The human rights lawyer said what spells more trouble is that the HSA does not recognize state-sponsored terrorism. “The new anti-terror law deals only with ‘revolutionary terrorism,’” Diokno said, pertaining to acts defined as rebellion in the Revised Penal Code.

Diokno further said the HSA does not provide protection against state-sponsored terrorism. “In fact, other provisions that are supposed to stop terrorism provide mechanisms for more serious state-sponsored terrorism,” he said.

He gave as an example certain provisions which would, after securing a court order, allow the government to wiretap communications and seize bank accounts and assets of individuals suspected of engaging in terrorism.

The military’s intelligence community “will have the most convenient excuse because their surveillance is now legal,” Diokno said. “The HSA legitimizes state-sponsored terrorism in the guise of toppling ‘revolutionary terrorism,’” the FLAG lawyer added.

Unconstitutional

Ruel Pulido, human rights lawyer and former counsel of rebel soldiers identified with the Magdalo group, went a step further, concluding that the HSA in unconstitutional because it legitimizes wiretapping.

Article 3 Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution states that any evidence obtained through wiretapping or voice recording cannot be used in any court proceeding. “But by legitimizing wiretapping, it can already be used as evidence in court. It allows the state to use tape recorded evidence to pin down a suspect, in violation of the 1987 Constitution,” Pulido said.

Under the HSA, if after 30 days of hearings the tapes still failed to prove that a terrorist act was committed by the suspect, the tapes will be put under the custody of the Court of Appeals (CA). “What does this say? That the CA will safe keep the evidence to protect the civil liberties of a suspect after violating the individual’s right to privacy?” Pulido asked.

Authoritarian rule

Since the first anti-terror bill was introduced in Congress in 1995, civil libertarians have expressed alarm that the passage of such a bill would bring the country back to the dark days of martial rule.

“In effect, Presidential Decree 1081 (PD 1081) declared by the late Pres. Ferdinand Marcos on Sept. 21, 1972 and the HSA of 2007 are almost the same except that the death penalty was an active law during Marcos’ time,” Diokno explained.

It is even worse now, Diokno said, because we are under a constitution that recognizes a democratic system of government. “During martial law, everyone expected the system of government to be totalitarian and dictatorial,” he said.

“The HSA is totally incompatible with our Constitution because it promotes a different kind of government,” Diokno added.

Against state enemies

The law’s provision automatically suspending its implementation two months before and after an election is evidence that the HSA gives the government so much power that can be used against its perceived enemies, Pulido said.

But Pulido said the implementation of the HSA would have generated lesser negative reactions from civil libertarians and ordinary citizens if the government is deemed as truly representative of the people.(Bulatlat.com)

 Save as PDF