G.R. No. 252578 Analysis: Atty. Howard Calleja's Arguments on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

1. Definition of terrorism: The case of G.R. No. 252578 involves the issue of whether or not the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) is constitutional. Atty. Howard Calleja argues that the definition of terrorism under the ATA is overbroad and vague, which may lead to its abuse and violation of the fundamental rights of individuals.

2. Issues: The preliminary issues raised in the case include the standing of the petitioners and the justiciability of the controversy. The substantive issues involve the constitutionality of the ATA provisions on warrantless arrests, detention without judicial warrant, and the designation of individuals and groups as terrorists.

3. Ruling of the Supreme Court on the compliance with the requisites of Judicial Inquiry: The Supreme Court found that the petitioners had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ATA, as they have sufficient personal interest in the matter and are among those who may be affected by its provisions. The Court also ruled that the controversy is justiciable, as it involves the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions and the protection of fundamental rights.

Regarding the requisites of judicial inquiry, the Court held that the controversy satisfies the actual controversy requirement, as it involves a present and existing dispute that is ripe for judicial resolution. The Court also found that the petitioners have locus standi, as they have personal and substantial interest in the outcome of the case. The Court held that the earliest opportunity requirement has been met, as the petitioners filed the case within a reasonable time from the enactment of the ATA. Finally, the Court ruled that the lis mota requirement has been satisfied, as the petitioners raised substantive issues that are relevant and material to the resolution of the controversy.