TERRORISM, ACCORDING TO PRES. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in her July 23 State of the Nation Address (SONA), “threatens our sovereign, democratic, compassionate and decent way of life.”
Ironically however, the biggest threat to the lives and liberties of all Filipinos—the values that define our sovereign, democratic, compassionate, and decent way of life—is not terrorism, not even the many unresolved killings and disappearances of journalists and activists; but a law supposedly enacted to prevent these incidents from even occurring: the suspiciously, if not deceptively named Human Security Act (HSA).
Clumsy, vague, and haphazardly patterned after the United States of America’s Patriot Act, the HSA is a dangerous piece of legislation that provides legal basis for human rights violations and authoritarian state action without clearly defining what constitutes actual terrorism. By authorizing arrest without warrant and merely on the basis of suspicion, for instance, the law undermines every person’s presumed innocence and fundamental right to due process. Worse, detainment under the Act means being barred from traveling and availing of any means of communication—effectively preventing those arrested from seeking proper legal counsel. Even the right to privacy is under attack, as the HSA allows wiretapping and the examination of suspected terrorists’ bank accounts. For a law that claims to “uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the Constitution,” these provisions are disturbing—not to mention directly contradict what the Chief Executive herself said in the SONA: It is never right and always wrong to fight terror with terror.
An Anti-Terrorism Council encompassing the departments of justice, foreign affairs, national defense, interior, and finance is responsible for implementing the HSA. But what is the assurance that this law will not be used for dubious political ends when civil society has no representative in the Council and the Commission on Human Rights is not given any real power to try cases of abuse against any of these offices?
Then again, the most appalling thing about the Human Security Act, notwithstanding its seemingly deliberate ambiguity, is that it appears to be a product of consensus among legislators across the political spectrum, having been approved almost unanimously by both chambers of Congress. If the quality of this law is a sign of things to come, then the Filipino people will have to be extra wary of succeeding legislation—particularly those promised by the President against political killings, electoral violence, and expensive medicine.
We call on all members of the University community to join progressive citizen groups in proving before the Supreme Court—and the court of public opinion—the questionable validity of the Human Security Act so that it may be immediately suspended, if not altogether repealed.
Nonetheless, in the midst of the brewing national uproar over the state’s assault on our fundamental liberties as citizens of this country, we remind the Administration that the only way for the University to present itself as a credible voice in this struggle is to always be fair, consultative, and transparent in its dealings with the studentry. Conversely, we urge the Student Council and the Council of Student Organizations to actively engage students and administrators alike in rethinking the parameters that define student representation and involvement in the University—especially those which concern the approval and conduct of student activities.
In these days of outward calm, prosperity, and stability inside and outside De La Salle, the words of celebrated American thinker Benjamin Franklin are worth noting: those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
The road to hell, after all, has always been paved with good—even noble—intentions.
This article was published in The LaSallian‘s Archives 2024 special. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSArchivesSpecial2024.
