Sharing some excerpts from "The Human Security Act and the IHL Law of the Philippines: of security and insecurity", from Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy (2012)

May pop quiz at the end of this thread. LOL

"Worse, while the Constitution requires that a warrant of arrest may issue only upon the existence of ‘probable cause’, pre-trial detention, even for an indefinite period, may be issued upon ‘mere suspicion of terrorism’. "

"One of the foremost problems in international law is the fact that the term ‘terrorism’, while widely used in contemporary culture, is very difficult to define and often any definition chosen is subject to abuse."

"In David v. Arroyo , as aforequoted, the Supreme Court rightfully observed that a vague definition of terrorism will lead to a violation of the right to association since organisations would be classified as ‘terrorist’ without a clear understanding of what terrorism is."

"The HSA violates the right to free speech since any communication made by the accused may be subject to any means of interception by law enforcement agencies, thereby resulting in a chilling effect on his or her right to free speech.

I could go on. The article comprehensively discusses why the HSA then could be subject to constitutional challenge. And the author really tried to do so. The same legal principles in the article apply now to the proposed Anti-Terror bill.

Guess who the author of this article is.

O ang galing no.

#JunkTerrorBill