Comments on: Terrorized by the Anti-Terrorism Law?

By: Atty. Fred

Atty. Fred — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:30:45 +0000

Darwin, assuming that’s true, but the Human Security Act is presumed valid until shown otherwise.

By: darwin

darwin — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:23:51 +0000

hi!!! that anti terror law has alot of human rights violations.

By: Atty. Fred

Atty. Fred — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:43:41 +0000

Hi Sha, I’m glad you dropped by. I’m sure the discussion will be a fruitful one. Perhaps you’d be gracious enough to give us a summary of what Sen. Biazon has to say on this matter.

(Off topic: I’ll be going to Cebu within this week, so maybe you guys could treat me at Larxian =) Anyway, the discussion on the Bar Exams and the results are also here – http://bar.attyatwork.com. I’d like to take this opportunity to invite you and your friends to share and make the forum a helpful site for everyone. Thanks.)

By: Sha2x

Sha2x — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:58:51 +0000

hi atty fred!

the last time i was here was when the results came out this year…

by the way atty, i just dropped by to make a shoutout…

I am a lex officer in a law school here in Cebu (USJR) and i was told that Sen. Biazon will be in our school this Aug 10th to discuss in a forum about Human Security Act…

open for all interested!…more power to you atty!

sha

By: Atty. Fred

Atty. Fred — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:15:46 +0000

Renee, I must agree with you that not everything in this world is black and white. There are gray areas even in law. I also agree with you about the possibility of the worst-case scenario, something which may have happened already in the past. It may happen – with or without the Human Security Law. Everything is subject to abuse.

Of course, the 500,000 is not the main safeguard. The safeguards are stated somewhere else – like the requirements and the criminal sanctions. Now, whether those safeguards are sufficient is an entirely different matter. Maybe you could help us discuss why this law is unconstitutional or invalid, and what are the objectionable provisions. You could do that here or at the other forum:

http://bar.attyatwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=72

By: Renee

Renee — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:39:15 +0000

It’s very naive of people to think that the safeguard of this law is the P500,000 fee that will be entitled to the person wrongly accused of terrorism. Don’t you think that IF the person was indeed found to be not guilty, the law enforcers would not do something about it?

Think about it… They’ll be paying more than half a million for a mistake like that! So what do you think would most of them do in this situation then? I’ll say: they’ll either plant evidences to implicate the person -OR WORSE- they’ll silence that person forever…

Not everything is black and white in this world…

By: Global Voices Online » Philippines: Anti-Terror Law takes effect

Global Voices Online » Philippines: Anti-Terror Law takes effect — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:11:50 +0000

[...] Atty-At-Work believes “the fear is not on the law itself, but seems to arise from the level of [dis]trust on the ones who are tasked to implement it.” Bryanton Post links a statement by journalism students on the implication of HSA on free press. Tingog Katawhan uploads a paper by a scientist on how government is spying on its citizens through tapping of cellphones, landlines and computers. Consumer Fanaticism insists that the HSA was passed to please the United States. Gerry Albert Corpuz Presents appeals to church authorities to discuss critique of HSA in parishes. [...]

By: Atty. Fred

Atty. Fred — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:06:37 +0000

Major Tom,

Maybe the purpose of the generality is to give the courts sufficient discretion on this matter. This is not the first time that the courts have to interpret the meaning of each element (it appears that the 2nd element could be further broken down into 2). The problem, really, is the high level of distrust on the ones who are entrusted (pun intended) to enforce it. Could we venture to say that this is even “better” than the US version?

Anyway, the provision on damages is apparently an exception to the doctrine that the State could not be sued.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:54:47 +0000

I feel that the nature of the elements are so general although I just could not pinpoint why. How can we proved efficiently such point as coercion against the government when a bomb just exploded and the suspects demand nothing; even if he is apprehended, and deny to high heavens—then the case won’t be terrorism and would be not liable for such and may even walk away a millionaire.

One thing I like though is the provision for damages, a positive innovation even though I find it very superflous in amount. But it’s a good start.

I remember asking my law professor in criminal law why a certain prisoner, freed for finally being found guilty after ten years of imprisonment, receives nothing or very measly amount. I thought the gove’t should be responsible enough to compensate for lost years and incomes.

I hope this time, or in the future, gov’t wont have to be sued—as it could not be sued—in order that mistaken accusation could be reprieved properly.