z Ri:
Republic of the Philippines (ae

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [ky
Quezon City i>

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

1380

House Bill No.

Introduced by Representatives
DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL ARROYO and GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO

AN ACT
AMENDING ARTICLE 131 OF ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE.
REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED, TO UPHOLD THE RIGHT OF
RESIDENTS TO PRIVACY FROM MASS OR CONCERTED ACTIONS NOT
DIRECTED TO THE PUBLIC

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Article Ill, Section 4, of the Constitution provides 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 petition the government for
redress of grievances.”

In line with this 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.

But this right of the people is not absolute, though it is fundamentally and
protected by the Supreme law of the land. If within reasonable bounds in terms
of time, place and manner, and if necessary to further significant governmental
interests, the right of the people to peaceably assemble for redress of their
grievances can be prohibited if it infringes on the greater public good. 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


The proposed bill focuses on one area that may certainly be considered
as deserving of governmental interest, that is, the protection of residential privacy
since the Penal Code failed to specify certain exceptions to the rule.

The US Supreme Court, whose decisions have certainly influenced our
own interpretation of constitutional issues, has had the opportunity to address
cases where the right to peaceably assemble was weighed against residential
privacy. Citing 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 "preserving 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 Office Dept., 397 U.S.
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.

It is for these reasons that expeditious passage of this measure is
earnestly requested.

DIOSDADO -APAGAL ARROYO GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO
Second District, Camarines Sur Second District, Pampanga


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS,
First Regular Session

House Bill No,__ 1389

Introduced by Representatives
DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL ARROYO and GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO

AN ACT
AMENDING ARTICLE 131 OF ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
REVISED 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 131 of Act No. 3815, also known as The Revised Penal
Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings.
— The penalty of prision correccional 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 shalll 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 from 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

1


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 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 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended
accordingly.

SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shalll take effect fifteen (15) days after
its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,