FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 
) 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that, 
”Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes 
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart 
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 
In the Philippines, freedom of expression is likewise expressly protected 
under Article 111, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution which states that, ”No law 
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or 
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for 
redress of grievances.” 
While this precept is enshrined in our Constitution, there remain colonial 
vestiges of oppression, tyranny and intolerance in our present laws that are 
inconsistent with this guarantee. Foremost of these are the provisions of the 
Revised Penal Code on ”sedition.” Article 139, in particular, states that ”sedition” 
is a crime “committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to 
attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of 
the following objects: (1) to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or 
the holding of any popular election; (2) to prevent the National Government, or 
any provincial or municipal government or any public officer thereof from freely 
exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative 
order; (3) to inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any 
public officer or employee; (4) to commit, for any political or social end, any act 
of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and (5) to despoil, 
for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the 
National Government, of all its property or any part thereof.” 
The crime of sedition, however, is an offense in the realm of the mind, or in 
the battle of ideas. That is, it occurs in the mind of a government more intent on 
using it as a weapon to deny, rather than protect the people’s rights, particularly 
the right of freedom of expression. As in the Spanish and American colonial eras, 
and the martial law period, it has been specially employed to justify the use of 
massive State resources to clamp down on individuals or groups who are at odds 
with the government. 
Noted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a position paper: 


The right to express one's thoughts and to communicate freely with others 
affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows 
each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of 
expression is an end in itself - and as such, deserves society's greatest 
protection. It's vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the 
search for the trirtk. The eminent 19tk-century writer and civil libertarian, 
John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only ifone 
considers all facts and ideas, porn whatever source, and tests one's azun 
conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view - even those 
that are 'bad' or socially harmful - should be represented in society's 
'marketplace of ideas.' If the people are to be the masters of their fate and of 
their elected government, they must be well-informed and have access to all 
information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground 
for oppression and tyranny. 
. 
Today, the crime of sedition no longer exists in many countries such as the 
United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand and even in those 
countries beset by recent internal strife or security issues like Ireland, Kenya, 
Ghana, South Africa and Taiwan. 
In our nation's history, the crime of sedition has been used against eminent 
nationalists from Jose Rizal, to Macario Sakay, Isabelo Delos Reyes and Aurelio 
Tolentino, to Amado V. Hernandez, and Benign0 Aquino Jr. And, yes, it has also 
been used even against the President's own father, former President Diosdado 
Macapagal, for having published a book, Democracy in the Philippines, that was 
critical of martial law. 
In a country which values the right to free speech and where the 
government is elected as a servant of the people, it is hard to justify that anything 
spoken against either the government or public officials should be considered a 
crime. The existence of the offense of sedition is an unnecessary restraint on the 
political rights of the people. It should be noted that aspects of sedition - such as 
directly inciting a criminal act - are already offenses defined and covered within 
the penal code. 
It is high time we repeal this archaic, draconian provision of our penal law. 
It has no place in a country that champions itself as a free and fair democracy. 
2 


FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 
) 
First Regular Session 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
S E N A T E  
S.B. No. 25 
Introduced by Senator M. A. Madrigal 
AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 
THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 
BY REPEALING SECTIONS 139,140,141 AND 142 THEREIN 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of fhe Philippines in 
Congress assembled: 
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the ”Freedom of Expression 
Act of 2006.” 
Section 2. Declaration of State Policy. - It is the State’s policy to protect the 
constitutional right to freedom of expression and opinion. This right includes 
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart 
information and ideas through any media. 
Section 3. Repealing Clause. - Any provision of law to the contrary 
notwithstanding, Republic Act 3815 otherwise known as the “Revised Penal Code 
of the Philippines” is hereby amended by repealing Sections 139, 140, 141 and 142 
therein. 
Section 4. Separability Clause. - If any part of this Act is declared 
unconstitutional or invalid, the other provisions not affected thereby shall 
continue to be in full force and effect. 
Section 5. Eficectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its 
complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of 
general circulation. 
Approved, 
3