SC upholds constitutionality of Human Security Act

The anti-terrorism Human Security Act of 2007 (Republic Act No. 9372) does not violate the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled. Voting unanimously, the court affirmed the constitutionality of the law, which criminalizes terrorism and authorizes preventive detention and warrantless arrest of terror suspects, among others. The HSA is a dangerous law, according to legal luminaries including Jose Diokno, dean of the De La Salle University College of Law, saying it authorizes preventive detention, expands the power of warrant-less arrest, and allows for unchecked invasion of privacy, liberty and other basic rights. Persons merely suspected of engaging in terrorism may be arrested without warrant and detained without charges, they added. When former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the Human Security Act in July 2007, civic groups said the law would be used to crack down political dissenters and will lead to human rights abuses. The criticisms were made by lawyers amid the Arroyo administration's growing unpopularity. In a 45-page decision, the high tribunal junked six consolidated petitions challenging the legality of the law. All magistrates concurred with Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales' ponencia, except Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who was on official leave. The court said the petitioners have no "locus standi" (legal standing) to question the Human Security Act because none of them have been charged under the said law. The petitioners were groups led by the Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc., Kilusang Mayo Uno, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Karapatan Alliance For the Advancement of People’s Right, The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Southern Tagalog. The respondents were the Anti-Terrorism Council, composed of former Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita as chairman, former Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez as vice chairperson, and Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo, former Defense Secretary and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, former DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno, and former Finance Secretary Margarito Teves as members. Armed Forces chief of staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon and former Philippine National Police chief Dir. Gen. Oscar Calderon were also named respondents in all petitions except for IBP's. Karapatan, Bayan and Bayan-ST also named Arroyo as a respondent. No legal basis In handing down the decision, the court said the petitioner's assertion that they have the legal standing has no basis because they have not presented themselves as direct stakeholders in the matter. The court did said the petitioners' claim that the tagging of militant groups as fronts of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People's Army is not tantamount to proscription — the legal procedure of labeling groups as terrorist or outlaw. “No ground was properly established by petitioners for the taking of judicial notice. Petitioners’ apprehension is insufficient to substantiate their plea. That no specific charge or proscription under RA 9372 has been filed against them, three years after its effectivity, belies any claim of imminence of their perceived threat emanating from the so-called tagging," the court ruled. "There is yet to be filed before the courts an application to declare the CPP and NPA organizations as domestic terrorist or outlawed organizations under RA 9372," the SC added. The court also said the fears that the enforcement of the law will lead to abuse were merely imagined. The SC then said that the petitioners failed to present an actual incident that would warrant judicial intervention. “Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable," it said. — With Sophia Dedace/VS, GMANews.TV