G.R. No. 252578 -

Ruling

accordingly, and hence finds it proper to refrain from adjudicating all other issues that do not relate to the freedom of expression and its cognate rights, or those that are too speculative and raise genuine questions of fact that require the submission of concrete evidence, such as: Whether Sections x x x [7, 13] 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. x x x b. violative of the prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. 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; x x x x Whether judicial authorization to conduct surveillance under Section 17 x x x forecloses the remedies under the rules on amparo and habeas data ; Whether the following powers of the ATC are unconstitutional: x x x x b. power to approve requests for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions for violating the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol x x x x c. power to adopt security classifications for its records under Section 45 for violating the right to information; f. power to establish and maintain comprehensive database information systems on terrorism, terrorist activities and countcrtcrrorism operations under Section 46 (c) for violating the constitutional rights to due process and privacy of communication and correspondence; g. power to grant monetary rewards and other incentives to informers under Section 46 (g) for lack of clear parameters; and h. power to require private entities and individuals to render assistance to the ATC under Section 46 (m) for violating the prohibition against involuntary servitude. x x x x Whether the restriction under Section 34 violates the constitutional rights to travel, against incommunicado detention, to bail and R.A. No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act of 2009); x x x x Whether Section 56 repealing R.A. No. 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007), violates the constitutional mandate to compensate victims of torture or similar practices and right to due process; Whether R.A. No. 11479 violates the Indigenous Peoples and Moros' rights to self-determination and self-governance under the Constitution; These shall be resolved in the proper actual case entailing the adjudication of questions of feet and the reception of evidence which the Court is institutionally incapable to perform. The Court must emphasize, however, that this holding, does not, will not, and should not preclude subsequent challenges by individuals or groups who may, in the future, eventually come before this Court once again to assail the constitutionality of the unresolved provisions of the law. [197] R.A. No. 11479 cannot be declared unconstitutional in its entirety. Petitioners aver that the essential provisions animating