Press Release
May 4, 2007

PIMENTEL IDENTIFIES MOST DANGEROUS
PROVISIONS OF ANTI-TERROR LAW

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. (PDP-Laban) today described the Human Security Act of 2007 as a dangerous piece of legislation, as he cited at least five sections of the law which may be abused by the powerful and used as instruments of state terrorism against the powerless.

Speaking at the launching of his new book, The Making of the Human Security Act of 2007, at the Philippine Normal University, Pimentel said he succeeded in introducing more than a hundred amendments to the controversial measure to safeguard the people's rights.

"Still, it is my humble submission that the law could be misused or abused by unscrupulous wielders of powers not to attain its primary objective to protect the nation from the scourge of terrorism but to terrorize the people in the guise of extirpating the crime," he said.

Of the 62 sections of the HSA (Republic Act 9372), Pimentel identified the five sections that could potentially impair the human rights of Filipinos:

1. Surveillance of persons and interception of their communications (Section 7). 2. Arrest and detention of persons suspected of terrorist activities without court warrants (section 18 and 19). 3. Examination of bank deposits and financial papers of suspects (section 27). 4. Seizure, sequestration and freezing of bank deposits and other assets of the suspects (section 39). 5. Summary arrest of suspects in the country and their extradition to another country under the so-called process of extraordinary rendition.

The Human Security Act, the country's version of the anti-terrorism legislation was signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on March 6, 2007 and will take effect two months after the May 14 national and local elections.

Pimentel, however, said that the sections he cited are not self-operating since there are requirements that should be complied with before law enforcement agents may use them.

For instance, he said that before law enforcement agents could place a person under surveillance and tap his or her communication examine or freeze bank deposits and financial papers of terror suspects, they must seek the permission of the Anti-Terror Council and the justices of the Court of Appeals division that is assigned by the Supreme Court to handle anti-terror cases.

If the law enforcers want to arrest and detain a terror suspect without judicial warrant, Pimentel said the law requires that the latter must be brought before the presence of judicial authority nearest the place where he or she was picked up at any time of the day or night.

On the seizure, sequestration and freezing of bank deposits, financial assets and properties of suspects, Pimentel said this section violates at least three fundamental rights in the Constitution.

He said these are the right not to be deprived of property without due process of law, the right to equal protection of the law and the right to be presumed innocent until contrary is proved.

Pimentel pointed out that section 17 of the HSA provides that the properties of suspected terror organizations may be seized or sequestered only after a court ruling. But he said there is no such trial requirement for a suspected individual terrorist whose assets are being seized.

The HSA prohibits extraordinary rendition of terror suspects, accused or witnesses to other countries unless their human rights and the right to counsel are first assured.

Pimentel said extraordinary rendition is a highly questionable process whereby a terror suspect may be seized in one country and sent to another country where he or she may be tortured to extract evidence of terror activities.

He emphasized that it behooves all Filipinos who believe in the rule of law to understand the HSA, know its pitfalls and share their knowledge as how the people may protect themselves against abuse by the powerful.

News Latest News Feed