FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
7 
UCT 16 p5.r c, 
First Regular Session 
) 
L 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
The Constitution, Article 111, Section 4, provides: 
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 petition the 
govenuiient for redress of grievances. 
In line with such declaration, the Penal Code, Article 131, paragraph 3, penalizes a public 
officer or employee who shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or 
together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of 
grievances. 
However, the people’s right to peaceably assemble, though hndamental and 
constitutionally protected, is not absolute. Reasonable regulations based on time, place and 
manner may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted. The 
nature of a place, “the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, 
place, and manner that are reasonable.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965); Adderley v. 
Florida, 385 US. 39 (1966). For instance, making a speech in a library would certainly infringe 
upon the convenience and welfare of others, but that same speech should be perfectly appropriate 
in a park. 
This proposed bill focuses on one area that may certainly be considered as deserving of 
governmental interest, that is, the protection of residential privacy. The Penal Code failed to 
specify certain exceptions to the rule that no public officer or employee shall prohibit or hinder 
any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities 
for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances. 
The US Supreme Court, whose decisions have certainly influenced our own intelpretation 
of constitutional issues, has had the opportunity to address cases where the right to peaceably 


assemble was weighed against residential privacy. In the case of Carey v. Brown 447 US 455, 
the Court held that:. 
"The State's interest in protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is 
certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society." Our prior decisions have 
often remarked on the unique nature of the home, "the last citadel of the tired, the weary, 
and the sick," Gregory v. Chicago, 394 US. 111, 125 (1969) @lack, J., concurring), and 
have recognized that "[plreserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men 
and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an 
important value." 
This bill contemplates the mass or concerted action that is narrowly directed at the 
household, not the public. The type of picketers or rallyists banned by the new section are those 
who do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but simply aims to intrude upon 
the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way. 
The protection of the unwilling listener is an important aspect of residential privacy. The 
home should offer security from those who seek to enforce their opinions and conduct upon 
other persons. "That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to 
objectionable speech . . . does not mean we must be captives everywhere." Rowan v. Post Ofice 
Dept., 397 US. 728,738 (1970). Instead, a special benefit of the privacy all citizens enjoy within 
their own walls, which the State may legislate to protect, is an ability to avoid intrusions.* 
* This bill was originally filed during the Thirteenth Congress, Second Regular Session. 


5 
6 
I 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
7 
EICT 16 1’ (j :I21 
First Regular Session 
) 
SENATE 
S.NO. 1747 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
Ah! ACT 
AMENDING ARTICLE 13 1 OF ACT NO. 3815, ALSO KNOWN AS 
THE PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED, TO UPHOLD THE RIGHT OF RESIDENTS TO 
PRIVACY FROM MASS OR CONCERTED ACTIONS NOT DIRECTED TO THE PUBLIC 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. Article 13 1 of Act No. 381 5, also known as the Penal Code, as anended, is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 
Article 13 1. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful 
meetings. - The penalty of prision correccionul in its minimum period shall be 
imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal ground, shall 
prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same. 
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who 
shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any 
of its meetings. 
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee 
who shall prohibit or hinder any person fiom addressing, either alone or together 
with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress 
of grievances. PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES MAY, HOWEVER, 
PROHIBIT OR HINDER ANY PERSON FROM ADDRESSING, EITHER 
ALONE OR TOGETHER WITH OTHERS, ANY PETITION TO THE 
AUTHORITIES FOR THE CORRECTION OF ABUSES OR REDRESS OF 
GRIEVANCES WHICH SHALL BE HELD BEFORE OR ABOUT THE 
1 


1 
2 
6 
7 
8 
RESIDENCE OR DWELLING OF A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR IN 
VIOLATION OF EXISTING LAWS. 
SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. - Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive 
order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistenf 
with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly. 
SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its 
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved, 
jps/lO- 14-05 
2