FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
First Regular Session 
1 
SENATE BILL ~ 0 . 2 3  
Introduced by Senator M. A. Madrigal 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Republic Act 9372, otherwise known as the ”Human Security Act,” is 
probably the most dangerous piece of legislation passed by the Philippine 
Congress. It is replete with provisions that violate the Constitutional guarantees 
to freedom of speech, freedom of communication and correspondence, right to 
travel as well as an individual’s right to be secure in their things and in their 
person. Some of the law’s onerous provisions include the following: 
First, the restriction on the person’s right to travel is not reasonable as it 
may be undertaken even when the evidence of guilt is not strong. The person 
under house arrest may be prohibited from using the Internet, cell phone, 
telephone or any other means of communication, thereby effectively rendering 
him incommunicado. This curtailment of mobility may be stopped only upon 
acquittal. In the meantime, the person has already been unduly deprived of 
necessary communication with family or friends. 
Second, police, military or any government law officer, without incurring 
any criminal liability, may engage in wiretapping, to the detriment of the 
people’s inviolable right to privacy. This may be done through an ex parte written 
application before the Court of Appeals. 
Third, though it is only a precautionary measure, RA 9372 does not 
preclude the fact of possible infringement into private conversations among 
citizens who are merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. Though 
there is a provision of informing the person that he is being placed under 
surveillance, it is a belated mechanism where the probability of violation of civil 
rights may have already been committed. 
Fourth, even the legitimate exercise of one’s right for redress of grievances 
may be considered as “terrorism,” by reason solely of one’s membership in an 
organization, association or group of persons that has been proscribed as 
”terrorist,” even if the charge may be baseless or manufactured. 
Fifth, a person may be arrested and detained without judicial warrant of 
arrest for a period of three (3) days, where the arresting officer shall not incur 
any liability. This may be utilized as a means to harass those who are critical of 
the government, or even those who may be the subject of mere personal enmity 
by police officers and other law enforcers. 


Sixth, though there is a requisite procedure before detention (Le., 
presentation before the judge and the written report of such judge), for a person 
merely exercising freedom of expression, being penalized with three (3) days of 
imprisonment without sanction on the arresting officer is an insult to the civil 
liberties we enjoy as a people. 
Seventh, bank deposits, accounts and records may be examined through a 
mere ex parte written application by the police and military officers. The written 
application and order of the court allowing such examination is considered 
classified information. 
Eighth, this is also applicable in the disposition of the frozen bank 
deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records of a suspect. Should the 
person be later on adjudged innocent, there is already a deprivation of the 
enjoyment of one’s assets. No matter how much recompense the person may be 
given in exchange, this does not erase the stigma and the hardship that his family 
already went through. 
In the hands of a repressive regime like that of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal- 
Arroyo, the anti-terrorism law creates a shadow cviminal justice system that, in 
turn, can be used as an instrument of greater terror perpetrated by people in 
power against their critics and political opponents. 
According to the provisions of the law, which I would like to describe as a 
law on “panic,” there is no clear definition of who a terrorist is. A person may be 
labeled as a terrorist by reason solely because of his political or religious belief 
and his defense thereof. The law’s definition of terrorism is too broad and too 
sweeping, covering many crimes that are already punishable under existing 
laws. The law also blurs the distinction between real acts of terrorism and 
ordinary crimes. Worse, it can be interpreted to include all acts in pursuit of 
legitimate dissent. In a time of intense crisis and undisguised politicaI repression, 
the law can and will be used to illegalize the legitimate activities of critics and 
opponents of the current administration. 
The vagueness of defining a terrorist is not limited to the Philippines 
alone. Since 1995, the United Nations has yet to come up with a clear definition 
of who or what a terrorist is. 
We oppose the use of violence against civilians under any guise. But 
national security should not be used as an excuse to stifle basic freedoms and the 
human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. There is nothing neither human 
nor secure about a law that erodes democratic processes. In the end, we all lose 
out under such a law that takes its toll on all our freedoms by stealth and at 
midnight when we are all asleep. The “Human Security Act” must be repealed. 
2 


FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 
) 
First Regular Session 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
S. B. ~ 0 . 2 3  
Introduced by Senator M. A. Madrigal 
AN ACT 
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT 9372, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 
“HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007”” 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled: 
Section 1. - Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, Republic Act 
9372 otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007” is hereby repealed. 
Section 2. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete 
publication in a newspaper of general circulation. 
Approved, 
3