The Human Security Act of 2007

 

The Human Security Act (HSA) is the law passed by the 13^th Congress to counter terrorism. Though, noble in its intention, the law is quite problematic and open to misinterpretation and abuse. Problems that can be noted in this law are the broadness of criminal offense that can be branded as act of terrorism. Some of the provisions of this law may trample on the basic human rights of the citizenry.

HSA’s definition of terrorism is ambiguous and vague. According to Section 3 of this law, a person is doing a terroristic act if he does one or more of crimes stated in the Revised Penal Code. The acts listed in HSA include murder, arson, rebellion, and coup d’etat. These crimes may only be branded as terrorism if there is an intention to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace. The problem with this definition its vagueness because many of the words and provisions were not clearly defined. HSA did not specify what level of panic should a criminal offense must induce before it can be classified as terrorism. Another thing that was undefined was the term populace. Does populace mean the whole barangay, the whole municipality, the whole nation or just a whole neighborhood? This vagueness of the definition of terrorism will create in confusion and different interpretation that may result to abuse.

Provision on surveillance is another problem about the HSA because it infringe on the right to privacy by a person. In section 7 of HSA, the police or law enforcement officials can listen, intercept, and record conversations of suspected terrorists or terrorist groups after obtaining a written order from the Court of Appeals. This provision is problematic because anyone can be subjected to surveillance because anyone can be suspected as a terrorist.

Another glaring problem of the HSA is the arrest and detention of alleged terrorists without warrant of arrest. According to section 18 of HSA, the police or law enforcement officers have 3 days to deliver arrested suspected terrorists to proper judicial authorities. This means that law enforcement officers have 3 days to detain suspected terrorists without the need for any judicial order.

All in all, there are many provisions in HSA that is open for abuse and can be used by the present administration to scare its enemies to submission. Though, there is a great need for a law that will empower the state against terrorism, I think that HSA is not the solution because of its many and dangerous defects that is contrary to some rights of the citizens. As I said many times over, the HSA is open for abuse especially that there is no Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) that will guide the government or the law enforcement officials in applying this law to criminal offenses that may be classified as acts of terrorism. This law is dangerous in the hand of the present administration. This is so because the Arroyo administration is infamous for its stretched-out interpretations of laws that are used against its dissenters and oppositionists. The vagueness and ambiguity of the HSA made it very vulnerable to such interpretations. The present administration will use it to legally tag the progressive left and opposition groups as terrorists thus outlawing them. The Arroyo administration will use it to intimidate, spy, and scare the public. This is like Martial Law, sans the official declaration.