MANILA, Philippines — As the oral arguments on the controversial Anti-Terrorism Law continued Tuesday, among the topics tackled were the concerns over the possible “chilling effect” the measure might cause, most especially on freedom of expression and dissent.
In his interpellation of Atty. Alfredo Molo, one of the counsels for the petitions against the Anti-Terrorism Law, Associate Justice MarvicLeonen delved on dissent and the concept of chilling effect.
Leonen asked Molo if former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, a known defender of the country’s sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea, stopped advocating about the issues in the disputed waters.
Molo serves as…
Keep on reading: SC told in anti-terror law debates: ‘Chilling effect’ is hesitation in speaker’s mind