The Human Security Act is now in effect, despite lacking
implementing rules and regulations, insists its
principal author, former Martial Law enforcer, Sen. Juan
Ponce Enrile.
Not surprisingly, it has created a lot of insecurity
across the country, which is why some folks are
referring to it as the National Insecurity Act.
The loud noises being raised in protest against the law,
which is supposed to have become operative on July 15,
warn that this will open the floodgates of human rights
abuses.
Arbitrary arrests and detention. Intrusion into one’s
privacy. Seizing of bank accounts and other assets.
Extra-judicial killings. The suppression of press
freedom. These are among the horrible consequences being
feared, as a result of this law.
This, of course, leaves me a little confused. I’ve
always been under the impression that all of the above
have already been happening in the Philippines.
So, what else is new?
|
Actually, if one were to have confidence that the law
will be faithfully observed by the authorities and all
the penalties and sanctions will be enforced, there
should be far less reason to worry than under present
circumstances.
Ask the party-list congressmen and Jonas Burgos –
wherever he is.
In Section 2, Declaration of Policy, it is stressed that
“the State shall uphold basic rights and fundamental
liberties of the people as enshrined in the
constitution” and, further down, it reiterates that the
“powers of the executive department of the government
shall not prejudice respect for human rights which shall
be absolute and protected at all times.”
No, not the Jueteng Lord.
The law requires a written order of the Court of Appeals
before authorities can “listen to, intercept and record…
any communication, message, conversation, discussion or
spoken or written words” between suspected terrorist
groups or persons.
|
|
Police or law enforcement personnel who take custody of
a suspect are required to “deliver said charged or
suspected person to the proper judicial authority within
a period of three (3) days” or risk a long jail term.
In fact, the authors of the law appear to have gone
overboard in stressing the threat of severe punishment
to be imposed on police and other law enforcement
personnel for a number of violations.
Ten to 12 years in jail for failure to notify suspects
that they are under surveillance or are being
wire-tapped; failure to notify a judge in writing that a
terrorist suspect has been taken into custody; violation
of the rights of detainees; failure to keep an official
logbook of the detainee’s incarceration; failure to
deliver a suspect to proper judicial authority within 3
days; making untruthful statements or misrepresenting
material facts in an affidavit; loss of financial
records; revealing classified information; and refusing
to restore or delaying the restoration of assets to a
suspect who has been found innocent.
Then, there’s imprisonment of 6-12 years for deleting or
destroying recorded communication; 6-8 years for failure
to notify in writing the target of surveillance
concerning the disposition of tapes and discs; and, the
whopper: 12-20 years for the death or serious permanent
disability of a detainee and for furnishing false
evidence or forging a document.
A cop can have real insecurities just struggling to
comply with the requirements and toeing the line.
And then, there’s the P500,000 in damages to be paid to
a suspect who has been wrongfully accused, upon
dismissal of charges or acquittal, “for every day that
he or she has been detained or deprived of liberty or
arrested without a warrant as a result of such an
accusation.” A person is also entitled to P500,000 a day
“for the period in which his properties, assets or funds
were seized” based on “the concept of liquidated
damages.”
For sure, there are certain provisions of the law that
give the distinct impression some solons were either
asleep or too dumb to comprehend, when these were being
deliberated on.
Take Sec. 21, “Rights of a Person Under Custodial
Detention.” A suspect must be informed of his or her
rights, the “nature and cause of his arrest,” the right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel and, if that is unaffordable, free legal
assistance.
The suspect is “allowed to communicate freely with his
legal counsel and to confer with them at any time
WITHOUT RESTRICTION (caps, ours).” The suspect is also
allowed to “communicate freely and privately WITHOUT
RESTRICTION with the members of his family or with his
nearest relative and to be visited by them.”
But Section 26, “Restriction on Travel” states: “In
cases where evidence of guilt is NOT STRONG (caps, ours)
and the person charged… is entitled to bail and granted
the same, the court upon application by the prosecutor
shall limit the right of travel of the accused…He or she
may also be placed under house arrest by order of the
court…While under house arrest, he or she may not use
telephones, cell phones, e-mails, computers, the internet
or other means of communications with people outside the
residence until otherwise ordered by the court.”
So, what does WITHOUT RESTRICTION really mean?
The CBCP has expressed deep concern that the law
“defines terrorism too loosely and gives government
authorities too much latitude to restrict civil
liberties.”
These are not unfounded fears. But not so much because
of the language of the law but because of those who will
be interpreting and enforcing it.
Surely, exposing corruption in government and exercising
freedom of expression cannot be described as “sowing and
creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary
fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand,” which is
how an act of terrorism is defined in the law.
But between the letter of the law and its observance,
there can be a yawning gap, based on the track record of
those who will ostensibly uphold it.
Section 53 provides for the creation of an
“Anti-Terrorism Council” to enforce the law and “assume
the responsibility for the proper and effective
implementation of the anti-terrorism policy of the
country.”
Its members will be the Executive Secretary as chairman;
the Secretary of Justice, as vice-chair; and, as
members, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of
Finance, Secretary of National Defense, National
Security Adviser and Secretary of Interior and Local
Government.
That means, among others, Eduardo Ermita, Raul Gonzalez,
Norberto Gonzales and Ronnie Puno. All reporting to
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
That should be reason enough for insecurity.
|
Email Article
is a veteran journalist and the publisher and editor of Filipinas Magazine,
the only nationally circulated Filipino American monthly magazine. Mr. Macabenta can be contacted
by e-mail at gregmacabenta @ hotmail.com.
