Reactions of the Society to the Human Security Act: A Preliminary Study

Abstract

Terrorism, after the 9/11 attacks has become a global issue. Thus, addressing it through a global perspective is adopted. The Philippines has not been exempted from the problems of terrorism. It has been a major concern of the government since it is becoming more widespread and sophisticated. The Philippines now actively cooperates with other nations in the goal to eliminate terrorism. In compliance with the global policy of war against it. and as one means of countermeasure, the government enacted its antiterror legislation, known as the Human Security Act of 2007. Even during its proceedings, different sectors of society have been vocal in its position regarding this. Thus, immediately after its passage, criticisms and reactions were raised. This is the focus of this research. Its main objective is to analyze the reactions of the different major sectors of society to the Human Security Act. It aims to see its perceived implications to the general society and to the government as well. The view of the government is also to be looked at. Another factor to be given attention is the Act's effects on political stability and legitimacy. Most importantly, its consequences on the upholding of the basic human rights of the people are given emphasis. The researcher chose the major sectors of society, namely: religious, poor/marginalized, business, and youth sectors, and the academe, civil society, and the government. From each sector, a representative group or organization was chosen. From these, key personalities were taken as key informant interviewees. However, in the youth sector, a focused group discussion was conducted. All the information acquired was coded for themes. Through this, comparison and analysis became easier. The reactions of the different sectors were divided into three: pro, anti, and neutral. Most of the key informant interviewees and participants in the focused group discussion were against the Human Security Act and ask for its abolition. A few were neutral in a sense that they would like to give a chance for the government to review the ■ law and make it clear. Those who are in favor of it were mostly from the government. Their main premise is that the country needs such a law because the crimes of terrorism could not just be punished by existing laws of the land. In answering the question of its being a potential avenue for further human rights violations, the pros and neutrals said that it could never be prevented, but it could be limited. The government and the citizenry should just be careful and vigilant with its implementation. The antis were very sure that this will be used as a legal instrument for political repression and state terrorism. The recommendations would be to guarantee non-abusive authorities to implement it and encourage vigilance among the citizenry. The loopholes of the law should also be clearly identified and resolved. More importantly, in addressing the problem of terrorism, its root causes should be given more attention than punishing the consequences it has brought about.