On February 8, 2007, with 16-2 votes, the Senate passed the Republic Act 9372, more often referred to as Anti-Terrorism Act, on final reading. The Bicameral Conference Committee of both the Senate and the Lower House ratified its full version in a special session called upon by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
RA 9372, euphemistically known as the Human Security Act of 2007 was enacted to protect life, liberty and property from acts of terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations. However, in the essence, it is but a law created out of the so-called need for a solution to fight the alleged problem of terrorism (e.g. Abu Sayyaf Group-ASG, the Jemaah Islamiya-JI, Al Qaeda-AQ, etc.)—a law which ‘defines’ and ‘penalizes’ terrorism.
HSA defines terrorism as the commission of crimes (i.e. rebellion, murder, kidnapping, hijacking, etc.) that sow or create widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand. HSA also presents the new crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to commit the same.
The law’s definition of terrorism is vague, overbroad and highly susceptible to abuse. When does a widespread and extraordinary fear and panic happen? Who is/are exactly the populace? How does a demand become unlawful?
With this definition, terrorism suddenly becomes an all-encompassing crime. It is not just limited to ASG, JI, AQ. Even legitimate disagreement can be construed as such. With no specific criteria to guide our law enforcers, HSA immediately bequeaths them the indefinite discretion to determine if a person is engaged in terrorism or in conspiracy to commit terrorism.
The ambiguity of terrorism in HSA makes the law dangerous. But the R.A.’s provisions such as the authorization of preventive detention, expansion of the power of warrantless arrest, and permission for unchecked invasion of our privacy, liberty and other basic rights, make the law even more dangerous.
Section 17 provides that an organization, association or group of persons that is organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or, although not so organized, actually engages in acts of terrorism, may be outlawed or proscribed as a ‘terrorist organization.’
The prohibition of organizations on the grounds that they are ‘terrorists’ is not only unclear and uncertain. It also forbids free speech and suppresses the right to peacefully assemble and to appeal to the government.
Section 19 states that in the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, persons suspected of terrorism may be arrested and detained without charges for as long as the detention is approved by a judge of the municipal or regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest or by ‘a municipal, city, provincial or regional office of a Human Rights Commission.’ It is not evident whether the ‘Human Rights Commission’ mentioned here is the same as the constitutionally established Commission on Human Rights.
Section 26 provides that in cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending. He or she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her usual place of residence. While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cellphones, e-mails, computers, the internet or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court.
These and other similar provisions contravene the right to liberty, to be presumed innocent, to due process of law, to equal protection under the law, to a fair trial, to travel and to privacy of communication and correspondence.
Section 7 states that a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
This provision defies due process, since those under surveillance or wiretapping are expelled from taking part in the proceeding to the damage of their life and liberty. They are not notified of the application or any such authorization order against them. They are not permitted to dispute such application or any evidence that may be brought against them. They are not allowed to present evidence on their own behalf as well.
Section 27 provides that the justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose that (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, and (3) of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons, may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer and the members of his/her team duly authorized in writing by the anti-terrorism council to: (a) examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records in a bank or financial institution; and (b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution. The bank or financial institution concerned shall not refuse to allow such examination or to provide the desired information, when so ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of Appeals.
The power to investigate bank deposits and finances of persons or entities suspected to be engaged in terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is intensely upsetting. Law enforcers are equipped with the resilient carte blanche to question about the bank deposits of persons who are simply alleged to be terrorists. Worse, these examinations could lead to events of extortion, blackmail or even be the groundwork for kidnapping committed by blundering law enforcers or syndicates.
Anyone may be placed under house arrest, prohibited from using their cell phones, computers and any other means of communication, even when they are granted bail on the ground that evidence of guilt is not strong. They may also be subjected to surveillance and wiretapping, as well as examination, sequestration and freezing of bank deposits and other assets, on mere suspicion that they are members of a ‘terrorist organization.’
Apparently, HSA is one of the most incoherent and disorganized laws our Congress has ever passed. A mix-and-match collection of 62 sections, the law has no distinct structure, no headings or subheadings, and no groupings of sections. Provisions follow one another without logical connection. Some sections even contradict each other. While others simply make no sense. With these, it is clear that the Human Security Act of 2007 is indeed a dangerous law.
HSA gives GMA and her minions every license to violate human rights. It even excuses them in any possible increase in the number of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and filing of fabricated charges against government critics. Will we continue allowing them?
We must say ‘never again to another martial law’. Let us resist and defy state terror by exposing and opposing rampant abuses to human rights. We can use legal means to stop the implementation of HSA such as the repealing of the law, and/or querying the law before the Supreme Court.
The strength of unity has been tested several times already. And this will forever be our weapon against the dark policies of the government. If dissenting PGMA’s crooked system is to be considered as an act of terrorism, then let us all be terrorists!
RA 9372, euphemistically known as the Human Security Act of 2007 was enacted to protect life, liberty and property from acts of terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations. However, in the essence, it is but a law created out of the so-called need for a solution to fight the alleged problem of terrorism (e.g. Abu Sayyaf Group-ASG, the Jemaah Islamiya-JI, Al Qaeda-AQ, etc.)—a law which ‘defines’ and ‘penalizes’ terrorism.
HSA defines terrorism as the commission of crimes (i.e. rebellion, murder, kidnapping, hijacking, etc.) that sow or create widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand. HSA also presents the new crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to commit the same.
The law’s definition of terrorism is vague, overbroad and highly susceptible to abuse. When does a widespread and extraordinary fear and panic happen? Who is/are exactly the populace? How does a demand become unlawful?
With this definition, terrorism suddenly becomes an all-encompassing crime. It is not just limited to ASG, JI, AQ. Even legitimate disagreement can be construed as such. With no specific criteria to guide our law enforcers, HSA immediately bequeaths them the indefinite discretion to determine if a person is engaged in terrorism or in conspiracy to commit terrorism.
The ambiguity of terrorism in HSA makes the law dangerous. But the R.A.’s provisions such as the authorization of preventive detention, expansion of the power of warrantless arrest, and permission for unchecked invasion of our privacy, liberty and other basic rights, make the law even more dangerous.
Section 17 provides that an organization, association or group of persons that is organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or, although not so organized, actually engages in acts of terrorism, may be outlawed or proscribed as a ‘terrorist organization.’
The prohibition of organizations on the grounds that they are ‘terrorists’ is not only unclear and uncertain. It also forbids free speech and suppresses the right to peacefully assemble and to appeal to the government.
Section 19 states that in the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, persons suspected of terrorism may be arrested and detained without charges for as long as the detention is approved by a judge of the municipal or regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest or by ‘a municipal, city, provincial or regional office of a Human Rights Commission.’ It is not evident whether the ‘Human Rights Commission’ mentioned here is the same as the constitutionally established Commission on Human Rights.
Section 26 provides that in cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending. He or she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her usual place of residence. While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cellphones, e-mails, computers, the internet or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court.
These and other similar provisions contravene the right to liberty, to be presumed innocent, to due process of law, to equal protection under the law, to a fair trial, to travel and to privacy of communication and correspondence.
Section 7 states that a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
This provision defies due process, since those under surveillance or wiretapping are expelled from taking part in the proceeding to the damage of their life and liberty. They are not notified of the application or any such authorization order against them. They are not permitted to dispute such application or any evidence that may be brought against them. They are not allowed to present evidence on their own behalf as well.
Section 27 provides that the justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose that (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, and (3) of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons, may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer and the members of his/her team duly authorized in writing by the anti-terrorism council to: (a) examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records in a bank or financial institution; and (b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution. The bank or financial institution concerned shall not refuse to allow such examination or to provide the desired information, when so ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of Appeals.
The power to investigate bank deposits and finances of persons or entities suspected to be engaged in terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is intensely upsetting. Law enforcers are equipped with the resilient carte blanche to question about the bank deposits of persons who are simply alleged to be terrorists. Worse, these examinations could lead to events of extortion, blackmail or even be the groundwork for kidnapping committed by blundering law enforcers or syndicates.
Anyone may be placed under house arrest, prohibited from using their cell phones, computers and any other means of communication, even when they are granted bail on the ground that evidence of guilt is not strong. They may also be subjected to surveillance and wiretapping, as well as examination, sequestration and freezing of bank deposits and other assets, on mere suspicion that they are members of a ‘terrorist organization.’
Apparently, HSA is one of the most incoherent and disorganized laws our Congress has ever passed. A mix-and-match collection of 62 sections, the law has no distinct structure, no headings or subheadings, and no groupings of sections. Provisions follow one another without logical connection. Some sections even contradict each other. While others simply make no sense. With these, it is clear that the Human Security Act of 2007 is indeed a dangerous law.
HSA gives GMA and her minions every license to violate human rights. It even excuses them in any possible increase in the number of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and filing of fabricated charges against government critics. Will we continue allowing them?
We must say ‘never again to another martial law’. Let us resist and defy state terror by exposing and opposing rampant abuses to human rights. We can use legal means to stop the implementation of HSA such as the repealing of the law, and/or querying the law before the Supreme Court.
The strength of unity has been tested several times already. And this will forever be our weapon against the dark policies of the government. If dissenting PGMA’s crooked system is to be considered as an act of terrorism, then let us all be terrorists!
Sources:
• Diokno, Jose Manuel. “FAQs on the Human Security Act.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. July, 2007.
• R.A. 9372 – Human Security Act of 2007
• The Anti-Terrorism Act: Recipe for Undeclared Martial Law. Powerpoint Presentation. Philippines: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), 2007.
• Diokno, Jose Manuel. “FAQs on the Human Security Act.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. July, 2007.
• R.A. 9372 – Human Security Act of 2007
• The Anti-Terrorism Act: Recipe for Undeclared Martial Law. Powerpoint Presentation. Philippines: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment