Clearly, even legal organizations can be branded terrorists if, in the conduct of their activities, they create “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic” among people. The inclusion of the seemingly harmless word “or” can make Section 17 susceptible to the interpretation that the acts do not necessarily have to be crimes identified in Section 3 (such as possession of explosives or piracy), but other acts that result in fear and panic with the end-view of coercing government to give in to an unlawful demand.

The danger also lies in the fact that under Section. 19, mere suspicion of being involved in acts of terrorism, whether real or imagined, could result in detention. The first sentence of Section. 19 states:

“In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest.” (Italics mine)

What then are the parameters for determining an imminent terrorist attack and how is this proven? While the three-day maximum detention requires a written approval from the authorities, why are suspects being subjected to it? One should not take consolation from the fact that the Macapagal-Arroyo administration initially proposed a 30-day maximum detention and that it is now reduced to three days. This is not an issue of numbers, but the fundamental principle of people being detained on mere suspicion of involvement in a terrorist attack that is yet to happen, if at all.

Under the HSA, it also becomes possible for a person’s right to travel to be restricted. He or she may also be subjected to house arrest and be held incommunicado. The full text of Section 26 states:

In case where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.

He/she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her usual place of residence.

While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cell phones, e-mails, computers, the internet or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court.

The restrictions abovementioned shall be terminated upon the acquittal of the accused or of the dismissal of the case filed against him or earlier upon the discretion of the court on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused. (Italics mine)

Mere suspicion of involvement in acts judged to be ‘terrorist’ in nature may then result in the restriction of one’s right to travel or even house arrest if he or she is entitled to bail. If a person is under house arrest, the HSA prevents him or her from communicating with other people outside his or her residence. According to human rights groups like Karapatan, this provision deprives people of their civil and political rights, particularly the right to travel.

In addition, a person “suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism” could result in the examination of one’s bank “deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records.” (Section 28) This means that a suspect’s enshrined right to privacy can now be violated under the HSA.

Section 39 also makes things worse not only for suspects but also for those associated with organizations that are deemed involved in ‘terrorist’ activities. This particular provision allows the seizure, sequestration and freezing of one’s assets. Its first paragraph states:

The deposits and their outstanding balances, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records in any bank or financial institution, moneys, businesses, transportation and communication equipment, supplies and other implements, and property of whatever kind and nature belonging: (1) to any person suspected of or charged before a competent Regional Trial Court for the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism; (2) to a judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons; or (3) to a member of such organization, association, or group of persons shall be seized, sequestered, and frozen in order to prevent their use, transfer, or conveyance for purposes that are inimical to the safety and security of the people or injurious to the interest of the State. (Italics mine)