Terror law dangerous in hands of abusive gov’t

“While the ATC may follow the path of least resistance and just give the applications of law enforcement agents to do surveillance a pro forma glance, we expect the Court of Appeals justices to screen the applications thoroughly to reduce, if not eliminate, the probability of abuse,” Pimentel said.

He said if the law enforcement agents want to arrest and detain a terror suspect without judicial warrants, the law requires that the latter must be brought before the presence of a judicial authority nearest the place where he or she was picked up at any time of the day or night.

The HSA, according to Pimentel, requires that all such moves being undertaken by law enforcement agents must be based on probable cause.

“Lawyers know that probable cause is not guesswork. It means that the law enforcement agents concerned and their witnesses must have personal knowledge of the acts of terror suspects to justify the acts they want done in the premises,” he said.

Pimentel said probable cause needs to be established by the justices personally questioning the law enforcement officer who applies for the permit to examine bank deposits and financial assets and records and the witnesses that he or she may produce as to justify the issuance of the order sought.

On the seizure, sequestration and freezing of bank deposits, financial assets and other properties of suspects, Pimentel said this section violates at least three fundamental rights in the Constitution.

These rights are the right not to be deprived of property without due process of law, the right to equal protection of the law and the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven.

Pimentel pointed out that section 39 of the HSA provides that the properties of suspected terror organizations may be seized or sequestered only after a court ruling. However, he said there is no such trial requirement for a suspected individual terrorist whose assets are being seized.

The HSA does not allow any person to be seized in the country and extradited to other countries under the so-called process of extraordinary rendition.

According to Pimentel, extraordinary rendition is a highly questionable process whereby a terror suspect may be seized in one country and sent to another country where he or she may be tortured to extort evidence on terror activities.

“If at all a person needs to be brought to another country to give testimony, for example, in terror cases, the law requires that his or her right to counsel and his or her human rights must first be secured by the government and guaranteed by the requesting state,” he said.