopted by this Court
in numerous cases, particularly when the petitioners invoke a public right
allegedly violated by the assailed governmental act. In David v. Macapagal-
Arroyo,69 the Court recognized the exceptions to the “direct injury” test in
according petitioners the legal standing to sue, to wit:
Thus, the Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners
have failed to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the
66 Ibid.
67 Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 212246 & 212444, January 12, 2016.
68 Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008.
69 G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006.
Page 19 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
(3) Lim v. Executive Secretary, while the Court noted that the
petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers absent a showing
that “Balikatan 02-01”” involves the exercise of Congress’ taxing or
spending powers, it reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v.
Zamora, that in cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be
settled promptly and definitely and standing requirements may be
relaxed.
(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action
complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.”70
On June 12, 2020, sixteen (16) student protesters were also arrested
by police officers in Iligan City, Lanao del Norte for gathering at a barangay
rotunda to call for the junking of the anti-terrorism bill, among other issues
raised during the said protest.73
72 Mayol, Ador Vincent & Nestle Semilla (2020, June 6), Terror bill protests: Cebu cops arrest 8 inside
UP campus. Inquirer.net. Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1287133/terror-bill-
protests-cebu-cops-arrest-8-on-up-campus, date accessed on 13 July 2020.
73 CNN Philippines (2020, June 12). 16 student protesters released after arrest in Iligan City on
Page 21 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
issues raised in the petition and the fact that the issues involved pertain to
pure questions of law which this Honorable Court can take cognizance
thereof.
B. Substantive Arguments
75 Sps. Romualdez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 167011, April 30, 2008, see dissenting opinion of J. Carpio.
Page 22 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Page 23 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
officer under circumstances that would justify a valid stop, held that the
subject statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning
of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it
encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to clarify what is contemplated
by the requirement that a suspect provide a “clear and reasonable
identification”. Similarly, in the earlier case of Connally v. General Construction
Co.,81 the U.S. Supreme Court held:
While the dictum that laws be clear and definite does not require
Congress to spell out with mathematical certainty the standards to which
an individual must conform his conduct, it is necessary that statutes
when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate
the general public or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread of
message of fear, to provoke or influence by intimidation the government
or any international organization, or seriously destabilize or destroy the
fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country, or
create a public emergency or seriously undermine the public safety, shall
be guilty of committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic
Act No. 10592, otherwise known as “An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97,
98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code”: Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this section shall not
include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass
action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, which are
not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to
endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.”
83Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, see dissenting opinion of J.
Kapunan.
Page 25 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
“terrorism” under the HSA versus the elements of “terrorism” under the
ATA:
It is important to note that under the former HSA, the predicate acts
which constitute the crime of “terrorism” are already existing criminal
offenses which are penalized under the Revised Penal Code or under the
special penal laws enumerated. Thus, the commission of these acts can easily
be referenced to their definition and respective elements under the Penal
Code or the particular special penal law. Contrastingly, the overt acts
under Sec. 4(a) to 4(e) of the ATA expresses NO CRITERION OF
DEFINITENESS as these are broadly phrased which could encompass
even acts that are not considered criminal under the law.
Page 26 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Take for example the case of the Panday Sining members who were
arrested by the police last November 30, 2019 for allegedly vandalizing the
streets in Manila by painting messages like “Biguin ang de facto martial law”
and “Anong sagot ng supremo sa martial law”, which the group said referred to
President’s Duterte’s Executive Order No. 70 in 2018.84 Under the former
HSA, the crime of vandalism would not constitute as a “terrorist” act since
vandalism is not one of the predicate crimes mentioned under the HSA.
However, under the ATA, the vandalism committed by the Panday Sining
members could easily be tagged by the police enforcers as a “terrorist” act
since they may be considered as “engaging in acts intended to cause extensive
damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private
property.”
In the same vein, petitioners submit that the ATA also suffers of
overbreadth. Related to the principle of void-for-vagueness, the
“overbreadth” doctrine decrees that “a governmental purpose may not be
achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade
the area of protected freedoms.”86
84 Adonis, Meg (2019, December 2). 4 Panday Sining members nabbed for vandalism. Inquirer.net.
Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1196747/4-panday-sining-members-nabbed-for-
vandalism, date accessed 15 July 2020.
85 ABS-CBN News (2010, March 24), Enraged PUP students burn chairs in tuition hike protest.
Page 27 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
88 Ibid.
Page 28 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
punishable acts under the ATA carry with them the penalty of life
imprisonment without the benefits of parole or Good Conduct and Time
Allowance (GCTA) under Republic Act. No. 10592.
Page 29 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Page 30 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
“True to the mandate of the due process clause, the basic rights of
notice and hearing pervade not only in criminal and civil proceedings, but
in administrative proceedings as well. Non-observance of these rights
will invalidate the proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of
any pending case affecting their interests, and upon notice, they may claim
the right to appear therein and present their side and to refute the position
of the opposing parties (Cruz, Phil. Administrative Law, 1996 ed., p. 64).91
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Page 31 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Criminal due process requires that an accused has in his favor the
presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved.93 As held in People v.
Ganguso:94
“An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the
Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded
by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused
from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of
proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges the burden the accused
need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an
acquittal. xxx”95
The application shall be filed with an urgent prayer for the issuance
of a preliminary order of proscription. No application for proscription shall
be filed without the authority of the ATC upon the recommendation of the
National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA).
Section 27, on the other hand, provides for the preliminary order of
proscription, to wit:
Page 33 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Page 34 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Section 22, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits the
passage of an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder. In People of the Philippines
v. Ferrer,96 the Supreme Court defined the nature of a bill of attainder as
follows:
In the case at bar, the ATA constitutes a bill of attainder because it has
expressly created a presumption of organizational guilt over members of
these organizations, associations or group of persons proscribed under
Section 26, which the latter can never hope to overthrow. Considerably, once
an organization, association or group of persons is proscribed as a terrorist
organization under Section 26, the members thereof consequently and
automatically become guilty of the offense under Section 10 (membership in
a terrorist organization) even if they became members of such organization
prior to it being outlawed as such by the court.
Page 37 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
102 Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 344-45 (1967), see dissenting opinion of J. Brennan.
103 G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.
Page 38 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
104 Ibid.
Page 39 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
105 Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.
106 Soriano v. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, March 15, 2010, see dissenting opinion of J. Carpio.
107 Ibid.
108 Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.
109 G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985.
110 Ibid.
111 Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.
Page 40 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Thus, in Diocese of Bacolod, et al. v. Comelec, this Court ruled that the
Comelec’s notice and letter effectively abridged petitioners’ meaningful
political speech:
Worse, our existing police force has exhibited, time and time again, a
penchant to indiscriminately label activists as “terrorists”. Last June 2020,
the Police Regional Office at Butuan City, on its official Facebook page,
posted images accusing activist organizations as “communists” and
“terrorists” despite promises that the anti-terrorism bill would not target
critics and activists.120 Shortly after the anti-terrorism bill was passed into
law, the police were at it again when the Malaybalay City Police Station in
Bukidnon put out an infographic on July 16, 2020 which depicts those
advocating for press freedom as “rebels” and “terrorists”.121 If at all, these
recent ‘red-tagging’ activities by the police force operate as an imminent
threat on the exercise of freedom of speech and of expression in light of the
fact that these are the very same officials who are tasked to enforce the ATA.
120 Luna, Franco (8 June 2020). PNP ‘art’ tags activists as terrorists amid debate on anti-terrorism bill,
PhilStar News. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/06/08/2019480/pnp-art-tags-activists-terrorists-
amid-debate-anti-terrorism-bill, date accessed 18 July 2020.
121 Jerusalem, Jigger J. (17 July 2020). Bukidnon town police logic: If you fight for press freedom, you’re
Libertarian Egalitarian Debate on Free Speech in the Philippine Setting. Philippine Law Journal, 90-
159, at 12-13.
123 279 U.S. 644 (1929).
Page 43 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
xxx
SEC. 12. Providing Material Support to Terrorists. – Any person who
provides material support to any terrorist individual or terrorist
organization, association or group of persons committing any of the acts
punishable under Section 4 hereof, knowing that such individual or
organization, association, or group of persons is committing or planning to
commit such acts, shall be liable as principal to any and all terrorist
activities committed by said individuals or organizations, in addition to
other criminal liabilities he/she or they may have incurred in relation
thereto.
For one, there is nothing in the ATA which defines what constitutes
as a “threat” to commit terrorism under Section 5. This provision is
susceptible to various interpretations by law enforcement as it could cover
both verbal or physical threats. Without any ascertainable standard, even the
most benign acts could be punished under the law. On the other hand, the
Page 44 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Here, the above provisions in the ATA only serve to deter the free
exercise of the people’s right to free speech and to petition government for
redress of grievances. The sweeping scope of these provisions produces a
“chilling effect” on constitutional freedoms. Equally so, these provisions
should also be struck down as unconstitutional.
124 G.R. No. L-12592, March 8, 1918.
125 Ibid.
126 Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983.
Page 45 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
It is also worthy to note that the same provision penalizes the mere
act of “supporting” terrorism or a terrorist organization without being a
member of the same and without clearly delineating what “supporting
terrorism or a terrorist individual or any terrorist organization” means.
Page 47 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Surely, by penalizing the same in a separate provision under Section 10, the
lawmakers intended that the offense in Section 10 be treated differently from
the offense penalized in Section 12 on providing material support to
terrorists.
82.
Page 48 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Page 49 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Page 50 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
reason that a hot pursuit is considered as valid and compliance with the
constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrests:
“In light of the discussion above on the developments of Section 5(b), Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and our jurisprudence on
the matter, we hold that the following must be present for a valid
warrantless arrest: 1) the crime should have been just committed; and 2) the
arresting officer’s exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of
probable cause to be determined from the facts and circumstances within
his personal knowledge. The requirement of the existence of probable
cause objectifies the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for
purposes of compliance with the Constitutional mandate against
unreasonable arrests.”140 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Page 51 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
In fact, the ATA provides more than ample opportunities for abuse by
the police and military. Two crucial safeguards in the HSA have been excised
out of the ATA: (1) the safeguard in Section 50 of R.A. No. 9372 that a
wrongfully accused person whose charge for terrorism was unproven would
be entitled to damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) for every day of detention; and (2) the safeguard in Section 18
of R.A. No. 9372 that the person suspected of the crime of terrorism must be
presented before a judge prior to his detention.
“Not even the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the
declaration of martial law authorizes the President to order the arrest of
any person. The only significant consequences of the suspension of the writ
of habeas corpus is to divest the courts of the power to issue the writ whereby
the detention of the person is put in issue. It does not by itself authorize the
President to order the arrest of a person.”
The HSA had imposed a specific penalty for failure of the law
enforcement personnel to deliver the suspect to the proper judicial authority
within the prescribed period, viz:
Page 53 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
This safeguard, however, was removed. Under the ATA, the law
enforcer will not incur any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of
detained persons to the proper judicial authorities if he delivers the detained
person within 14 days from arrest or detention or within 24 days if the
detention has been extended. The law enforcer is only penalized if he fails in
notifying in writing the judge of the court nearest to the place of arrest or
detention. There is no specific time to notify, except that the law enforcer
“immediately” notifies the judge. There is also no requirement of physically
delivering the suspect to a judge to ascertain if the detention is warranted.
Members of the UNHRC have expressed the view that detention for
more than forty-eight (48) hours without judicial review is unreasonably
long.145 The Members of the UNHRC have also viewed legislation allowing
a five-day period before judicial review did not conform with Article 9(3) of
the ICCPR.146 The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has also held
that a detention of four days and six hours did not fulfil the requirement of
promptness.147
The right to privacy, or the “right to be left alone” has been described
as the “most comprehensive of rights and the rights most valued by civilized
men”.148 According to Justice Douglas in Public Utilities Commission v.
145 Human Rights and Pre-Trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to
Pre-trial Detention, United Nations (1994), Page 12.
146 Id.
147 Id. Page 13.
148 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928), see dissenting opinion of J. Brandeis.
Page 54 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Pollak:149 “Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom
from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is
to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the
beginning of all freedom.” The right to be let alone has led to the recognition
of a zone of privacy which is explained by Justice Douglas in Griswold v.
Connecticut150 as follows:
The Supreme Court also recognizes this zone of privacy and has
always upheld privacy rights of individuals. Ople v. Torres152 traces the roots
of the right to privacy as follows:
“Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of
privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our
Constitution. It is expressly recognized in section 3 (1) of the Bill of Rights:
“Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of
the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest
149 343 U. S. 451, 467 (1952).
150 381 U. S. 479, 484 (1965).
151 Ibid.
152 354 Phil. 948 (1998).
Page 55 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Even the legislature enacted a Data Privacy Act (Republic Act No.
10173) which requires consent of data subjects with respect to the
information that they provide third parties.
All these privacy developments have been set aside by the enactment
of the ATA.
Page 56 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Page 57 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
The Writ of Habeas Data is a remedy available “to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data
or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.” It is an independent and summary remedy designed to
protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information
of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth
and to informational privacy.157 It seeks to protect a person’s right to control
information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such
information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve
unlawful ends.158
The Writ of Habeas Data was issued pursuant to the Exclusive Rule-
Making power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated
bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Page 58 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
“There was no question that the civilian asset of the PNP Intelligence
Section relayed to the respondent that there was a standing order issued by
the PNP Isabela Provincial Police Office to the PNP office in Burgos, Isabela
to conduct a background investigation in order to confirm if she was a "Red
Lawyer." She was also under actual surveillance by different individuals who
looked like they were members of the military or police establishments. The
objective of these moves taken against her was unquestionably to establish
a pattern of her movements and activities, as well as to obtain the records of
the cases she was handling for her various clients. These and other
established circumstances fully warranted within the context of the Rule on
the Writ of Habeas Data the directive of the CA for the handing over and
destruction of all information and data on her in order to protect her privacy
and security.”
It is important to point out that under the Writ of Habeas Data, state
agents may be obligated to suppress or destroy information and data of a
person in order to protect that person’s privacy and security. With the Writ
of Habeas Data, state agents are required to show to the Court the following:
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of
such data or information, and the purpose for its collection; (ii) the steps or
actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and confidentiality of
the data or information; and (iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or
information held.
The reliefs under the Writ of Habeas Data of requiring state agents to
update, rectify, suppress or destroy the database or information or files kept
by the respondent, and to enjoin the act complained of will also be no longer
applicable under the ATA because the data will be deposited and kept
confidential by the court. However, even before the deposit, the harm that
private data has already been collected and looked into has already been
done.
Petitioners in this case have a valid and credible fear that their zones
of privacy will be invaded by the unwarranted issuance of any orders for the
surveillance of their communications and correspondences. As student
leaders and activists, petitioners are the forefront of mass action programs,
rallies and other activities in the exercise of their right to assembly and
Petitioners submit that the written order of the ATC to arrest and
take into custody an individual suspected of committing acts of terrorism as
Page 61 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
The members of the ATC are appointees of the Chief Executive and
are alter egos of the President who carry out executive policies. By
empowering the ATC to cause the arrest of suspected terrorists, the ATC is
engaged in a judicial function in violation of the principle of separation of
powers.
More so that in a line of cases, this Court has ruled that members of
the Executive Department cannot usurp a judicial function such as the
issuance of a warrant of arrest.
165 Maza et. al v. Hon. Turla, G.R. No. 187094, February 15, 2017
166 G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990.
167 G.R. Nos. 112708-09, March 29, 1996.
168 G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014
Page 62 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Act) since the Department of Justice cannot seize the computer data under
its control without a warrant. In that case, this Court held:
“The content of the computer data can also constitute speech. In such
a case, Section 19 operates as a restriction on the freedom of expression over
cyberspace. Certainly not all forms of speech are protected. Legislature may,
within constitutional bounds, declare certain kinds of expression as illegal.
But for an executive officer to seize content alleged to be unprotected
without any judicial warrant, it is not enough for him to be of the
opinion that such content violates some law, for to do so would make
him a judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one.”169 (Emphasis
supplied)
169 Id.
170 Angara v. The Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
171 G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014.
Page 63 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
However, Section 46(m) of the ATA gives the ATC the power to
require not only government agencies, offices and entities and officers and
employees but also non-government organizations, private entities and
individuals to render assistance to the ATC in the performance of its
mandate. Certainly, said provision of the law is unconstitutional insofar as it
grants the ATC the power to compel private persons to render some sort of
service to it in order to assist in the performance of its mandate since it
would be a form of involuntary servitude when private individuals
would be rendering service not out of their own volition but because of
state compulsion.
Therefore, Section 46(m) of the ATA should be struck down for being
unconstitutional as it violates the prohibition against involuntary servitude
encapsulated under Section 18(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
172 Id.
Page 64 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole
or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the
performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
suspects.175 He has also made a similar statement to the effect that critics of
the ATA could be “supporters” of terrorists.176
CONCLUSION
In filing this petition before the highest court of the land, petitioners
wish to respond to Jose Rizal’s call to the youth, echoed through the
character of Padre Florentino in his novel El Filibusterismo: “Where are the
youth who will consecrate their golden hours, their illusions, and their
enthusiasm to the welfare of their native land? Where are the youth who will
generously pour out their blood to wash away so much shame, so much
crime, so much abomination?”
PRAYER
Page 67 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.
Copy Furnished:
Page 69 of 70
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Hendy Abendan, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary, et al.
x-----------------------------------------x
EXPLANATION
The foregoing Petition is being served upon the Respondents and the
Office of the Solicitor General by registered mail, personal service not being
practicable due to distance and lack of office personnel.
Page 70 of 70