Advisory: en Banc

EN BANC
ADVISORY
(Revised as of January 5, 2021)
G.R. No. 252578, G.R. No. 252579, G.R. No. 252580, G.R. No. 252585, G.R. No. 252613, G.R. No.
252623, G.R. No. 252624, G.R. No. 252646, G.R. No. 252702, G.R. No. 252726, G.R. No. 252733, G.R.
No. 252736, G.R. No. 252741, G.R. No. 252747, G.R. No. 252755, G.R. No. 252759, G.R. No. 252765,
G.R. No. 252767, G.R. No. 252768, G.R. No. 252802, G.R. No. 252809, G.R. No. 252903, G.R. No.
252904, G.R. No. 252905, G.R. No. 252916, G.R. No. 252921, G.R. No. 252984, G.R. No. 253018, G.R.
No. 253100, G.R. No. 253118, G.R. No. 253124, G.R. No. 253242, G.R. No. 253252, G.R. No. 253254,
G.R. No. 253420, G.R. No. 254191, and UDK 16663.
For the orderly proceeding of the Oral Arguments on the above-

captioned consolidated cases scheduled on January 19, 2021, two o’clock
in the afternoon (2:00 p.m.), at the En Banc Session Hall, 2nd Floor, SC
Main Building, the parties are required to observe the following:
I. Petitioners and respondents shall limit their discussion to the

followlng essential issues:'
A. Preliminary issues.
1. Whether petitioners have legal standing to sue

2. Whether the issues raised in the petitions involve an actual and
justiciable controversy
3. Whether petitioners’ direct resort to the Supreme Court is
proper
4. Whether facial challenge is proper
5. Whether a temporary restraining order or a status quo ante
order should be issued
6. Whether Republic Act No. (RA) 11479 should already be
declared unconstitutional in its entirety if the Court finds that
the definition of terrorism as well as the powers of the ATC are
constitutionally infirm
B. SHbstaritive issues.
' The Court retains the statement of issues as listed in the previously circulated Advisory last
November 20, 2020, considering that the additional issues proposed during the preliminary conference
last November 26, 2020 are already subsumed therein.
Revised Advisory -2- G.R. No. 252578, et
al. January 5,
2021
1. Whether Section 4 defining and penalizing the crime of

“terrorism” is void for vagueness or overbroad in violation of
the constitutional rights to due process, free speech and
expression, to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation, and non-detention solely by reason of political
beliefs
2. Whether Sections 5 to 14 defining and penalizing threats to

commit terrorism, planning, training, preparing, and facilitating
terrorism, conspiracy, proposal, inciting to terrorism, material
support, and other related provisions, are:
a. void for vagueness or overbroad in violation of the above-

stated constitutional rights, as well as the freedom of
religion, association, non-detention solely based on
political beliefs, and academic freedom; and
b. violative of the prohibition against ex post facto laws and

bills of attainder
3. Whether the uniform penalties for all punishable acts under

Sections 4 to 14 violate the constitutional proscription against
the imposition of cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
4. Whether surveillance under Section 16 violates the

constitutional rights to due process, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, to privacy of communication and
correspondence, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of
religion, and accused’s right to be presumed innocent
5. Whether judicial authorization to conduct surveillance under

Section 17 violates the constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures, and forecloses the remedies under the
rules on amparo and haheas data
6. Whether the following powers of the ATC are unconstitutional:
a. power to designate terrorist individuals, groups and

organizations under Section 25 for: (i) encroaching
judicial power and the Supreme Court’s rule-making
power; (ii) inflicting punishment ex post facto based on
the adoption of the United Nations Security Council
Consolidated List of designated terrorists, and other
requests for designation by other jurisdictions or
supranational jurisdictions; and (iii) violating due process
and constitutional rights due to the laclc of clear
parameters for designation, absence of notice and hearing
Thank you for using www.freepdfconvert.com service!
Only two pages are converted. Please Sign Up to convert all pages.
https://www.freepdfconvert.com/membership

Advisory: en Banc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advisory: en Banc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advisory: en Banc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

For the orderly proceeding of the Oral Arguments on the above-

I. Petitioners and respondents shall limit their discussion to the

1. Whether petitioners have legal standing to sue

1. Whether Section 4 defining and penalizing the crime of

2. Whether Sections 5 to 14 defining and penalizing threats to

a. void for vagueness or overbroad in violation of the above-

b. violative of the prohibition against ex post facto laws and

3. Whether the uniform penalties for all punishable acts under

4. Whether surveillance under Section 16 violates the

5. Whether judicial authorization to conduct surveillance under

6. Whether the following powers of the ATC are unconstitutional:

a. power to designate terrorist individuals, groups and

You might also like