HUMAN SECURITY ACT

Human security act was created in effect to give the government additional
legal actions to enforce in preventing and prosecuting individuals who
would commit or have committed acts of terrorism. The Philippines has
been haunted by terroristic acts, from bombings to kidnappings by terror
groups. Since the human security act’s main objective is to prevent the acts
of terrorism from transpiring then it should be well accepted by the general
public since it is for their safety. But why is that there are people who
opposes the human security act? Are they terrorists since the human security
act is against act of terrorism therefore branding a a person committing acts
of terrorism a terrorist, since the human security act won’t be beneficial to
terrorists, is it safe to assume that those who opposes the human security act
are all terrorists or they have other reason for opposing the human security
act?

The main point of those opposing the human security act is the fact that the
definition given to the terrorist in the act is dangerously vague. Section 3 of
the human security act defines terrorism as an act 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. It is so vague in definition that it would take no less than the
president through her justice secretary and The newly formed anti-terrorism
council to determine if an act constitutes that of an act of terrorism or simply
a criminal act. With the definition of terrorism in the human security act,
those who opposes the act fears that a simple show of sentiment against the
government in a form of a rally for example can be look upon by the
government as a terroristic act based on the given definition of terrorism in
the human security act. As I’m doing my research on this paper, I came
across an article and it says that “Constitutional experts have asserted that
the law is void because it is vague. At the heart of the debate on the new
terror law is the basic definition of terrorism from where abuses will
inevitably arise. To date, there is yet no internationally accepted definition
of terrorism. The term "terrorism" has been used by imperialist states and
their allies during the Cold War era to demonize and delegitimize national
liberation movements waging armed revolution against colonialism and
neocolonialism. Back then and even up to now, one man’s terrorist could be
another man’s freedom fighter. Were "terrorism" to be properly defined to
refer to systematic and deliberate violence used solely or mainly against
civilians or entire communities of people, imperialist wars of aggression
and state terrorism would then be recognized as the worst kinds of terrorism
by the sheer amount of death and destruction as well as socio-cultural
degradation inflicted on entire peoples and civilian populations.”

Another contention of those who opposes the human security act is the plain
violation of the rights. Under Sec. 19 in the event of actual or imminent
terrorist attack, suspects may be detained for 72 hours without warrant. The
problem here is who has the authority to say that there will be imminent
terrorist attack? The answer is the government has the say based on the
intelligence gathered, but intelligence can be gospel truth or can be
manufactured. If it can be manufactured, then it can be made tailor-fit to suit
the reason of the government should the government chooses to make
warrant less arrests and detain those who were arrested for up to 3 days
without proper charges.

Human security act just like any other law is prone to be abuse by the one
enforcing it. that’s a defect not in the law but by the one enforcing it. yes,
human security act can be abused but the beauty of the separation of the
three branches of government enables the supreme court to determine
whether an abuse occurred during the enforcement of a law. Despite the
contentions of persons opposing the human security act, the glaring fact is
that we need it. given the chance maybe it would eliminate acts of terrorism.
Eliminating acts of terrorism would only be beneficial the country as a
whole.