terror

Photo, part of a bas-relief of Napoleon Abueva [my research better be correct (ha-ha) the artist didn’t carve his name on the work]

On the anti-terror law: A group of students is planning to file a, what-the-rules-of-court call: “petition for declaratory relief” on the anti-terror law, before the Regional Trial Court. On the other hand, certain multi-sectoral organizations are planning to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of said law.

Because they’re different groups, they wouldn’t be accused of forum-shopping, but if their lawyer or lawyers or any of their members can be associated with the human rights organizations which in turn are members of the multi-sectoral organizations, then the multi-sectoral organization could be accused of forum-shopping and cited in contempt (they have to sign an “oath” at the foot of their initiatory pleading that says they are not aware of any action filed, etc. Well, now they probably are aware if the petition for declaratory relief goes first.), and their case not given due course, i.e., pink-slipped, i.e., dismissed by a minute resolution. In pink.

A “petition for declaratory relief”, in simple terms, means the party is asking the Court to give the meaning of certain provisions or clauses; you’re basically asking the judge: “What does this particular provision mean?” That’s in a petition for declaratory relief.

The Regional Trial Court, and not the Supreme Court or any court, has jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief. The downside of this is, it is discretionary upon the judge whether or not he/she wants to accommodate you or to answer your question “what-does-this-provision-mean?” The judge can simply say, his/ her docket is clogged as it is, he/she will not deign even glance at you or your pleading. And that’s it.

Or the judge can simply say: The provision means what says. (“What do you think?” “I think so!” “What do you mean?” “I mean it!”)

On the other hand, if you’re going to file an injunction case in the Supreme Court (petition for certiorari and prohibition) to question the constitutionality of a statute (assuming you hurdle the forum-shopping because some people you know might have already gone ahead and filed a petition for declaratory relief elsewhere), if your injunction case is given due course, you would be on safe and good ground if you could build or make an “on-its-face challenge” (“void on its face”). The provision that allows detention without charges for three days; the provision on proscription of organizations; the provision on persons conspiring; the provision that impairs the right to bail (restrictions on travel and communication; those impair the right to bail, this is an on-its-face challenge kiddo); the provisions on seizure or confiscation of bank deposits (moneys) of even just suspects (several provisions on this) those can be on-its-face challenges. (The extra-territoriality provision, that one is really unnecessary because of the existence of treaties; but the provision looks strange).The other provisions, those that require judicial determination before the power could be exercised… well, those require some amount of illustration. You could succeed in having one provision or two struck down as unconstitutional.

In an actual case (injured person) however, the actual case brings you home. You get the entire thing.