PCIJ: JI-trained bomber or HSA's 1st victim?

Is Karahudin Usman Talib a bombmaker trained by the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) or the first victim of the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA or R.A. 9372)? Southern Police District (SPD) Chief Supt. Roberto Rosales said that Talib was the right-hand man of JI leader Zulkifli bin Hir, alias Marwan, and “Filipino extremist" Basit Usman, based on a report in the International Herald Tribune. Usman, claims counterterrorism expert Zachary Abuza, is responsible for planting an improvised bomb in Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat last May 7. According to Rosales, Talib was arrested last Friday in a shopping mall in Taguig last Friday. On Saturday, Talib accompanied police to his rented apartment in Maharlika Village, Taguig, where they recovered a bomb made from a 60 mm mortar filled with suspected C-4 plastic explosives and other material. Usman allegedly sent a text message to Talib to proceed with the group’s plans for terrorist operations in the National Capital Region. Aside from Talib, the alleged terrorist cell is composed of two male Indonesian bombers, whom the police failed to locate. Talib has been charged with possession of explosives. Rosales said that a team of SPD policemen and Intelligence Services of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAPF) members had managed to foil a bombing plot that targeted bus stations and mall in Manila and Taguig. Talib’s lawyer, however, tells a different story. According to Zainudin Malang, Talib is a transient from Libutan, Maguindanao, who worked part-time as a tricycle driver in Maharlika Village while waiting for his papers to be processed so that he could work abroad. Malang said in a statement that Talib (referred to as Karahudin Mutalib) vanished last Friday as he was plying his tricycle. He was held incognito for three days, while both the SPD and ISAPF denied that Talib was in their custody. Malang says that the ISAPF brought Talib from the ISAPF detainment center in Camp Bagong Diwa to the SPD headquarters yesterday. Furthermore, he says that Talib was arrested without a warrant. Malang says Talib told him that he was arrested with another Muslim, Juenail Abdul, who has yet to be accounted for. Warrantless arrest is allowed by the HSA. The second paragraph of Section 18 states that before detaining an arrested person, law enforcers must present them before a judge at the latter’s residence or office nearest the place of arrest, at any time of the day or night. But the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) says that Section 18 is among the sections that contain contradictory provisions. The third paragraph of Section 18 provides that “(i)mmediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest; Provided, that where the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested." “While the first provision requires personal delivery of the arrested person to the judge nearest the place of arrest, the second provision appears to negate this requirement by requiring only a written notice to the judge nearest the place of arrest," said FLAG chairperson Jose Manuel Diokno. Television reports aired a confession from Talib, who spoke in broken Filipino. Rosales said that Talib voluntarily confessed to the police and to reporters. Malang, however, said that Talib’s confession was forced. The same news reports showed multiple bruises dotting Talib’s stomach. Malang is on his way to the SPD headquarters along with a representative from the Commission on Human Rights in order to conduct a medico-legal examination in order to determine whether or not Talib was subjected to torture. FLAG adds that custodial detention is not expressly defined by Section 21 in the HSA. “It would appear from the wording of this section however that “custodial detention" begins the moment a person is arrested and detained," says Diokno. Under Section 21, the moment a person charged with terrorism or suspected of the crime of terrorism is detained, they shall be informed by the arresting law enforcement officers or the law enforcement officers who have taken custody of them that they have the following rights: * “to be informed of the nature and cause of [their] arrest, to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of [their] choice. If the person cannot afford the services of the counsel of his or her choice the…law enforcement officers concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or the Public Attorney’s Office, who are duty-bound to immediately visit the detainee and provide legal assistance…" * to be “informed of the cause or causes of [their] detention in the presence of counsel" * to be “allowed to communicate freely with [their] legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction" * “allowed to communicate freely with [their] legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction" * “allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of [their] family…and to be visited by them" * “allowed to freely avail [themselves] of the services of a physician…of choice" However, “the HSA is so vague that it can be used against just about anyone, including you and me," says Diokno. FLAG has not filed a petition against the HSA. But other lawyers, activists, legislators, civil libertarians, academicians, religious denominations and ordinary citizens — 29 groups as of last count — have flocked to the Supreme Court seeking to nullify the HSA. PETITIONS VS. THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT PETITIONERS: Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network on behalf of the South-South Network (SSN) for Non-State Armed Group Engagement, Atty. Soliman Santos Jr. RESPONDENTS: Anti-Terrorism Council (Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alberto Romulo, Secretary of National Defense (OIC) and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, Secretary of Interior and Local Government Ronaldo Puno, Secretary of Finance Margarito Teves), Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff General Hermogenes Esperon Jr., Philippine National Police Chief Director Oscar Calderon NATURE OF PETITION: Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the injunctive relief of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction seeking that R.A. 9372 (HSA) be annulled for being unconstitutional and for being approved with grave abuse of discretion; respondents be commanded to desist from implementing the said Act, respondents be temporarily restrained, enjoined or otherwise required to refrain from implementing the said Act, including the drafting of implementing rules and regulations. ARGUMENTS: I. The definition of terrorism in Section 3 of the HSA violates the due process, equal protection, incorporation, Treaty and Internal Cooperation Clauses of the Constitution. II. The declared policy in Section 2 of the HSA of making terrorism a crime against humanity confuses these two distinct crimes and thus violates substantive due process. PETITIONERS: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Gabriela, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties, COURAGE, KADAMAY, Solidarity of Cavite Workers, League of Filipino Students, Anakbayan, Pamalakaya, Alliance of Conerned Teachers, Health Alliance for Democracy, AGHAM, Teofisto Guingona Jr., Dr. Bienvenido Lubrera, Renato Constantino Jr., Sister Mary John Manansan, OSB, Dean Consuelo Paz, Attorney Josefina Lichauco, Colonel Gerry Cunanan (ret.), Carlitos Siguion-Reyna, Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Aruallo, Renato Reyes, Danilo Reyes, Emerencia de Jesus, Rita Baua, Rey Casambre RESPONDENTS:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Ermita, Gonzalez, Romulo, Gonzales, Puno, National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, National Bureau of Investigation, Office of Civil Defense, Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Anti-Money laundering council, Philippine Center on Transnational Crime, Calderon, PNP, Esperon NATURE OF PETITION: Petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify HSA for being unconstitutional, and therefore, seeks to prohibit the executive branch…, the members of the Anti-Terrorism Council, its Secretariat and support agencies, the police and other government bodies from implementing the same, issue a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. ARGUMENTS: I. HSA is void and therefore unconstitutional because it is vague and broad. I. HSA void and therefore unconstitutional because it is contrary to the bill of rights including due process, presumption of innocence, right to privacy, right against unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of expression, speech and assembly, freedom of association, prohibition of bills of attainder, right to bail, right to travel, prohibition against solitary or incommunicado detention. III. HSA is void and therefore unconstitutional because it violates the territoriality principle in criminal law and allows for illegal and repressive extraordinary rendition. IV. HSA is void and therefore unconstitutional because it creates an omnipotent supra body and constitutes undue delegation of legislative power. PETITIONERS: Kilusang Mayo Uno, National Federation of Labor Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno, Center for Trade Union and Human Rights RESPONDENTS: Ermita, Gonzales, Department of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, Puno, Esperon, Calderon NATURE OF PETITION: Petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking annulment or nullification of HSA for being violative of the constitution, enjoin respondents from enforcing provisions of HSA. ARGUMENTS: I. HSA violates the constitutional provision on unreasonable searches and seizures. II. HSA violates the constitutional provisions on the right to travel and the freedom of communication. III. HSA violates the constitutional provision on the right to bail. IV. HSA violates the constitutional right to freedom of association. V. HSA violates the due process clause of the Constitution and infringes upon the right to privacy of communication and correspondence. VI. HSA is void for being vague.