Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

Sixteenth Congress
First Regular Session

4725
House Bill No.

Introduced by AKBAYAN Representatives
Ibarra “Barry”M. Gutierrez I and Walden F. Bello

EXPLANATORY NOTE

‘The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, or Act No. 3815, as amended, which was enacted
in 1932 has been amended to accommodate basic constitutional rights, More than fifty
years gap between the enactment of the Revised Penal Code and the 1987 Philippine
Constitution resulted to the appatent conflict between the rights granted by the latter and

some acts defined by the former as offenses.

“The Constitution grants every person freedom of speech. In Article III, Section 4 it is

provided:

“No law shall be passed abridging 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.”

ces.

‘The same tight is established by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights

which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of 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.”


Moreover, Article 19 of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Cini! and Political Rights,

to which the Philippines is a signatory to, states that:

“1, Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions
without interference.

2, Fiveryone shall have the right t0 freedom of
this right shall include freedom to seck, x
impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
rontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form
of art, or through any other media of his choice.

‘he 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) For respect of the right or reputations of others;
b) For the protection of national security or of
public order, or of public health or morals.”

Despite these fairly recent grant and declaration of rights, Article 142 of the Revived Penal
Cod: penalizes the act of “inciting to sedition.” In essence, the offense as defined consists
of making speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners and the like,
whenever these represent acts constituting sedition or whenever these tend to disturb or
obstruct peace, safety and order, Therefore, even absent any tumultuous act or public
uprising, a person risks himself to prosecution by merely expressing an opinion which

the courts may interpret as seditious.

‘The offense in Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code was based on Aot 292 of the Philippine
Commission, a Wor promulgated duting the occupation of the United States and which was
intended to clam down on dissent, It is an anti-expression law promulgated during the
time when the American were trying to subjugate people and clamp down on ctitical of
the government. In fact, in the case of United States vs. Tolentino (1.-1451, 06 March 1906),

the offense of was discussed and it was held:

“The smoldering embers of a wide-spread and dangerous
insurrection were not yet entirely extinguished, and here
and there throughout the Islands occasional outbreaks
still required the use of the armed forces of the
Government for their suppression.”



‘As can be gleaned from the discussion abovequoted, the offense has no room under a

government which expressly promotes freedom of speech and expression.

Given that inciting to sedition is committed through forms of human expression,
penalizing it clearly violates the constitutional mandate to promote and protect the
citizen’s right to freedom of expression, It suppresses the right to free speech and

expression, and may be used to punish citizens who are highly critical of the government.

‘The State may still Fulfil its duty to maintain public order and protect national security by
penalizing acts constituting treason, rebellion, insurrection, comp état and sedition per se.

Article 142 defines a crime which unnecessarily overlaps with the existing provisions and

_is susceptible to being abused.

It is, therefore, imperative that Article 142 of the Revived Penal Code be repealed in order

to ensure that the right to freedom of expression is not breached.

Immediate approval of this measure is, therefore, eamestly sought.

(TIERREZ ILL WALDEN F. BELLO


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Quezon City, Metro Manila

Sixteenth Congress
First Regular Session

House Bill No. 4725

Introduced by AKBAYAN Representatives
Ibarra “Barry” M, Gutierrez III and Walden F. Bello

AN ACT
REPEALING ARTICLE 142 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED,

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE.
PHILIPPINES”

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

‘TION 1. Article 142 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal

2 Code, which reads:

3
4 “Anil 142, Inciting to sedition. — ‘The penalty of prision
5 correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding
6 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without
7 taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite
8 others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute
9 sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
0 emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to
i the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter
20: seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous
B libels against the Government of the Philippines, or any of the
i duly constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or
15 obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his
16 office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet
7 together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite
18 rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up
19 the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of

20 the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who

at shall knowingly conceal such evil practices.”

22

23 is hereby repealed.


18

SECTION 2. Retroactive effect.—All pending criminal cases, and accompanying civil cases, if

any, for a violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code shall be dismissed upon the effectivity

of this Act.

Pursuant to Section 22 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibiting the enactment of ex-post farto
laws or bills of attainder and to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, the provisions of this Act
shall have retroactive effect insofar as they are favorable to the person charged or convicted
under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Gods, who is nota habitual criminal, as defined in Rule 5 of

Article 62 of the said Code, even if at the time of the publication of this Act a final sentence has

been pronounced and the convict is serving the same, Therefore, all persons serving sentence for

a violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code shall be immediately released upon the
effectivity of this Act: Provtded, ‘hat they are not serving sentence or detained for any other

offense or felony.

SECTION 3.Separability clause—IF any part, section or provision of this Act is held invalid

or unconstitutional, other provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect

SECTION 4, Repealing clause—All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or other
issuances, particularly that of the Reseved Penal Code, which are inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act, are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly. Article 142 of the Revised Penal

Code is repealed.

SECTION 5, Effectivity—This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the completion of

its publication in the Offsial Gagette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,