THE Supreme Court on Thursday declared as constitutional the provisions of the hugely-controversial Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

However, the high court nullified two sections for being unconstitutional.

“On the basis of the current petitions, all the other challenged provisions of R.A. 11479 are not unconstitutional. The main ponencia and the various opinions contain interpretations of some of the provisions declared in these cases as not unconstitutional, “ the high court said in a two-page media advisory.

Voided was the qualifier in Section 4 of RA 11479, which stated: “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.”

Voting 12-3, the high court said that the section’s qualifier was excessively broad and repugnant to freedom of expression.

Likewise, the SC, in a 9-6 vote, declared as not constitutional Section 25 paragraph 2 of the RA 11479, which was signed by President Duterte on June 23, 2020.

Section 25 paragraph 2 stated: “Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR No. 1373.”

A total of 37 petitions have been filed before the high court challenging the constitutionality, in whole or in part, of RA 11479.

President Duterte signed a stricter anti-terrorism bill, condemned by critics and rights groups as a weapon to target opponents and stifle free speech.

Duterte has defended the law, saying law-abiding citizens should not fear as it targets terrorists including communist insurgents.

In a petition, former party-list representative and National Union of People’s Lawyers chairperson Neri Colmenares said the law was violative of the 1987 Constitution.

During oral arguments, Colmenares insisted that the law was not meant for terrorist groups but against the people who oppose government policies.

He said the vague wording of the law gave almost absolute power to designate even wrongly, mistakenly or maliciously groups as terrorists.