Is the HSA really necessary in curbing what it defines as “terrorism”? A lawyer who represented petitioners against the said law before the High Tribunal views the HSA as not only unnecessary but also dangerous.
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Bulatlat
Vol. VII, No. 27, August 12-18, 2007
Is the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA) – also known as the Anti-Terrorism Law – really necessary in curbing what it defines as “terrorism”?
Under Sec. 3 of the HSA, the following elements constitute “terrorism”:
· predicate crimes like a) piracy in general or mutiny in the high seas or Philippine waters, rebellion or insurrection, coup d’ etat, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, murder, crimes involving destruction; or b) acts punishable under the Law on Arson, the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990, the Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968, the Anti-Hijacking Law, the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974, and the Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives;
· the sowing or creation of “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”
The crime or “terrorism” as defined in the HSA carries the penalty of 40 years of imprisonment without the benefit of parole.
By themselves, the predicate crimes listed as elements of “terrorism” under the HSA are already punishable under existing laws.
Piracy in general or mutiny in the high seas or Philippine waters, rebellion or insurrection, coup d’ etat, and crimes involving destruction are all punishable by reclusion temporal (12 years and one day to 20 years of imprisonment under the Revised Penal Code. Murder carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua in its maximum period (30 years imprisonment) to death, while kidnapping or serious illegal detention is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
Arson is punishable by prision mayor (six years and one day to 12 years), and so are violations of the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990.
Violations of the Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968 carry the penalties of either: a) imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more P10,000 or both; or b) imprisonment of not more than two years or a fine of not more than P5,000 or both.
Hijacking is punishable by imprisonment of five to 10 years or by a fine of P10,000-20,000; or by appropriate provisions of the Revised Penal Code if resulting in death, injury to persons, or damage to property.
Violations of the Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives carry the penalties of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.
Considering that all the predicate crimes listed as elements of “terrorism” under the HSA are already punishable under various other laws, is there a conflict between existing laws and the HSA?
Edre Olalia, president of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) and one of the lawyers who represented the signatories in a recent petition urging the Supreme Court to declare the HSA as unconstitutional, told Bulatlat in an interview that without the element of “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand,” many of the predicate crimes under Art. 3 of the HSA would not constitute “terrorism” as the said law defines it.
