Republic ofthe Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

196

House Bill No.

Introduced by Honorable Roilo Golez

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The law of sedition came into existence in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period.
Sedition as a felony was introduced in the Philippines during the late 1800s by the Spaniards who
used it as a legal restriction designed to silence dissent against Spanish rule. After the Spanish
colonization, prosecution for this crime continued to be utilized as a handy instrument of repression
of even legitimate political dissent first by the Americans then later by Filipino administrators.
Sedition as a repressive law can no longer can be tolerated. Today, in established and mature
democracies, the law on sedition has been either expressly repealed or is largely defunct. In the
Philippines, acts inimical to public security and national stability and integrity are addressed and
adequately punished by our existing laws on coups, rebellion, and libel, thus eliminating the need
for the very vague and repressive law on sedition.

In the United States, the word sedition appears to occur only in the army and navy articles, A
soldier joining any sedition, does not use his utmost endeavor to suppress the same, is punishable
with death or such other punishment as a court-martial shall direct. (U.S. Rev. Stats. 1342, arts, 22,
23)

As to sedition itself, Mr. Justice Stephen, an English legal luminary, does not “think that any such
offence is known to English law’ (Hist. Crim. Law, vol. ii. Chap. xxiv). The principal enactments
now in force dealing with seditious offences were all passed during the last twenty-five years of the
reign of George Ill. They are the Unlawful Oaths Act of 1797 prohibiting the administering or taking
of unlawful oaths or the belonging to an unlawful confederacy.

Sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590) as the “notion of
inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority’. Sedition
complements treason and martial law: while treason controls primarily the privileged, ecclesiastical
opponents, priests, and Jesuits, as well as certain commoners; and martial law frightens
commoners, sedition frightens intellectuals."

As defined by a well-recognized international legal dictionary, the Black's Law Dictionary (Seventh
Edition), sedition is “an agreement, communication, or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting


treason or some lesser commotion against public authority; advocacy aimed at inciting or
producing~and likely to incite or produce~imminent lawless action. - At common law, sedition
included defaming a member of the royal family or the government. The difference between
sedition and treason is that the former is committed by preliminary steps, while the latter entails
some overt act for carrying out the plan. But of course, if the plan is merely for some small
commotion, even accomplishing the plan does not amount to treason.”

An English legal luminary, Edward Jenks, in his book - The Book of English Law 136 (P.B.Fairest
ed., 6th ed. 1967) - referred to sedition in this manner: “This, perhaps the very vaguest of all
offenses known to the Criminal Law, is defined as the speaking or writing of words calculated to
excite disaffection against the Constitution as by law established, to procure the alteration of it by
other than lawful means, or to incite any person to commit a crime to the disturbance of the peace,
or to raise discontent or disaffection, or to promote ill-feeling between different classes of the
community. A charge of sedition is, historically, one of the chief means by which Government,
especially at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, strove to put
down hostile critics. It is evident that the vagueness of the charge is a danger to the liberty of the
subject, especially if the Courts of Justice can be induced to take a view favourable to the
Government.”

Today, sedition as a legal concept in the Philippines has become essentially contrary to the
underlying principles of our modern democracy as expressed in the Bill of Rights, and therefore
anachronistic.

In Philippine penal jurisdiction, Sedition is a crime “committed by persons who rise publicly and
tumultuousiy 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 Govemment, 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 (or the Government
of the United States), of al its property or any part thereof.” (Article 139, Revised Penal Code)

On the other hand, Inciting to Sedition is a crime committed by “any person who, without taking any
direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts
which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who
shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the
Government (of the United States or the Government of the Commonwealth) of the Philippines, or
any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer
in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together
for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or
tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community,


the safety and order of the Govemment, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices.”
(Article 142, Revised Penal Code)

The disparity with the intemational legal concept of these crimes, vagueness, as well as its over
breadth is clearly apparent in these given definitions under the Revised Penal Code.

Notably, our present Constitution strongly emphasizes and guarantees due observance of
fundamental bill of rights of the people including the often trampled-upon freedom of expression, of
the press and to peaceful assembly. Thus, the present penal provision as it now reads is no longer
consistent and responsive to the current political and constitutional setting; on the contrary it has
been corrupted by years of neglect and misuse. In a democracy such as ours which gives prime
importance to basic rights specially as signatory to international conventions, this law no longer
serves a useful purpose, except as a repressive measure of an administration that is overly
sensitive to criticism.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), adopted and proclaimed by
General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, guarantees the right to freedom of
expression, to wit:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Freedom of expression is also guaranteed in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly
Tesolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, which states:

“1, Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with
it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are
necessary:

a. __ Forrespect of the rights or reputations of others;

b. For the protection of national security or of public order, or of

public health or morals,”

Moreover, the right of peaceful assembly recognized under Article 21 of the Intemational Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights provides that “No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this
right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public
health or morals or the protection ofthe rights and freedoms of others.”


Similarly, Article 20 of the Universal Dectaration on Human Rights (UDHR) mandates that:
(1) Every one has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2). No one may be compelled to belong to an association

These basic rights are deeply engrafted as well in our fundamental law. Sec. 4 of Article Ill of the
1987 Constitution clearly declares 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. *

Moreover, Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Big. 880 declares as a state policy that “The constitutional
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is
essential and vital to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, the State shall ensure the
free exercise of such right without prejudice to the rights of others to life, liberty and equal
protection of the law.” This avowed policy would be rendered meaningless, ifthe people exercising
these constitutionally guaranteed rights would be daunted by unwarranted prosecution under this
penal provision as a proverbial sword of Damocles..

In an attempt to reconcile the patently conflicting interest between the legitimate exercise of free
‘speech and expression and the right of the state against seditious attacks, the highest tribunal of
the land - the Supreme Court of the Philippines — has had the occasion in the past to establish, by
jurisprudence, several tests to determine whether words uttered in the exercise of freedom of
expression partakes of a seditious nature, i.e., transcended the limits of free speech, and thus may
be subject of governmental interference.

In the landmark case of Schenck v. U.S. (249 U.S. 97), the US Supreme Court enunciated the
Clear and Present Danger Rule, which advances that whether the words are used in such
circumstances and of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring
about the substantial evils that the State has the right to prevent. The substantive evil must be
extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished,
This rule was embraced by our own Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. COMELEC (27
SCRA 835),

Still, as if unconvinced of the sufficiency of the application of the previously established test, the
‘Supreme Court adopted another, the so called Balancing of interest Test, in the case of Zaldivar v.
Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1 (1989). It is another criterion for permissible limitation on freedoms
of speech and of the press which requires a court to take conscious and detailed consideration of
the interplay of interests observable in a given situation.

In order to remove the opportunity for the need for construction, interpretation or misinterpretation
of the law on sedition vis-a-vis the constitutional guarantees affected by it, and to emphasize and
strengthen the fundamental right and exercise of press freedom and free speech, it is imperative
that the present law on sedition be expressly repealed in order to make our penal law consistent to
the explicit mandate under the present Constitution and existing legislation on press freedom,


freedom of expression, legitimate criticism of official conduc
peaceably assemble to pe

Furthermore, as enunciated in the case of US vs. Perfecto and

Thus, in view of the following, there is an urgent need to regeal
Article 138 ~ 142 of Act No. 3815, othenwise kn
approvai of this measure, if we are to uphold our freedom and tne most cherished liberties that
generations of Filisino patriots fought so hard to achieve, and remain
well as comply with our obligations under international law

the government for -edress c* tneir grievances

‘endoza (43 Phil $8}, 19 wit:

“The act of assembling peacefully and petitioning th 7 redress of
gfievances is not sedition. it is @ necessary consequence of republican
democratic institutions and the complement of free speech. I is the particular du
of the slate to zealously maintain the right to express either veroally or by
publication, their honest convictions regarding the acts of public officials and ‘he
governing class. If the people of a free state should give up the right of
speech; if they were daunted by fear and threats, and abdicate their conv clions:
the governing body of the state could silence all the voices except that which will
uchoid the men in power, that we may wel: say “good-bye” to our liberties forever.
Therefore criticism of public officials does not constitute incitement to sedition.
When the citizens of the state become convinced that the administration of the
affairs of the government is not carried on in accordance with the law, or is r:
conducted for the best interest of all concemed, they have not only a righ! but i
‘their duty to present the cause of their grievances {o the public. and the fre
of the state affords the best avenue for thal ourpose. Te that end the organic lat
of all modern free states have wisely provided that “no law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of the aress,” and that 19 person shall be punished exec’
for an abuse of that freedom. The interest of civilized society and the maintenance
of good government demand a full and free discussion of all affairs of public
interest. Complete liberty to comment upon the administration of government as
well as the conduct of public men, is necessary for the free speech and free ores:
‘The people are not obliged, under modem c'vilized governments, to speak cf the
conduet of their officials, of their servants, in whispers or with bated breath. The
freedom of the press consists in the right to publish the truth, with good motives
and for justifiable ends, although said publication may be offensive to the
government, to the courts or to individuals.”

$

existing ta

\\ ROW GOLEZ

the ight of the seople to

on Sedition under
a8 The Revised Pena! Code". | ask urgent

1@ to the Constitution as



Republic ofthe Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

196

House Bill No.

Introduced by Honorable Roilo Golez

AN ACT
REPEALING THE PROVISIONS ON SEDITION UNDER ARTICLE 139, 140, 141 AND ARTICLE
142 OF ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

Section 1, Article 139, 140, 141 and Article 142 of Act No. 3816, otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code, is hereby repealed

Section 2. Repealing Clause. - All laws, executive and administrative orders or parts thereof,
inconsistent with any provision of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 3. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the
Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,