Tuesday, October 23, 2007 Gov’t mulls amending anti-terror law
SHORT of admitting that Republic Act (RA) 9372 or the Human Security Act (HSA) is flawed, government is now eyeing "major and extensive amendments" to the controversial law even before a powerful blast in Glorietta, Makati took place last Friday.
Acting Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera said the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), of which she is concurrently vice chairman, said an overhaul of the law is needed as a response to the numerous cases filed before the Supreme Court (SC) assailing the constitutionality of the law.
"Prior to the Glorietta incident, 50 percent of the provisions of the law need amendments," she told reporters in a press briefing at the Department of Justice.
Among these amendments, she said, involved further broadening the definition of "terrorism."
Devanadera said while perpetrators, if any, maybe indicted with criminal charges such as murder under the Revised Penal Code, the HSA is virtually unimplementable since it is automatically suspended one month before and two months after an election, citing Section 62 of the HSA.
This was reached following the alleged terror attack in Glorietta that killed 11 people and injured more than 100 others.
She said even if the blast was proven to be an act of terrorism, the persons behind it cannot be charged under the terms of the HSA since its implementation has been suspended since the third week of September until December 29 due to the barangay elections scheduled on October 29.
ATC spokesman and coordinator Ricardo Blancaflor, on the other hand, said the supposed perpetrators of the Glorietta bombing may still be criminally charged under the Revised Penal Code.
Blancaflor added that as a result of the law's own provisions the government cannot use the HSA's mechanism for the expedited freezing of bank accounts of suspected terrorists.
However, he said any defects in the HSA may be corrected through legislation. "We don't want to dwell on the negative. These (defects) shouldn't stop the lawmakers from improving the law if it (HSA) is something that we could use."
Blancaflor still refused to speculate on whether the Glorietta blast was unintentional or a terrorist act, as he finds dubious the statement allegedly issued by the terror group Rajah Solaiman Movement claiming responsibility over the blast.
He said it would be odd for a group to own up to such act 24 hours after the incident. Blancaflor said based on his experience terror groups would usually claim responsibility over a terror act only an hour after the incident.
"The government is not discounting anything until all the facts (of the incident) come in. Also, the government will do anything under the law to find out the culprits," he added.
Among the groups seeking to scrap the HSA are the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (Codal), Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network and lawyer Soliman Santos Jr., Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) and Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Senator Ana Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal and former senators Sergio Osmena III and Wigberto Tañada and religious and civil society groups.
The groups complained that the definition of terrorism in Section 3 of the HSA violates due process, equal protection, incorporation, treaty and international cooperation clauses of the Constitution.
Since the definition of terrorism under HSA is flawed, the petitioners said law enforcers would have unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the government powers.
The petitioners, particularly cited HSA's definition of terrorism in Section 3, particularly its key qualifying phrase "thereby sowing and creating condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the popular, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand."
The phrase, they noted, is not in accordance with international law, since it covers only situations of "coercing the government" and removes international organizations from similar coercion.
The petitioners also claimed that the HSA violates the provisions contained in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, particularly the rights of the accused.
The groups added that the HSA curtails the rights of the petitioners to political expression as well their right to due process because of its "vagueness and overbreadth."
The petitioners also noted that the crimes related to terrorism are already penalized under the Revised Penal Code. (ECV/Sunnex)
