Subject: MSC 207-Fundamentals of Criminology

Date: November 14, 2020

Topics Presented:

 Retributive Terrorism
 State Sponsored Terrorism
 Cult Terrorism
 State Financing of Terror
 Explaining State Terrorism
 Responsive Terrorism
 Confronting Terrorism with Law Enforcement
 Combating Terrorism in the Courts
 Confronting Terrorism with the Law
 Combating Terrorism with Policies

Instruction for Asynchronous Learning

1. Students are required to make summary, comments, evaluation and

recommendation in writing of every topic presented supported with related
literature with references.
I. Summary of the Report

It was in February 2007 when the Philippine Senate has passed the Human
Security Act (HSA) otherwise known as Republic Act No. 9372: An act to
secure the State and protect our people from Terrorism. This act is also known
as Human Security Act of 2007.

It is declared a policy of state to protect life, liberty and property from acts of
terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national
security of the country and the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism
against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of the nation.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph

Under the Human Security Act the security forces have the power detain the
suspects without warrants or charge for up to three (3) days from the moment of
apprehension, arrest and detention. The police or law enforcement personnel is
required to present the person charge with or suspected with terrorism before
any judge prior to detention. It also allows the authorities to access bank
accounts they believe are being used to launder money for terrorist purposes.

The HSA also provided previously that the court of appeals (CA) may issue a
written warrant to “track down” listen to, intercept, and record communications,
messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words of any person
suspected of the crime of terrorism for a period of 30 days, extendible to
another non-extendible 30 days. The Human Security Act also granted the
person under surveillance or whose communication, letters, papers, etc. have
been monitored the right to be informed of the acts done by the law
enforcement authorities in the premises, or to challenge the legality of CA.

Moreover, HSA provide that any person or suspected or charge with any
defined act of terrorism who is found to be innocent after investigation, or is
acquitted after the arraignment, any order of seizure, sequestration, and freezing
shall be deemed lifted. Furthermore, in the case of acquittal or dismissal of the
charges against him/her an amount of 500,000.00 per day for the period during
which his assets, or funds were seized, shall be paid to him in the concept of
liquidated damages.
Similarly, any person who is accused of terrorism but later on acquitted will be
entitled to the payment of damages in the amount of 500,000.00 for everyday he
was deprived of liberty or arrested without a warrant as a result of accusation.
II. Reaction
The new anti-terrorism act of 2020 if used with fairness and be implemented
strictly is way better that the Human Security Act of 2007 in some of its
provisions (e.g. tougher punishment to those who will be engaged in terroristic
activities). As the HSA is very lenient to offender and restrictive to enforcer
that because of the high damages at stake if the suspected terrorist will be
acquitted or will not be proven guilty because of lack of evidences, will have
the tendency to create a chilling effect on the part of the law enforcers. I also
agree that HSA bids too much allay on fears of rights violations to a fault by
offering huge compensation to people who are wrongly detained/or those who
will be acquitted because of lack of evidences. Surely the rights to life and
liberty must be protected fairly but this should also not hamper the execution of
tasks of the law enforcers. It also allows the person to be placed under
surveillance to be informed of such activity. Thus, I think, might compromise
the mission of the law enforcers especially if the suspected person is really
involved in terroristic acts. Nevertheless, the new law provides also safeguards
against the misconduct of public officers. That is, under HSA the penalty for
false testimony, forged documents or spurious evidence in any investigation or
hearing has been reduced from 12 years and one day to 20 years to
imprisonment of six years in the new law. On the other hand the penalty for the
destruction by any person, law enforcement agent or military personnel of
tapes, discs, and other storage devices has been changed from a penalty of six
(6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment to a straight
penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years.

III. Comments

The 14 days detention that is extendible to up to ten (10) for a total of 24 days
without the court intervention becomes the main cause of concern of the critics
of the government as they question its constitutionality. Moreover, under the
Human Security Act 2007 the person shall only be allowed to be under
surveillance of thirty (30) days extendible to another thirty (30) non-extendible
days. While the new the anti-terrorism act of 2020 has granted sixty (60) days
of initial period of surveillance which may be ordered by the CA, upon a
finding that any of the specified acts of terrorism has been or is being
committed, is sixty (60) days, which may be renewed or extended for another
non-extendible thirty (30) days if deemed necessary to preserve evidences
and/or complete the investigation.
IV. Evaluation

Although the RA. 11479 has loopholes opposed by some, it is undeniable that
with further evaluation and analysis to improve aforesaid provisions deemed to
be vague and unconstitutional joined with proper and strict implementation, it
will definitely of great help in minimizing the terrorism and activities related
thereto in our country.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, The new law (Anti-terrorism act of 2020) ideally has to

address the flaws and repeals the “Human Security Act of 2007” which has
proved to fail in terms of its efficacy as Anti-terrorism measures partly because
it is very lenient for offenders and restrictive for enforcers and some of its
provisions that are no longer applicable to our current situations. However, just
like any other new law passed, this too has to be scrutinized properly and with
care and if necessary improved. This is to be able address vague definitions in
some of its provisions that may violate the principle of legality and prevent
further arguments of the weary public who feels the law will undermine our
constitutional rights rather than protect it.

VI. Recommendation

Just like the Human Security Act of 2007, the new law does not specifically
provide offender’s rehabilitation, especially the children who are most often the
target and victims of circumstances. Thus, a program significant to identify
causes and eventually address and rehabilitate them to stem extremist
ideologies being inculcated to them is I think very essential, so they could also
be reintegrated back to the society.