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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
summons and other papers and processes at the
Department of Budget and Management, Gen. Solano St.,
San Miguel, Manila;
5
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
summons and other papers and processes at the
Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, Quezon City,
Metro Manila;
6
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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%3E8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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
8/6/2019 Human Security Act Petition for Rule 63
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,