The National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) on Thursday “greatly” rejoice and welcomed the “landmark” Supreme Court (SC) ruling on the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Law.

“This ruling exhibits the Supreme Court at its finest, and showed that it is a bastion of Justice and Fairness for all Filipinos seeking to protect the sacrosanct rights to life and liberty,” the NTF-ELCAC Legal Cooperation Cluster said in a statement.

It said the SC decision is a victory for the Filipino people over terrorism “which is regarded as a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the Law of Nations.”

“While a qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 and paragraph 2 in Section 25 of the law are declared unconstitutional, the same are quite insignificant, and do not, in any way, diminish the efficacy of the law or otherwise render it impotent. Indeed, the law in its entirety stood compelling, dynamic, and apposite with the demand of the present time and circumstances,” the statement read.

Despite the 37 petitions challenging validity of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2022, the NTF-ELCAC said the spirit of the law, resonating the voice of the people calling for justice and condemning the more than five-decade social menace that has been wreaking havoc especially in the country-side, has been heard and upheld by the Highest Court of the Land.

“This victory will ensure that the Philippines has a dynamic law, at par with other countries, aimed in vanquishing terrorism balanced with the protection of human rights,” it said.

The task force said the SC ruling serves as a stern warning against those malevolent groups or individuals who sow terrorism that the Philippines is not a safe haven for them, and that they will be hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

“Victory is sweetest when it is for the People,” it said.

The SC upheld the law’s validity except for two provisions of the law but said aside from a portion of Section 4 and a portion of Section 25, all the other challenged provisions of RA 11479 are not unconstitutional.

The High Court voted 12-3 to declare unconstitutional the qualifier portion of Section 4 which states “which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.” (PNA)