The 2007 passage of the Human Security Act (HSA) was an important step in the modernization of tools available

to Philippine law enforcement for use against terrorists. The Act permits wiretapping of members of judicially-designated terrorist organizations, and financial investigations of individuals connected to terrorist organizations. However, the law's tight restrictions have limited its actual application. The key difficulty in implementing the law is that stiff fines will be imposed on the law enforcement agency for violating a suspect's rights if the accused is later acquitted or the case is dismissed (fines are approximately USD 10,000 per day for the entire period of detention). The Act did, however, provide for the establishment of an Antiterrorism Council to effectively implement counterterrorism efforts in the country and ensure interagency cooperation. The Council focused its first year's efforts in building the organizational and administrative infrastructure necessary to facilitate closer cooperation between Council members and supporting agencies.
Country Reports on Terrorism 2008 Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State April 30, 2009 Chapter 2 -- Country Reports: East Asia and Pacific Overview Philippines

6. Philippines 193. In its response to the request for relevant information from the four experts (see annex I), the Government of the Philippines drew attention to the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution, enacted after the Revolution of 1986 brought an end to the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos.380 The Bill explicitly bans secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention. The Government also pointed out that the Human Security Act of 2007, the recent counter-terrorism legislation, provides for stiffer penalties for those who violate its provisions regarding the arrest, detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects. The Government did not provide any information on cases in which these provisions might have been violated. 194. The Committee against Torture noted in its concluding observations on the most recent periodic report submitted by the Philippines under the Convention against Torture, in April 2009, that it was deeply concerned about the de facto practice of detention of suspects by the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in detention centres, safe houses and military camps.381 The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary 378 Available from the website http://beta.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-contentlibrary/ dawn/news/pakistan/04-sc-masood-janjua-qs-08. 379 See the Commissions statement at the address www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2008statements/1574/. 380 Secret detention practices were not uncommon during the Marcos presidency (see para. 83 above). 381 CAT/C/PHL/CO/2, para. 12. A/HRC/13/42 page 99 Disappearances noted in February 2009 that, in the Central Luzon region of the Philippines, since 2001, more than 70 people had allegedly been victims of enforced disappearance, a number

of those previously disappeared had surfaced after being detained and tortured by military officers, and no perpetrators had been punished.382 In its response to a questionnaire for the present study, the Government of the Philippines stated that facilities and practices of secret detention contravene the Constitution, which expressly prohibits secret, solitary and incommunicado detention and torture, and are not used. Specific laws provide penalties for those who violate requirements in relation to the arrest, interrogation and detention of those suspected of terrorism. 195. The experts interviewed one victim of secret detention, Raymond Manalo,383 suspected of supporting the insurgent New Peoples Army (NPA), whose case sheds light on the broader situation. On 14 February 2006, Raymond and his brother Reynaldo were abducted from their farms in San Ildefonso, Bulacan, by AFP soldiers and men belonging to a militia established by the AFP to support its counter-terrorism efforts. The brothers were suspected of being supporters of the NPA. They were kept in unacknowledged detention in military facilities and safe houses run by the military for 18 months until they managed to escape from detention on 13 August 2007. A decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines of 8 October 2008 in proceedings for the writ of amparo brought by Raymond Manalo describes what happened to him according to his own testimony, which the Supreme Court found highly credible in spite of denials by the AFP. Other persons suspected of being supporters of left-wing groups, including two female university students, were secretly detained with them.384 The detainees were tortured during interrogation to extort confessions regarding their links to the NPA. The female detainees were raped by soldiers. 196. Throughout his detention, Raymond Manalo was not brought before any judicial authority and had no contact with a lawyer. His family only learned that he was still alive when he was brought before them on one occasion in an attempt to persuade his parents to drop a habeas corpus petition that they had filed on behalf of Raymond and his brother. In the habeas corpus proceedings, the AFP staunchly denied that they were holding the Manalo brothers. Other persons held together with the Manalo brothers remain disappeared.385 Raymond Manalo testified before the Supreme Court that he saw the killing and burning of one of his 382 A/HRC/10/9, para. 323. 383 Interview with Raymond Manalo (annex II, case 17). 384 Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines in The Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines v. Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, decision of 7 October 2008. See also the report entitled Terrorism and human rights in the Philippines: fighting terror or terrorizing?, available from www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ph493a.pdf, p. 39. 385 Terrorism and human rights in the Philippines: fighting terror or terrorizing?, p. 39. A/HRC/13/42 page 100 co-detainees.386 As Raymond Manalo narrated in his testimony, and as the Supreme Court of the Philippines found to be established, high-ranking military officers, including a general, were involved in his secret detention. Calls for their prosecution remain without results.387 Following their escape, Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo filed a petition for a writ of amparo (a remedy recently created by the Supreme Court of the Philippines to protect persons at risk of disappearance or extrajudicial execution), which was granted on 7 October 2008.

UNITED

NATIONS

A
General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL A/HRC/13/42 19 February 2010 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Thirteenth session

The law also expressly stipulates the period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest 32 and authorizes the police or law enforcement personnel who take custody of a suspect are required to deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of three days 33 or risk a long jail term.
32 Section

In the said provisions, HSA follows the general rule that official duties are regularly performed by police officers, acting as mere agents of the state, in enforcing the said law. The state, on the other hand, cannot be sued without its consent and consent may be express or implied.34 In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, persons suspected of terrorism may be arrested and detained without charges for as long as the detention is approved by a judge of the municipal or regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of Court of Appeals nearest to the place of arrest or by municipal, city, provincial or regional office of a Human Rights Commission, 35 or, where the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested. 36 In my analysis in the said provision, it is not clear whether the Human Rights Commission mentioned here is the same as the constitutionally established Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Also, the two paragraphs in Section 19 are contradictory. While the latter requires personal delivery of the arrested person to the judge nearest to the place of arrest and the later appears to negate this requirement by asking only a written notice to the judge nearest to the place of arrest. The writ37 of amparo38 is an order issued by a court to protect the constitutional rights of a person. The writ of amparo39 is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, property, and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. It also covers extrajudicial killings and other enforced disappearances or threats. The Supreme Court of the Philippines announced that the draft guidelines (Committee on Revision of Rules) for the writ of amparo were approved on September 23, 2007 which was deliberated by the En Banc Court last September 25, 2007.

Deconstructing Human Security in the Philippines1 Prof Chester B Cabalza National Defense College of
the Philippines (NDCP) bravechess21@gmail.com