human security act petition for rule 63

8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63

1/51

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESNATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Regional Trial CourtQuezon City

Branch _____

ROQUE, Atty. Herminio Harry;MORO CHRISTIAN PEOPLES ALLIANCE;DIZON, Fr. Joe; SORIANO, Rodinie;

ABIERA, Stephanie; ALCAIN, Maria Lourdes;ALFEREZ, Voltaire; ALTEZ, Czarina May;BALOT, Sheryl; BATACAN, Renizza;CAETE, Edan Marri; CARAMOAN, Leana;

CAMANCE, Aldwin; DELORINO, Rene;DUMAN, Paulyn May; FAJARDO, Rodrigo III;GO, Anna Marie; JIMENEZ, Anna Arminda;LEE, Mary Ann; MANALAYSAY, Luisa;MUSNGI, Miguel; OCAMPO, Michael;OCANA, Norman Roland III; RAGAMAT, William;RAMOS, Maricar; REYES, Cherry Lou;SICAT, Melissa Ann; TABING, Cristine Mae;and TORNO, Vanessa,

Petitioners,

- versus -

ERMITA, Eduardo, in his capacity as Executive Secretaryand Chairman of the Anti-Terror Council (ATC);GONZALEZ, Raul,in his capacity as Secretary ofthe Department of Justice and Vice Chairman of the ATC;ROMULO, Alberto, in his capacity as Secretary of theDepartment of Foreign Affairs and Member of the ATC;

PUNO, Ronaldo, in his capacityas Secretary of theDepartment of Interior and Local Government andMember of the ATC; TEVES, Margarito, in his capacityas Secretary of the Department of Finance and Member of the

ATC; GONZALES, Norberto, in his capacity asNational Security Adviser, and as Director-General

1

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONNO. Q-07-60778For: Declaratory Relief(Sections 3, 7, 18, 26 and27 of Republic Act 9372,otherwise known as the

Human Security Act of


2/51

of the National Security Council, Officer-in-Chargeof the Department of National Defense, and Member ofthe ATC; ANDAYA, Rolando, in his capacityas Secretary of the Department of Budget and

Management; TAN, Roberto, as Officer-in-Chargeof the Bureau of Treasury; ESPERON, Gen. Hermogenes,in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the ArmedForces of the Philippines; CALDERON,Gen. Oscar, in his capacity as Director Generalof the Philippine National Police;

Respondents.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION

COME NOW THE PETITIONERS by the undersigned

attorney, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully allege:

1. Petitioner Prof. Herminio Harry Roque Jr., of legal age,

Filipino citizen, married, taxpayer, is an active law

practitioner and professor of constitutional and public

international law at the University of the Philippines

College of Law. He may be served with pertinent papers

and processes through his undersigned counsel, the

Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, at Unit 1904 Antel 2000

Corporate Centre, 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village,

Makati City.

2


3/51

2. Petitioner Moro Christian Peoples Alliance, is a peoples

organization existing under the laws of the Philippines. It

may be served with pertinent papers and processesthrough its undersigned counsel, the Roque and Butuyan

Law Offices, at Unit 1904, Antel Corporate Centre, 121

Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City.

3. Petitioner Fr. Joe Dizon, of legal age, Filipino citizen,

single, taxpayer, is a long time activist-priest and an

advocate against abuses of the government. He may be

served with pertinent papers and processes through his

undersigned counsel, the Roque and Butuyan Law

Offices, at Unit 1904 Antel Corporate Centre, 121 Valero

Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City.

4. Petitioner Rodinie Soriano, of legal age, single, Filipino

citizen, taxpayer, is a student of the University of the

Philippines and a member the League of Filipino citizens.

He may be served with pertinent papers and processes

through his undersigned counsel, the Roque and Butuyan

Law Offices, at Unit 1904 Antel Corporate Centre, 121

Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City.

3


4/51

5. Petitioners Alcain to Torno, are all of legal age, Filipino

citizens, taxpayers, and students of the evening class of

the University of the Philippines College of Law, Diliman,Quezon City. They may be served with pertinent papers

and processes through their undersigned counsel, the

Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, at Unit 1904 Antel

Corporate Centre, 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village,

Makati City.

6. The Respondents are officials of the National

Government, thus;

7. Sec. Eduardo Ermita is Executive Secretary and

Chairman of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), he may be

served with summons and other papers and processes at

the Office of the Executive Secretary, Malacaang

Palace, Manila;

8. Sec. Raul Gonzalez, is Secretary of the Department of

Justice and Vice Chairman of the ATC. He may be served

with summons and other papers and processes at the

Department of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila;

4


5/51

9. Sec. Alberto Romulo is Secretary of the Department of

Foreign Affairs and Member of the ATC. He may be

served with summons and other papers and processes atthe Department of Foreign Affairs, Roxas Boulevard,

Pasay City, Metro Manila;

10.Sec. Ronaldo Puno is Secretary of the Department of

Interior and Local Government and Member of the ATC.

He may be served with summons and other papers and

processes at the Department of Interior and Local

Government, Kamias cor. EDSA, Quezon City, Metro

Manila;

11.Sec. Margarito Teves is Secretary of the Department of

Finance and Member of the ATC. He may be served with

summons and other papers and processes at the

Department of Finance, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City,

Metro Manila;

12.Sec. Rolando Andaya is the Secretary of the Department

of Budget and Management. He may be served with


Department of Budget and Management, Gen. Solano St.,

San Miguel, Manila;

5


6/51

13.Hon. Roberto Tan is the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau

of Treasury. He may be served with summons and otherpapers and processes at the Bureau of Treasury, Palacio

del Gobernador Bldg., Intramuros, Manila;

14.Sec. Norberto Gonzales is National Security Adviser and

concurrent Officer-in-Charge of the Department of

National Defense and Member of the ATC. He may be

served with summons and other papers and processes at

Department of National Defense, Camp Aguinaldo,

Quezon City, Metro Manila;

15.Gen. Hermogenes Esperon is Chief of Staff of the Armed

Forces of the Philippines. He may be served with

summons and other papers and processes at Camp

Aguinaldo, Quezon City, Metro Manila;

16.Police Gen. Oscar Calderon is Director General of the

Philippine National Police. He may be served with


Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, Quezon City,

Metro Manila;

6


7/51

17.The Public Respondents may also be served with

summons and other processes through the Solicitor-

General, Office of the Solicitor General, 134 AmorsoloSt., Legaspi Village, Makati City, Metro Manila.

18.Petitioners hold that sections 3, 7, 18, 26 and 27 of

Republic Act 9372, or the Human Security Act of 2007,

need judicial determination in relation to the petitioners

rights as provided by the Bill of Rights, Article III of the

1987 Constitution. Petitioners further hold that due to

the ambiguity or the need for judicial determination of

the aforesaid sections, any disbursement of public funds

for purposes provided for in the law are illegal.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

19.A citizen of the Republic of the Philippines is granted

rights and privileges as well as duties by the 1987

Constitution as embodied in Article III thereof, also

known as the Bill of Rights.

20.As provided for in the 1987 Constitution and as a

signatory of the United Nations Declaration on Human

Rights, the Philippine government is duty-bound to

uphold these rights and to ensure that any action of any

7


8/51

entity, private or public, does not infringe upon these

rights.

21.The construction of the 1987 Constitution regarding the

relationship between the government and the citizens of

the Republic ensures that the latters rights are

respected above all else. Sec. 5 of the Declaration of

Principles and State Policies, Article II of the 1987

Constitution states that:

Sec. 5. The maintenance of peace and order, theprotection of life, liberty, and property, and thepromotion of the general welfare are essential for theenjoyment of all the people of the blessings ofdemocracy.

22.This is reinforced by Sec. 1 of the Bill of Rights, Article

III of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life,liberty or property without due process of law, norshall any person be denied the equal protection oflaws.

23.To ensure this, any omission or excessiveness of actions

of any of the three branches of government are checked

and balanced by other branches of the government. This

is an important process in the safeguarding of the rights

of its citizens.

8


9/51

24.Particularly, the actions of the legislative as repository of

police power of the state, and the executive as wielder of

the same, are prone to question, especially when theyinfringe upon the rights and privileges of the individual

which are protected by the Constitution.

25.And the final arbiter of questions regarding this nature

is the Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, as it is

part of its expanded certiorari jurisdiction to determine

whether or not there has been a grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on

the part of any branch or instrumentality of the

government. The Supreme Court inFrancisco v. House of

Representatives1emphasized that judicial review is not

just a power but also a duty under the 1987 Constitution

.

26.On this aspect, the Supreme Court, in a line of decisions,

has always upheld the rights of the citizens as sacrosanct

in any working democracy. Even in times of crises and

national emergencies, the roles of the branches of

government and government as a whole, has been

limited due to the rights of its citizens. This was what

the Court, in a recent decision, David vs. Arroyo2,1 Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10,

2003.2 David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396.

9


10/51

through Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez meant when it

declared that:

xxxDuring emergency, governmental action may

vary in breadth and intensity from normal times, yetthey should not be arbitrary as to unduly restrain ourpeoples liberty.

Perhaps, the vital lesson that we must learnfrom the theorists who studied the various competingpolitical philosophies is that, it is possible to grant

government the authority to cope with crises withoutsurrendering the two vital principles ofconstitutionalism: the maintenance of legal limits toarbitrary power, and political responsibility of thegovernment to the governed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

27.At present, a silent threat exists, one that has haunted

the world since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

in the United States.

28.Terrorism or acts of terrorism have become bywords

because of one event that changed the worlds socio- and

geopolitical landscape, the September 11, 2001 attacks

on the World Trade Center in New York City and the

Pentagon in Washington D.C., U.S.A. To the shock of

millions worldwide, terrorists, hijacking and commanding

10


11/51

two airplanes, crashed the said aircrafts into the

buildings in New York City and Washington, D.C.

29.The group Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, was

blamed and later claimed responsibility for the attacks.3

30.In response to the September 11 attacks, US President

George W. Bush, addressed a Joint Session of the U.S.

Congress and called for a War on Terror. He called on

all its allies to join the United States in this war. In his

speech, he stated:

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it

does not end there. It will not end until every terroristgroup of global reach has been found, stopped anddefeated.4

31.The first salvo in this war was directed on Afghanistan,

where the Taliban, a regime that is closely allied with Al

Qaeda, was in control. When the Taliban refused to

negotiate with the U.S. and its allies, war was

commenced. On October 7, 2001, American and British

forces began aerial attacks on Afghanistan, particularly

Kabul.

3 September 11attacks,.

4 War in Afghanistan (2001-present),http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript.html>.

11
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript.html%3Ehttp://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript.html%3E


12/51

32.On November 12, 2001, Kabul fell. What followed soon

was the establishment of a democratic governmentthrough a nationwide election which put the first post-

Taliban president, Hamid Karzai, in power.

33.In the meantime, as the War on Terror was being

waged, Presidents and Prime Ministers of governments

around the world threw their support to the US

campaign. The Philippine President, Gloria Macapagal-

Arroyo, threw in her support. According to Time Asia

website:

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was the first

Asian leader to back the U.S. in its war on terror after9/11and she has pledged her "general support" for aU.S.-led invasion of Iraq.5

34. After Afghanistan, the War on Terror turned towards

Iraq then being ruled by dictator Saddam Hussein. The

rationale for the Iraq War was that the country under

Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction. This

was offered by Pres. Bush and Prime Minister Blair to

their allies.

5 For or against the War on Iraq,.

12


13/51

35.On 2 March 2003, the US led the coalition forces in the

war in Iraq. Despite the eventual ouster of Saddam

Husseins regime, and the election of a democratic Iraqigovernment, Iraq currently remains a volatile country

still under U.S. military occupation.

36.Six (6) years into the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden

remains at large and Al Qaeda, with its ideological allies

like Jemaah Islamiyah and the Philippines Abu Sayyaf,

still threatens world security.

37.In response to Bushs call to global war on terror, the US

Congress passed The Uniting and Strengthening America

by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and

Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 or the USA Patriot Act of

2001. Similarly, other nations followed, such as Great

Britain, whose Houses of Parliament passed the

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and Australia, which

passed the Anti-Terrorism Bill into law in the year 2005.

Other countries also passed their own anti-terror laws.

38.In response to the developments worldwide on anti-

terror legislation, the Houses of Congress initiated two

different bills towards an anti-terror law.

13


14/51

39.On 30 June 2004, Sen. Manuel Villar initially filed Senate

Bill No. 735, An Act to Define and Penalize Acts ofTerrorism and For Other Purposes. This was later on

substituted along with other Senate Bills with Senate Bill

No. 2137 on 12 October 2007. Senator(s) Manuel B.

Villar, Jr., Panfilo M. Lacson, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy P.

Ejercito-Estrada, Ramon B. Magsaysay, Jr. and Alfredo S.

Lim sponsored the bill in substitution.

40.On 11 October 2005, Rep. Imee Marcos, with several

Congressmen and women as co-sponsors, introduced

House Bill No. 4839.

41.On 12 October 2005, these bills were certified by the

President of the Philippines for immediate enactment.

42.The two bills were submitted to Joint Conference

Committee where the Senate members of the Conference

Committee approved it on 08 February 2007, while the

House of Representatives members of the Conference

Committee approved it on 19 February 2007. The

approved bill was transmitted to the President on 27

February 2007.

14


15/51

43.On 06 March 2007, the President acted on the submitted

bill and approved and signed it into law which becameRepublic Act No. 9372.

44.The effectivity of RA 9372 was scheduled two (2) months

after the May 14, 2007 elections as contained in Sec. 63

of the law thereof. It states:

Sec. 62. Special Effectivity Clause.

xxx

After the publication required above shall havebeen done, the Act shall take effect two months after

the elections are held in May 2007.

Thereafter, the provisions of this Act shall beautomatically suspended one month before and twomonths after the holding of any election.

45.However, a month before the scheduled effectivity, the

Secretary of Justice, Raul Gonzalez, issued statements

that sent chilling effects to the populace. In an interview

with the Philippine Daily Inquirer, stated that the

interviews and sources of media practitioners are

sacred. However, he further stated:

Of course, unless there is sufficient basis or ifthey are being suspected of co-mingling with terrorsuspects.6

6 DoJ can recommend wiretap on alleged terrorists Gonzalez, by TetchTorres, INQUIRER.net, July 04, 2007,

human security act petition for rule 63

Documents