Monday, July 16, 2007 RA 9372 merely gives teeth to existing laws By Karlon N. Rama Sun.Star Staff Reporter
WITH Republic Act (RA) 9372 taking effect, many are wondering if the country’s anti-terror law won’t be used solely to deal with supposed terrorists but also to terrorize civil liberties and libertarians.
After all, the law allows the police and the military, upon the approval of the Court of Appeals, to tap, monitor and record phone conversations done by a person after a mere charge of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
In the same manner, calls between people merely suspected of being a member of a group “judicially declared” to be a terrorist organization aren’t safe.
Also under the law, the Court of Appeals can order an examination of the bank accounts of a person after merely being charged with either terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
It can also examine the corporate account of a group, including foundations and non-stock and non-profit organizations “judicially identified” as a terrorist group as well as the bank account of a person considered to be a member.
The only requirement is for the appellate court to say that there is “probable cause” to order such a wiretap or to access the bank account.
But a government lawyer is saying there is nothing to be feared.
And against that, a human rights lawyer is calling for a deeper review of the statute. A group staged a forum to discuss the dangers of the new statute.
Regional State Prosecutor Antonio Arellano, in an interview, said the system has its own mechanisms if ever certain “excesses” are committed by those tasked to implement the law.
Besides, he said, lawmakers responsible for the statute have been giving their assurances that enough safeguards exist against whatever over enthusiasm is seen.
Moreover, the law clearly provides that nothing can happen without the concurrence of the Courts.
Not new
“The law observes the operation of the democratic principle of separation of powers,” he said.
Also, he maintained, the law isn’t something new.
In fact, he pointed out, there are existing laws covering the very same subject matters that the new Human Security Act delves on.
“It’s nothing more than a new law seeking to give old ones more teeth,” he said.
But this is precisely what is wrong, says lawyer Democrito Barcenas.
“Those acts (sought to be outlawed) are already dealt with by existing laws. Why is there a need for a new one?” Barcenas, a human rights lawyer, posed.
Section 3 of RA 9372 prohibits acts like piracy and mutiny in high seas or in Philippine waters, rebellion or insurrection, coup d’ etat, murder, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, destruction of property, arson, the negligent handling of toxic and hazardous substance, nuclear waste and atomic energy, high-jacking, piracy and robbery, and the illegal possession, manufacture and sale of firearms and explosives.
But the statute is only applicable when such acts sow and create “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace” and if these are done to “coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”
Those found guilty risk a jail term lasting 40 years.
The law also penalizes the conspiracy to commit the above-stated acts and prescribes the same penalty.
If the acts do not fit into the category, they are covered by articles 122, 134, 134(a), 248, 267 and 324 of the Revised Penal Code for piracy and mutiny, rebellion and coup d’ etat, murder, kidnapping and destruction, respectively, or Presidential Decree (PD) 1613 for Arson, RA 6969 and 5207 for the toxic, hazardous and radioactive substances, RA 6235 for high-jacking, PD 532 and 1866 for piracy and robbery and illegal possession, manufacture and sale of firearms and explosives.
But herein lies the rub, according to Barcenas.
“The law does not define what a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic is. Is widespread 100 people, a thousand?” he said.
Conversely, he asked just what is meant by unlawful demand.
“A lot of people do not think that the current president is sitting with an illegitimate mandate. If 20,000 people go to Plaza Miranda and ask that she step down, is that an unlawful demand?” he asked.
He pointed out that the current administration has already shown its propensity to lash out against critics, citing the incident involving Rep. Cris Beltran and the Batasan 5.
“The Supreme Court ruled that the charges against those involved were trumped up,” he said. The incident involved the filing of criminal charges against Beltran, 74, and fellow party-list representatives Liza Maza of Gabriela, Joel Virador, Saturnino Ocampo and Teodoro Casiño of Bayan Muna and Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis, for allegedly plotting to overthrow the Arroyo administration.
According to the Supreme Court, basic procedure wasn’t observed and respected by the Department of Justice, such as a proper preliminary investigation.
Thus, he maintained, it isn’t far fetched that not only terrorists are targets but also those campaigning against the motherload of all terrorists, he added, giving reference to how over 80 political activists have died under Arroyo.
“And this law now has a lot of gray areas for the Justice Secretary to exercise his discretion on. And he’s already threatened the media,” Barcenas said.
