HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372

SECTION 1. Short Title. — This Act shall henceforth be known as the “Human
Security Act of 2007.”

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — xxx

SEC. 3. Terrorism. — Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the
following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);

b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);

c. Article 134-a (Coup d’Etat), including acts committed by private persons;

d. Article 248 (Murder);

e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);

f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under

(1) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);

(2) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control
Act of 1990);

(3) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);

(4) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);

(5) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,

(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunitions or Explosives) thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the
penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for
under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

Terrorism is perpetrated by a person, who commits a predicate crime of murder such as

rebellion or murder, which creates a condition of widespread and extra ordinary fear and panic
among populace in order to coerce the government to give in in to unlawful demand (Section 3
of RA No. 9372). Demand by Al Queda against US government not to interfere with the affairs
of the Muslim is the example of the element of coercing the government to give in to unlawful
demand.
 The objective of the “terrorist” is to sow and create a condition of a widespread fear
among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand. This
condition of a widespread fear is traditionally achieved through bombing, kidnapping, mass
killing, and beheading, among others. In contrast, the purpose of rebellion is political, i.e., (a) to
remove from the allegiance to the Philippine Government or its laws: (i) the territory of the
Philippines or any part thereof; (ii) any of the land, naval, or armed forces; or (b) to deprive the
Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives (Lagman
vs Medeldea, G.R No. 231658, July 4, 2017).

In determining what crime was committed, the court must look into the main objective of
the Malefactors. If it is political, such as for the purpose of severing the allegiance of Mindanao
to the Philippine government to establish a wilayat therein, the crime is rebellion. If, on the other
hand, the primary objective is to sow a condition of a widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand,
the crime is terrorism (Lagman vs. Medeldea, supra)

The crime of destructive arson is punishable either under article 320 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by RA No. 7659 or under PD No. 1613. However, destructive arson as
predicate crime of terrorism refers to crime as defined by PD No. 1613.

Crimes involving destruction of property was punishable under Article 304 of the Revised
Penal Code. However, Section 9 of PD No. 1613 expressly repealed article 324 of the Code.
Despite of such repeal, destruction of property is a predicate crime of terrorism under Section 3
of RA No. 9372.

Murder is a predicate crime of terrorism. Any other killing such as homicide, parricide,
infanticide or robbery with homicide are not within the contemplation of section 3 of RA No.
9372.

Illegal possession of unlicensed firearm under section 1 of PD No. 1866 is a predicate

crime of terrorism. However, Section 45 of RA No. 10591 has repealed Section 1 of PD No.
1866. Now section 28 of RA No. 10591 punishes illegal possession of loose firearm.

If the offender committed illegal possession of explosives in furtherance of terrorism, he

can be held liable for the crime of terrorism under Section 3 of RA No. 9372 or illegal
possession of explosives under Section 3-C of PD No.1866 as amended by RA No. 9156.
Under section 3-C of PD No. 1866, when illegal possession of explosives is a necessary means
for committing any crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws, or is in
furtherance of, or incident to, in connection with, by reason of, r on occasion of any of the crimes
defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and fine
ranging from One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1000.00) shall be imposed.

SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. — Persons who conspire to commit the

crime of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment.

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.
 The crime of conspiracy known to the common law is not an indicatable offense in the
Philippines. Conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable only in the cases which the law
specially provides a penalty therefore (Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code). However,
conspiracy to commit terrorism is punishable because RA No. 9372 specifically provides a
penalty for it.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of the felony and decided to commit it (Article 8). In conspiracy as crime, it must be
established that the parties to the agreement must have made up their minds to commit
terrorism. There must be determination on the part of the parties to commit such crime.

If the conspirator committed the crime of terrorism under Section 3 of RA No. 9372,
conspiracy should not be considered as a separate crime. When conspiracy relates to terrorism
actually committed, it not a crime under section 4 but only a manner incurring liability, that is,
when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

SEC. 5. Accomplice. — Any person who, not being a principal under Article 17 of
the Revised Penal Code or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof, cooperates in the
execution of either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous
or simultaneous acts shall suffer the penalty of from seventeen (17) years, four months
one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 6. Accessory. — Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of

the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having participated
therein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal
Code, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner: (a) by
profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by
concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principal or conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one
day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not
be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of subparagraph (a).

Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the accomplice is one degree lower than
that imposable upon the principal; for accessory two degree lower. However, under section 5
and 6 of RA No. 9372, the penalties for the accomplice and accessory are fixed.

Accessories under Section 6 (a) of RA No. 9372 are exempt from criminal responsibility
if they are related to the principal terrorist. However, if the accessories of the crime of terrorism
are charged with obstruction of justice, they cannot claim criminal exemption. Obstruction of
Justice Law (PD No. 1829) has no provision on criminal exemption.

SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of

Communications. — The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to
the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his
team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record,
with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance
equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable
ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation,
discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person
charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Provided, that surveillance, interception and recording of communications

between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and
confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.

Under Section 3 of RA No. 4200, otherwise as the Anti-Wire Tapping Law, the Regional
Trial Court may issue an order allowing a peace officer to secretly overhear, intercept or record
private communications by means of the devices in cases involving the crime of treason,
espionage, provoking war or disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion,
sedition, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to sedition, kidnapping and
violation to espionage law and other offenses against national security.

Terrorism is not one of those crime mentioned in Section 3 of RA No. 4200. However,
under Section 7 of RA No. 9372, the Court of Appeals may authorize the surveillance,
interception and recording of communication between members of terrorist organization or of
any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism.

The prohibition on surveillance, interception and recording of communications between

lawyer and clients, doctors and patients, journalist and their sources and business
correspondence is recognition of confidential character of such communication.

SEC. 8. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization. — xxx

SEC. 9. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. — xxx

SEC. 10. Effective Period of Judicial Authorization. — xxx

SEC. 11. Custody of Intercepted and Recorded Communications. — xxx

SEC. 12. Contents of Joint Affidavit. — xxx

SEC. 13. Disposition of Deposited Material. — xxx

SEC. 14. Application to Open Deposited Sealed Envelope or Sealed Package. —

xxx

SEC. 15. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials. — xxx

SEC. 16. Penalty for Unauthorized or Malicious Interceptions and/or

Recordings. — Any police or law enforcement personnel who, not being authorized to do
so by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, tracks down, taps, listens to,
intercepts, and records in whatever manner or form any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written word of a person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall
be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve
(12) years of imprisonment.

In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any
other offense, the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment and the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from
public office shall be imposed upon any police or law enforcement personnel who
maliciously obtained an authority from the Court of Appeals to track down, tap, listen to,
intercept, and record in whatever manner or form any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words of a person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism: Provided, That
notwithstanding Section 13 of this Act, the party aggrieved by such authorization shall
be allowed access to the sealed envelope or sealed package and the contents thereof as
evidence for the prosecution of any police or law enforcement personnel who
maliciously procured said authorization.

Unauthorized surveillance, interception and recording of communication of person,

whether he is a suspect of the crime or not, is punishable under RA No. 4200. However,
unauthorized surveillance, interception and recording of communication between members of
the terrorist organization or any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism is punishable under Section 16 of RA No. 9372.

If police officer submitted a perjured affidavit in support of his application for

authorization to make surveillance, interception and recording of communication of suspect of
crime involving national security, he is liable for perjury. If police officer submitted a perjured
affidavit in support of his application for authorization to make surveillance, interception and
recording of communication between members of terrorist organization or of any person
charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and
obtain such authorization, he may suffer the penalty imposable for perjury in addition to the
penalty prescribed under section 16 of RA No. 9372. Mere execution of perjured affidavit or
filing of untruthful application is not punishable under section 16. What is punishable under this
provision is maliciously obtaining authorization.

SEC. 17. Proscription of Terrorist Organizations, Association, or Group of

Persons. — Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the
purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose,
actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow and create a condition
of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce
the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall, upon application of the
Department of Justice before a competent Regional Trial Court, with due notice and
opportunity to be heard given to the organization, association, or group of persons
concerned, be declared as a terrorist and outlawed organization, association, or group of
persons by the said Regional Trial Court.

Upon judicial authorization, the bank deposit of terrorist organization as declared by the
court can be examined and communication between members thereof can be intercepted.
However, RA No. 9372 does not prescribe a penalty for organizing or joining in such
organization. But members of the terrorist association maybe held liable for conspiracy to
commit terrorism under section 4 of RA No. 9372 or illegal association under Article 147 of the
Revised Penal Code.

SEC. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. — The provisions

of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any police or
law enforcement personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-
Terrorism Council has taken custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime
of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall, without incurring any
criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities, deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority
within a period of three days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected
person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said
police, or law enforcement personnel: Provided, That the arrest of those suspected of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the surveillance
under Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act.

The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall, before detaining the
person suspected of the crime of terrorism, present him or her before any judge at the
latter’s residence or office nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of
the day or night. It shall be the duty of the judge, among other things, to ascertain the
identity of the police or law enforcement personnel and the person or persons they have
arrested and presented before him or her, to inquire of them the reasons why they have
arrested the person and determine by questioning and personal observation whether or
not the suspect has been subjected to any physical, moral or psychological torture by
whom and why. The judge shall then submit a written report of what he/she had observed
when the subject was brought before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction over
the case of the person thus arrested. The judge shall forthwith submit his/her report
within three calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or
office.

Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the

crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement
personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension
or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays
or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge
nearest the place where the accused was arrested.

The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment
shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement personnel who fails to notify and
judge as provided in the preceding paragraph.

SEC. 19. Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist

Attack. — In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be
detained for more than three days without the written approval of a municipal, city,
provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or judge of the municipal,
regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the
place of the arrest. If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after
office hours, the arresting police or law enforcement personnel shall bring the person
thus arrested to the residence of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the
place where the accused was arrested. The approval in writing of any of the said officials
shall be secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned within five days
after the date of the detention of the persons concerned: Provided, however, That within
three days after the detention the suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or
threat is not established, shall be released immediately.

SEC. 20. Penalty for Failure to Deliver Suspect to the Proper Judicial Authority
within Three Days. — The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment shall be imposed upon any police or law enforcement personnel who has
apprehended or arrested, detained and taken custody of a person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and fails to deliver
such charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within the period of
three days.

As a rule, the period within which a period detained for terrorism or conspiracy or
conspiracy to commit terrorism must be delivered to judicial authorities is 36 hours in
accordance with Article 125 of the RPC since the penalty of 40 years of imprisonment
prescribed for is equivalent to an afflictive penalty.

If the apprehending police or law enforcement officer fail to deliver the terrorist suspect
within the period of 36 hours, they are liable for delay in the delivery of detained person under
Article 125 of the RPC.

However, as a result of surveillance and examination of bank deposits, the Anti-

Terrorism Council may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement personnel to take
custody of person charged with or suspected of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
With this written authority, the police or law enforcement personnel may arrest or take custody
the terrorist suspect and delivers him to proper judicial authority within the period of three (3)
days therefrom without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained
persons notwithstanding article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary (Section 18 of
RA No. 9372).

If the apprehending police or law enforcement officers fail to deliver the terrorist suspect
within the period of three (3) days as required by section 18 of RA No. 9372, they are liable for
failure to deliver suspect to proper judicial authority under Section 20 of the same law.

However, suspects maybe detained for more than three days without violating Section
18 of RA No. 9372 subject to the following conditions:

1. There is an actual or imminent terrorist attack;

2. The apprehending officer obtains a written approval to detain the terrorist suspect
beyond three (3) days from official of Human Rights Commission, or judge or justice of
Sandiganbayan or Court of Appeals, which is nearest to the place of arrest. If the arrest is made
during Saturday’s, Sunday’s, holidays or after office hours, the arresting police or law
enforcement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the nearest residence of any of
the official above-mentioned.
 3. The approval in writing of any of the said officials shall be secured by the police or law
enforcement personnel concerned within five (5) days after the date of detention of persons
concerned.

4. With respect to suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threats is not
established within three (3) days after the detention, they shall be released immediately (Section
19 of RA No. 9372)

SEC. 21. Rights of a Person under Custodial Detention. — xxx

SEC. 22. Penalty for Violation of the Rights of a Detainee. — xxx

SEC. 23. Requirement for an Official Custodial Logbook and its Contents. — xxx

SEC. 24. No Torture or Coercion in Investigation and Interrogation. — xxx

SEC. 25. Penalty for Threat, Intimidation, Coercion, or Torture in the Investigation

and Interrogation of a Detained Person. — xxx

SEC. 26. Restriction on Travel. — In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong,

and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is
entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor,
shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he
resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public
safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution. Travel outside of said
municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of
the terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited as provided under the
Rules of Court.

He/she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her
usual place of residence.

While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cellphones, e-mails,
computers, the internet or other means of communications with people outside the
residence until otherwise ordered by the court.

The restrictions abovementioned shall be terminated upon the acquittal of the

accused or of the dismissal of the case filed against him or earlier upon the discretion of
the court on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused.

Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides “right to travel shall not be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as maybe provided by
law”. In the interest of national security, Section 26 of RA No. 9372 provide restriction on the
right to travel of the terrorist suspect.

SEC. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts,

and Records. — The provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 as amended, to the contrary
notwithstanding, the justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a special court to
handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the existence of probable
cause in a hearing called for that purpose that: (1) a person charged with or suspected of
the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons; and (3) of a member of
such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons,
may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer and the members of
his/her team duly authorized in writing by the anti-terrorism council to: (a) examine, or
cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records
in a bank or financial institution; and (b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant
information about such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a
bank or financial institution. The bank or financial institution concerned shall not refuse
to allow such examination or to provide the desired information, when so ordered by and
served with the written order of the Court of Appeals.

Under RA No. 1404, all deposits of whatever nature of banks or banking institution in the
Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the government of the Philippines, its
political subdivisions and instrumentalities, are hereby considered as an absolutely confidential
nature and may not be examined, inquired or look into by any person, government official,
bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment,
or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or
in cases where money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

However, the justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a special court to handle
anti-terrorism cases may authorize in writing law enforcement officer to examine, or cause the
examination of, the deposits, placement, trust accounts, assets and records in bank or financial
institution; and gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information of such deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and record from a bank or financial institution.

SEC. 28. Application to Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records. — xxx

SEC. 29. Classification and Contents of the Court Order Authorizing the

Examination of Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records. — xxx

SEC. 30. Effective Period of Court Authorization to Examine and Obtain

Information on Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records. — xxx

SEC. 31. Custody of Bank Data and Information Obtained after Examination of

Deposits, Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and Records. — xxx

SEC. 32. Contents of Joint Affidavit. — xxx

SEC. 33. Disposition of Bank Materials. — xxx

SEC. 34. Application to Open Deposited Bank Materials. — xxx

SEC. 35. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Bank Materials. — xxx

SEC. 36. Penalty for Unauthorized or Malicious Examination of a Bank or a

Financial Institution. — Any person, police or law enforcement personnel who examines
the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, or records in a bank or financial
institution of: (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the
crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism; (2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons; or (3) a member of such organization,
association, or group of persons, without being authorized to do so by the Court of
Appeals, shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and
one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any
other offense, the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment shall be imposed upon any police or law enforcement personnel, who
maliciously obtained an authority from the Court of Appeals to examine the deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, or records in a bank or financial institution of: (1) a
person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism; (2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or
group of persons; or (3) a member of such organization, association, or group of
persons: Provided, That notwithstanding Section 33 of this Act, the party aggrieved by
such authorization shall upon motion duly filed be allowed access to the sealed envelope
or sealed package and the contents thereof as evidence for the prosecution of any police
or law enforcement personnel who maliciously procured said authorization.

Examination of bank deposit of any person in violation of Section 2 of RA No. 1405 is

punishable under Section 5 thereof. On the other hand, examination of bank deposit of a
terrorist suspect or member of a terrorist organization without authority from the Court of
Appeals is punishable under section 36 of RA No. 9372.

SEC. 37. Penalty of Bank Officials and Employees Defying a Court

Authorization. —

SEC. 38. Penalty for False or Untruthful Statement or Misrepresentation of

Material Fact in Joint Affidavits. — Any false or untruthful statement or
misrepresentation of material fact in the joint affidavits required respectively in Section
12 and Section 32 of this Act shall constitute a criminal offense and the affiants shall
suffer individually the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment.

Making untruthful statements upon material matter in an affidavit required by law

constitute the crime of perjury under the Revised Penal Code. Making untruthful statements or
misinterpretation of material fact in the joint affidavits required respectively in Sections 12 and
32 of RA No. 9372 constitute the crime of violation of Section 38 of RA No. 9372.

SEC. 39. Seizure and Sequestration. — xxx

SEC. 40. Nature of Seized, Sequestered and Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements,

Trust Accounts, Assets and Records. — xxx

SEC. 41. Disposition of the Seized, Sequestered and Frozen Bank Deposits,

Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and Record. — xxx
 SEC. 42. Penalty for Unjustified Refusal to Restore or Delay in Restoring Seized,
Sequestered and Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and
Records. — xxx

SEC. 43. Penalty for the Loss, Misuse, Diversion or Dissipation of Seized,

Sequestered and Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and
Records. — Any person who is responsible for the loss, misuse, diversion, or dissipation
of the whole or any part of the seized, sequestered and frozen bank deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records of a person suspected of or charged with
the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism shall suffer the penalty of ten
(10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

Misappropriation of public fund is punishable as malversation under Article 217 of the

Revised Penal Code. Misappropriation of frozen assets of a person suspected of or charged
with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is punishable under Section 43 of
RA No. 9372.

SEC. 44. Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons. — Any public officer who
has direct custody of a detained person or under the provisions of this Act and who by
his deliberate act, misconduct, or inexcusable negligence causes or allows the escape of
such detained person shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of: (a)
twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, if the detained
person has already been convicted and sentenced in a final judgment of a competent
court; and (b) six years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment, if the detained
person has not been convicted and sentenced in a final judgment of a competent court.

Infidelity in the custody of prisoners is punishable under Article 223 and 225 of the
Revised Penal Code. Prisoner maybe a detention prisoner or convict by final judgement. This
felony can be committed through intentional act or negligence by public officer or private
individual, who has custody over a prisoner. If the prisoner is detained for the crime of terrorism
or conspiracy to commit terrorism, causing or allowing through deliberate act, misconduct or
inexcusable negligence his escape is punishable under Section 44 of RA No. 9372.

SEC. 45. Immunity and Protection of Government Witnesses. — The provisions of

Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Act) to the contrary
notwithstanding, the immunity of government witnesses testifying under this Act shall be
governed by Sections 17 and 18 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court: Provided, however,
that said witnesses shall be entitled to benefits granted to witnesses under said Republic
Act No. 6981.

Immunity of government witness is governed by RA No. 6881 and under Section 17 and
18 of Rule of the Rules of Court. Under RA No. 6881, admission into Witness Protection
Program shall entitle such State Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for the offense
or offenses in which his testimony will be given or used. Under the Rules of Court, the court may
upon the motion of the prosecution direct one or more of the accused to be discharge with their
consent so that they may be witness for the state. In sum, the State Witness can enjoy criminal
immunity under RA No. 6881 and / or the Rules of Court.

However, immunity of government witness in a case involving the crime of terrorism is

governed only by Rules of Court. Thus, such government witness is not entitled to criminal
immunity under RA No. 6881. However, he can avail of the benefits under RA No. 6981 such as
security and financial assistance.

SEC. 46. Penalty for Unauthorized Revelation of Classified Materials. — The

penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be
imposed upon any person, police or law enforcement agent, judicial officer or civil
servant who, not being authorized by the Court of Appeals to do so, reveals in any
manner or form any classified information under this Act.

Revelation of classified information involving National Defense is constitutive of crime of

espionage under Commonwealth Act No. 616. Revelation of classified information under RA No.
9372 is punishable under Section 46 thereof.

SEC. 47. Penalty for Furnishing False Evidence, Forged Document, or Spurious

Evidence. — The penalty of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years of
imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly furnishes false
testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any investigation or hearing under
this Act.

Furnishing false testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any criminal

investigation or hearing constitute the crime of obstruction of justice under PD No. 1829.
Furnishing false testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any criminal investigation
or hearing under RA No. 9372 constitute the crime of violation of Section 47 of RA No. 9372.

SEC. 48. Continuous Trial. — xxx

SEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall be a Bar to Another Prosecution under the
Revised Penal Code or any Special Penal Laws. — 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.

If the information charged the accused with the crime of terrorism in relation to murder,
can the court convict him of murder instead of terrorism? Yes. If the evidence proves the
commission of murder beyond reasonable doubt but it fails to establish the other element of
terrorism, the court can convict the accused of murder.

If the information charged the accused with the crime of terrorism in relation to murder,
and the court acquitted the accused, can the prosecution file another information charging him
with the crime of murder? No. Murder is necessarily included in terrorism. The filing of new
information for murder violates the right of the accused against double jeopardy under the
Constitution and under Section 49 of RA No. 9372.

If the information charged the accused with the crime of terrorism in relation to the crime
involving destruction of property defined by article 324 of the Revised Penal Code, can the court
convict him of destruction of property instead of terrorism? No. Section 9 of PD No. 1613
expressly repealed article 324 of the RPC. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted of
destruction of property, which is a decriminalized act. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege.
SEC. 50. Damages for Unproven Charge of Terrorism. — xxx

SEC. 52. Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. — The provisions of Book I of the
Revised Penal Code shall be applicable to this Act.

The provision of conspiracy, justifying and exempting circumstances, and participation of

the offenders as principals, accomplices and accessories under the Revised Penal Code are
applicable in the crime of terrorism. Notwithstanding Section 52 of RA No. 9372, the provision
on attempted, frustrated and consummated stages of execution and aggravating, mitigating and
alternative circumstances under the Revised Penal Code are not applicable to crimes involving
terrorism. All of these provisions are connected with the rules on application of penalty.
However, the nature of penalty prescribed for a felony under the RPC is different from the
prescribed for offense punishable under RA No. 9372. The rules on application of penalty and
all provision connected thereto could not be operational to penalty prescribed by RA No. 9372
because it does not borrow the penalty under the RPC. Example: If there is mitigating
circumstance of voluntary confession, the divisible penalty prescribed for felony shall be applied
in the minimum period. However, this mitigating circumstance is not applicable if the charge is
terrorism because the penalty prescribed by RA No. 9372 for it is not divisible; hence, it cannot
be applied in its minimum period.

SEC. 53. Anti-Terrorism Council. — xxx

SEC. 54. Functions of the Council. — xxx

SEC. 55. Role of the Commission on Human Rights. — xxx

SEC. 56. Creation of a Grievance Committee. —xxx

SEC. 57. Ban on Extraordinary Rendition. — No person suspected or convicted of

the crime of terrorism shall be subjected to extraordinary rendition to any country unless
his or her testimony is needed for terrorist related police investigations or judicial trials
in the said country and unless his or her human rights, including the right against
torture, and right to counsel, are officially assured by the requesting country and
transmitted accordingly and approved by the Department of Justice.

Extraordinary rendition is the transfer without legal process of a detainee to a custody of

a foreign government for the purposes of detention and interrogation.

SEC. 58. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. — Subject to the provision of an

existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of
any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall apply: (1) to individual
persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the
terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the Philippines; (2) to
individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes defined and punished
in this Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines; (3) to individual persons who,
although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said
crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship; (4) to individual persons who
commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises
belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (5) to
individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippines
descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime;
and (6) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government.

Under the territorial principle, criminal law shall be enforced within the territory of the
Philippines. However, RA No. 9372 can be enforced against persons, who are physically
outside the Philippine territory, but commit the crime involving terrorism: (1) in the Philippines;
(2) on board Philippine Ship or Airship; (3) within any embassy, consulate or diplomatic
premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (4)
against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity
was a factor in the commission of the crime; or directly against the government of the
Philippines.

SEC. 59. Joint Oversight Committee. — xxx

SEC. 60. Separability Clause. — xxx

SEC. 61. Repealing Clause. — xxx

SEC. 62. Special Effectivity Clause. — xxx

Approved, March 6, 2007

ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11479

Important/ Salient features of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in relation to the

Human Security Act of 2007

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) was signed into law on July 3, 2020 by president
Rodrigo Duterte and is the prevailing counter-terrorism law in the Philippines. This law was
passed to replace the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA) which enumerated and penalized acts
of terrorism. Additionally, this law expanded the power available to law enforcement agents in
order to go after terrorists by providing longer period for surveillance and allowing Anti-Terrorism
Council the broad power to provide authorization for the arrests and designation of terrorist. It
also provides for the new offenses that were not punishable under the Human Security Act.

Notable provisions of the Human Security Act of 2007 that were deleted in the new
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

a. The period of detention of suspects in case of actual imminent attack was removed.
 The Anti-Terrorism Act removed Section 19 of Human Security Act that limits the period
of detention of suspects to three days in the event of actual or imminent terrorist attack which
can only be extended beyond three days with the approval of the Commission of Human Rights
(CHR) or a judge.

Under Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, detention without judicial warrant of arrest
can last for fourteen (14) days, which may be extended for a maximum period of ten (10) days;
this means that suspects may be detained for a total of 24 days.

b. The payment for damages for unproven charge of terrorism was deleted.

The Human Security Act of 2007 provides that any person who was acquitted from
charges of terrorism shall be entitled for payment of Php 500,000.00 for every day that he or
she has been detain or arrested without a warrant. This amount shall automatically be charged
against the appropriations of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) and released within 15 days from
the date of the acquittal of the accused. This was not carried over to the ATA, thus a person
erroneously detained without a warrant under the ATA’s provisions will not be entitled from any
form of compensation from the government.

c. Penalties against law enforcement officers erring in the implementation of the law were
removed.

The following provisions in the HSA which provides safeguard against erring law
enforcement officers in the implementation of the law were deleted:

 A penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 12 years for failure to deliver an arrested

person to the proper judicial authority within three days;

 The Grievance Committee which receives and evaluates complaints against law
enforcement officers in the implementation of the HSA; and

 The prohibition prohibiting another prosecution of a person for an offense or

felony that is necessarily included in the offense for which he or she has been
acquitted.

d. The Anti-Terrorism Act removed the provision calling for the applicability of the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

This means that some concepts found under the RPC, such as mitigating
circumstances, exempting circumstances, among others, are inapplicable under the ATA.

This also means that mens rea or criminal intent, is no longer required to charge a
suspect for committing the crime of terrorism. For the offense punishable by the Revised Penal
Code, the criminal act must be done with criminal intent. For example, a person stabbed
another person, which led to the latter’s death, the offender cannot be held liable for homicide or
murder if he/she did not intend to stab and kill the victim (such as in the case of accident). Since
mens rea or criminal intent is no longer required, the offenses under the ATA become “strict
liability” offenses, meaning, a person is punishable by simply committing the act, regardless of
whether or not it was done with criminal intent.
e. The HSA’s special effectivity clause, which suspend the law’s application during the election
period was removed.

Under the Human Security Act special effectivity clause, the provisions are automatically
suspended one month before or two months after the holding of any election. The suspension
prevents the use of the HSA in order to influence the elections. This special effectivity clause
does not exist in the ATA; thus, the ATA remains effective even during election period.

f. The Anti-Terrorism Act removed the power of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to
prosecute those who may have violated the civil and political rights of person suspected of, or
detained for, the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Under HSA, the CHR along with the Department of Justice had the power to prosecute
public officials, law enforcers and other persons who may have violated the civil and political
rights of persons suspected of, or detained for, the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism. However, the ATA removed this power from the CHR; the power to prosecute such
public officials now lies exclusively with the DOJ.

g. The ATA allows the proscription or declaration of an organization as terrorist without notice of
hearing.

Unlike Section 17 of the Human Security Act which provided that an organization could
not be proscribed or declared a terrorist organization without notice and hearing. Section 27 of
the ATA allows the Court of Appeals to issue a “Preliminary Order of Proscription” without notice
of hearing and solely on the basis of the submissions of the ATC To the Court of Appeals.

h. The ATA allows surveillance even if there are other effective and readily available means to
obtain evidence against suspected terrorists.

Unlike Section 8 of the HSA which required that the surveillance of suspected terrorists
could be authorized by the court only if there are no other effective and readily available means
to secure the evidence sought, the ATA contains such safeguard. This requirement in Section 8
of the HSA shows policy to treat the invasion of privacy as a last resort, consistent with the duty
of the State to protect the rights of citizens.

i. The Anti-Terrorism Act removed the duty of the arresting officer to present the arrested person
to the nearest judge to determine if the arrested person was subjected to torture.

Section 18 (second paragraph) of the HSA imposed a duty on the arresting officer to
immediately present the arrested person to the nearest judge for the purpose of determining
that she/he was not subjected to moral, physical or psychological torture, even before the
arrested is detained, however the ATA contains no such safeguard.

j. The Anti-Terrorism Act gives the Anti-Terrorism Council the power to designate individuals or
groups of terrorists, a power that was reserved to the courts under the HSA.

Unlike Section 17 of the HSA which provides that only the court had the power to
proscribe or declare organizations as terrorist organizations, Section 25 of the ATA gives the
ATC the power to “designate” individuals or group of terrorists even if the ATC is not a court and
is not clothed with judicial power.
Acts of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

Under Section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, terrorism is committed by performing an act

intended to cause:

 Death or serious bodily injury;

 Extensive damage to property; or

 Extensive interference with critical infrastructure.

Terrorism may also be committed by:

 Developing, manufacturing, possessing, acquiring, transporting, supplying or

using weapons, explosives or biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical
weapons; or

 Releasing of dangerous substance, or causing fire, floods or explosions.

In order to be considered terrorism, the act committed must be done for any of the
following purposes:

 To intimidate the general public;

 Create atmosphere or spread a message of fear;

 Provoke or influence by intimidation the government;

 Seriously destabilize or destroy the political, economic and social structures of

the country;

 Create public emergency; or

 Seriously undermine public safety.

Section 4 does not require actual damage of property, death or serious bodily harm.
Even if the damage is not produced, as long as the acts are intended to do so, and the purpose
is to intimidate the general public, spread the message of fear, seriously destabilize the
government, create public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, the crime of
terrorism is already committed.

A reading of Section 4 also shows that advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work,
industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights which are
intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life or
create serious risk of public safety maybe considered acts of terrorism.

The Human Security Act defined terrorism as the commission of a predicate crime
(such as murder, kidnapping, rebellion or crimes of destruction) which create a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand. The ATA did away with this definition and no
longer requires the commission of a predicate crime. In doing so, the ATA has broadened the
coverage of what could constitute as terrorism.

Conspiracy to commit terrorism

There is conspiracy to commit terrorism when two (2) or more person agree and decide
to commit any of the acts which constitute terrorism. (Section 7)

Outlawing of Terrorist Organizations

There are two ways for a group or organization to be declared as terrorist. It can be done
by designation or proscription.

Designation happens when a group or organization is identified as terrorist group or

organization. Designation is done in any of the three ways: first, the Philippines automatically
adopts the list of groups of organizations identified as terrorist by the United Nations Security
Council; second, other countries request the Philippine government to declare a group or
organization as terrorist; or third, when the Anti-Terrorism Council identifies a group or
organization as terrorist group or organization. (Section 25)

On the other hand, proscription happens when the Court of Appeals declares a group,
organization or association of the terrorist or outlawed group, organization or association. It is
done upon application by the DOJ and with hearing and due notice to the group, organization or
association. (Section 26)

Penalty for crime of terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism

The penalty for terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism is life imprisonment without
the benefit of parole.

The penalty for acts of terrorism is the same regardless of the stage of its execution, that
is, whether attempted, frustrated or consummated. In contrast, the penalty of the crimes
punishable by the revised penal code committed in the frustrated and attempted stage, is lower
by one or two degrees, respectively.

Detention without warrant under the Anti-Terrorism Act

Under the ATA, a person who is suspected of committing the following acts maybe
arrested and detained without warrant of arrest:

1. Acts of terrorism (Section 4)

2. Threats to commit terrorism (Section 5)

3. Planning, training and facilitating the commission of terrorism (Section 6)

4. Conspiracy to commit terrorism (Section 7)

 5. Proposal to commit terrorism (Section 8)

6. Inciting to commit terrorism (Section 9)

7. Recruitment and membership of a terrorist organization (Section 10)

8. Foreign terrorists who travel or attempt to travel, or facilitate the travel of individuals,
to foreign state for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, training, preparing for, or
participating in terrorism or providing or receiving terrorist training. (Section 11)

9. Providing material support to terrorists (Section 12)

The new law removed the provision in the Human Security Act which requires that the
arrest without a warrant of a suspected terrorist must result from surveillance or examination of
bank deposit. If the warrantless arrest was spurred by prior surveillance or examination of bank
deposits, it is akin to an in flagrante delicto arrest.

Period of detention

A person who was arrested without a warrant can be detained for maximum period 24
days even if the case is not filed in court (Section 29). In contrast, a person arrested for an
offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code can only be detained for a maximum period
of three (3) days, depending on the gravity of the offense. In such cases, if there is no case filed
in court within the three-day period, the arrested person must be released.

Under the constitution, the president may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus for a period not exceeding 60 days in case of invasion, rebellion or when public safety
requires it. During the period of such emergency, the Constitution provides that any person
detained shall be charged in court within three days, otherwise he or she must be released.

Surveillance or tap into private conversations and communications

Private communications and conversations of persons suspected of committing terrorism

maybe surveillance, interception and recording by law enforcement agent or military personnel
upon a written order from the Court of Appeals which can last up to 90 days (Section 17 and
19). Surveillance also cover the tracking down, following or investigating of individuals and
organizations (Section 16).

An authorization from the Court of Appeals is necessary before law enforcement agent
can conduct surveillance or secretly wiretap, listen, overhear and intercept the private
communication of suspected terrorists. However, before the Court of Appeals issues an
authorization, it must be determined that there is sufficient reason to believe that a crime of
terrorism has been or is being committed, that the suspect is probably guilty of it, and that
evidence essential to the conviction of the suspected or detained persons will be obtained by
surveillance or secret wiretapping.

Any law enforcement agent or military personnel who conducts an unauthorized or

malicious surveillance or interception without authorization from the court shall be penalized
with imprisonment of 10 years (Section 24).
Subjects of surveillance and recording of communications

The law identifies three classes of persons who maybe subjects of surveillance:

1. Members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organizations;

2. A designated person or a member of a designated group/ organization;

3. Any person charged with or suspected of committing any of the crimes penalized under
the Anti-Terrorism Act (Section 16).

Examination of bank deposits and finances and seize, sequester or freeze assets of
persons suspected or charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

The government through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) can investigate
and freeze the property or funds of persons or groups when there is probable cause to believe
that they are committing, attempting or conspiring to commit acts punishable under the ATA, or
participating in terrorism, or facilitating in the financing of offenses under the ATA (Section 35-
36).

The ATA also allows the Anti-Terrorism Council to enlist the assistance of the AMLC to
forfeit the property or funds of individuals, organizations or associations suspected of or charged
with committing any acts under the ATA. Under the Anti-Terrorism Financing Act and Anti-
Money Laundering Act, the AMLC is authorized to initiate civil forfeiture proceeding of property
or funds found to be in any way related to the financing of terrorism.