1. whats the summary and the main points of human security act of 2007?
2. historical background
3. reasons for the creation of human security act

II.
*critique the points
*opinions
* will it be beneficial or not?

—-reply is deeply appreciated…

thanks a lot

answers will serve as my references

Is it justifiable to have this new kind of law (R.A. 9372) in our country?

1. Does Human Security Act of 2007 violate human rights?
2.If yes/no, what are solid reasons for this?

Thanks and God bless!

1. Does Human Security Act of 2007 violate human rights? If yes/no, what are solid reasons for this?

You’re right. It’s R.A. 9372 (R.A. 9327 is “An Act Converting The Rizal Provincial Road In The Municipality Of Rizal, Province Of Kalinga Into A National Road And Providing Funds Therefor”). The full text of the law, though, reads RA 9372 since it was first posted. Thanks for the sharp eye and we expect that you’d do the same with all the posts.

On No. 1, under RA 9327, there is conspiracy “when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same.” In other words, it’s required that they must commit the crime of terrorism, which means that it may still satisfy the requirement that the act “creates or sows a condition of widespread extraordinary fear and panic among the populace when nothing has happened”.

On No. 2, I don’t think they’re entitled to parole (but I could be wrong =). In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, which is the reason why conspiracy must be proved in the same degree as the crime itself.

On No. 3, I suggest reading it with Section 10 (last paragraph). Informing the person during the surveillance process is inconsistent with the purpose of the law.

On No. 4, good question. Do you think think that that Obstruction of Justice is necessarily included in the charge for accessory under the crime of terrorism? If so, perhaps Sec. 49 is material: “When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act.” (I don’t believe that Sec. 1 [c] of PD 1829 is repealed by RA 9327).

Ronald_James, you may want to read the write-up on the forum on the Human Security Act held at UP Manila (read here).

Based on your opinion, I understand that PD 1829 is inconsistent with RA 9327 by virtue of the repealing clause of the latter statute (Sec. 61).

If that is so, Sec. 6 of RA 9327 has, in effect, repealed Sec. 1(c) of PD 1829 by implication.

Basic rule of statutory construction taught us that repeals by implication are not favored. An implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is convincingly demonstrated that the two laws are clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exists. (Hon. Executive Secretary et. al. vs. Southwing Heavy Industries, G.R. No. 164171, 22 August 2006)

In Thornton vs. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, 16 August 2004, the Supreme Court held that all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal.

I am of the view that that Sec. 6 of RA 9327 and Sec. 1(c) of PD 1829 should be read and construed together to attain the purpose of an expressed national policy - to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.

Anyways, SEC. 61. states that “All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules or regulations or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly”

Hence, i believed that PD 1829 (Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders)is INCONSISTENT with said section and therefore inapplicable insofar as this new law is concerned.

If I may, let me try to answer question number 4.

He can be charged of violation of PD 1829 (Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders). He is simply an offender irrespective of his filial relation to person he harbored, concealed or assisted to escape, and he is penalized as PRINCIPAL.

PD 1829 penalizes ANY PERSON who harbors or conceals, or facilitates the escape of, ANY PERSON he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under EXISTING PENAL LAWS in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction.