y! speak on HSA

I was suppose to go with my org mates in this special edition of Y!Speak which aims to talk about the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007. However, since I couldn't come, I watched it on television instead.

What makes this particular episode interesting is that it actually had the chair of the Anti Terror Council as one of the panelists, and god, was he grilled to his bones! However, he remained as confident and certain as he could be.

"The Bill of Rights is not absolute."

I tend to quite agree on that, I'd have to admit. However, the statement should not be taken as it is. One may argue that the HSA is just one of the many laws to safeguard such rights but in context to the HSA, it becomes more than that. Taking into account the extrajudicial killings, of every indivdual reported to be abducted by some men, with the military denying their involvement yet always justifying that this individual is a member of the New People's Army, this law is a parody and a safeguard to those seated in power.

"'mere suspicion', walang ganoong nakasulat." He also mentions that it is the USA Patriot Act of 2001 from which the HSA was actually patterned that mentions "if it appears to be intended" and can therefore be interpreted as MERE SUSPICION. The HSA never mentions nor implied such things.

Section 17 of the HSA states that "Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow or create 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..."

Truly, the HSA does not directly says such things but it is the section's vagueness which makes this law questionable.

Terrorism in its given definition is quite vague. Who qualifies a group is a terrorist group? If, by working on the phrase, "create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace", the adminstration itself is liable for the extrajudicial killings and may also be qualified as an act of terrorism. However, by mentioning "in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand", it hides the government from any responsibility to the lives of those critical of the administration.

Because of its vagueness, it leaves too much interpretations. And by Philippine experience, vagueness of the law has been used as a form of abuse to those in power.

The greatest fault in our judicial system is that anyone can interpret the law and unless the public causes turmoil on the peculiarity of such interpretations, no action will be seen from the judicial department.

"The HSA is a criminal law and therefore applies to all."

Sure it does. Since it already leaves out some responsibility from the administration, I do not think we would have problems in line with that.

The adminstration can justify as much as they want. I, along with other students, can argue as much. But as Atom Araullo ends the show, "[HSA] posits too much questions rather than answers." The law is not made to pose questions but to answer the needs and interests, not of other government's, but of its own people. Take note of the difference.