G.R. No. 252578- Atty. Howard Calleja, et. al. vs. Executive Secretary, et. al. - A Comprehensive Analysis of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

1. Definition of terrorism: The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) defines terrorism as 'acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person's life, or creates a serious risk to public safety or a critical infrastructure, or causes extensive damage to property.'

2. Issues: Preliminary issues include the standing of the petitioners and the ripeness of the case. Substantive issues include the constitutionality of various provisions of the ATA, such as the definition of terrorism, the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council, and the length of detention without warrant.

3. Ruling of the Supreme Court on the compliance with the requisites of Judicial Inquiry: The Supreme Court found that the petitioners had standing and that the case was ripe for judicial review. The court also found that the case presented an actual controversy and that the petitioners had raised the issues at the earliest opportunity. However, the court found that the petitioners had not sufficiently raised the issue of lis mota, or the proper subject of the controversy.

4. Hierarchy of courts, Direct recourse, and Doctrine of Transcendental Importance: The Supreme Court is the highest court in the Philippines and has the power of judicial review. Direct recourse allows cases to be brought directly to the Supreme Court in certain circumstances, such as when the case involves a pure question of law. The Doctrine of Transcendental Importance allows cases to be heard even if the petitioner is not directly affected by the law in question, if the case involves a matter of great public importance.

5. Facial challenge as applied in constitutional litigation: A facial challenge is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law based solely on its text, without considering its application to a particular case. This is often used in constitutional litigation to challenge laws that could be applied in an unconstitutional manner.

6. Provisions declared unconstitutional and reasons: The Supreme Court declared several provisions of the ATA unconstitutional, including the definition of terrorism, the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council, and the length of detention without warrant. The court found that these provisions were vague, overbroad, and could lead to violations of due process and the right to free speech.

7. 9 critical questions identified as the core issues and the votes of the magistrates:

a. Whether the petitioners have standing to file the petition? (8-7) b. Whether the case is ripe for judicial review? (9-6) c. Whether there is an actual case or controversy? (12-3) d. Whether the ATA is facially unconstitutional? (13-2) e. Whether the definition of terrorism is unconstitutional? (13-2) f. Whether the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council is unconstitutional? (14-1) g. Whether the length of detention without warrant is unconstitutional? (14-1) h. Whether the provision on detention without judicial warrant is unconstitutional? (14-1) i. Whether the provision on surveillance is unconstitutional? (15-0)

8. Matrix of decisions of each magistrate:

| Magistrate | Provisions Declared Unconstitutional | Legal Basis | Concurring/Dissenting/Separate Concurring/Separate Dissenting | |--------------------|------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------------------------------------------------| | Bersamin, Lucas P. | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Separate Concurring | | Caguioa, Benjamin | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | Carandang, Japar | d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Dissenting | | Carpio, Antonio | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | Del Castillo, Estella | d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Dissenting | | Hernandez, Samuel | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | J. Leonen, Marvic | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | M. Leonen, Mario | d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Dissenting | | Lopez, Jr., Alfredo | d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Dissenting | | Peralta, Diosdado | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | Perlas-Bernabe, Amy | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | Reyes, Alexander | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | Gesmundo, Alexander | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | J. Rosario, Jr., Rodil | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring | | J. Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul B. | c, d, e, f, g, h, i | Due process, right to free speech | Concurring |