The Supreme Court is engaged on particular guidelines governing anti-terrorism instances, Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo stated Wednesday.
“The Court did not settle with just rendering a decision on this case. We went a step further to ensure that the implementation of the anti-terrorism law is properly done when it reaches the judicial process,” Gesmundo stated at a press convention.
“We want to make sure that there are specific rules governing the anti-terrorism cases so that the rights of people are respected, the right of the state is also equally protected,” he added.
Gesmundo expressed hope that the principles could also be shared with the general public and different stakeholders for session by the primary quarter of 2023.
The Supreme Court printed its full choice and separate opinion on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in February, months after it declared solely two components of the measure unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, Gesmundo clarified his earlier assertion about no courtroom choice being written in stone, stressing that what he meant was that courtroom selections had been tough to vary.
“‘Di ba may kasabahihan tayo ang nakasulat sa bato mahirap burahin. So ang desisyon ng Korte nakasulat sa bato. Para mabura yan mahirap yan. Kaya yung sumunod kong statement napaka simple. There are rare instances where a decision can be changed,” he said.
(We have a saying that what is written in stone is difficult to erase. So the decision of the Court is written in stone. It will be difficult to erase this. That’s why my following assertion could be very easy. There are uncommon cases the place a choice might be modified.)
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, in the meantime, cited examples the place the Supreme Court modified its doctrines such because the pork barrel, the Condonation Doctrine, the rule on illegitimate youngsters, and the declaration of nullity on marriage. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
