20 Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders V. the Principle of Legality and the Provisions on Rebellion and Sedition The crimes of rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, and inciting to sedition set out in Articles 134 and 138, and Articles 139 to 142 of the RPC, criminalize a wide range of activities, including activities legitimately undertaken by human rights defenders in the course of their work. In the past, the provisions criminalizing rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, and inciting to sedition have been used to prosecute human rights defenders, especially those perceived to be linked with armed insurgent groups. The ICJ received information that in recent years, however, there has been a significant decrease in the use of these provisions against human rights defenders.119 Despite the significant decrease in their use, based on the analysis of these provisions set out below, which indicates that they are inconsistent with international human rights standards, the ICJ considers that lawmakers should repeal these provisions altogether. A. The crimes of rebellion and sedition in Philippine law and jurisprudence Rebellion under Article 134 of the RPC is described as “rising publicly and taking arms” for the purpose of either removing the entire country or any part thereof from allegiance to the Government or its laws, or depriving the President or legislature, wholly or partially, any of their powers or prerogatives.120 The Supreme Court explains that this crime is invariably committed by several persons and not just a single individual.121 This is a political crime. It requires clear proof of the accused’s motivation. In the absence of proof by the prosecution that the acts were committed for the purpose of either removing the entire country or any part thereof from allegiance to the Government or its laws, or depriving the President or legislature, wholly or partially, any of their powers or prerogatives, the individual may only be convicted, upon proof beyond reasonable doubt, for the underlying crimes committed (e.g. murder, arson, etc.) and not the crime of rebellion.122 Under Article 139 of the RPC, the crime of sedition is committed by a group of persons who, publicly and tumultuously and by force, intimidation, or other illegal means: (a) prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election; (b) prevent the national or local government or any public officer from freely exercising functions, or the execution of an administrative order; (c) inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person of any public officer or employee; (d) commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and (e) despoil, for political or social ends, any person or the local or national government of all or part of its properties.123 The term “tumultuous” is defined under Philippine law as a situation wherein the disturbance is caused by at least four persons.124 Unlike in the crime of rebellion, the principle of absorption does not apply in sedition. Therefore, if in the process of committing the crime of sedition, other crimes such as murder or homicide are committed, those responsible may be charged separately for these crimes.125 Under Article 142 (on inciting to sedition), persons who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, incite others to accomplish any act which constitutes sedition as described under Article 139, may be imprisoned from four to six years or imposed a fine not exceeding Php2,000 (approximately US$44). The incitement to commit sedition may be done through speeches, writings, drama, or emblems. While the crime of rebellion has been characterized by the Supreme Court in several cases as a political crime, the Court said that sedition may or may not be of a political nature. In distinguishing between the two crimes, the Supreme Court explained that the element of public uprising in rebellion must be directed against the government, while in sedition, it is directed against the execution of a law, a particular public officer, or the holding of an election.126 119 ICJ Interview with Cristina Ellazar Palabay, Secretary General of Karapatan, Quezon City, 30 July 2013; ICJ Interview with the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), Quezon City, 30 July 2013; ICJ Interview with Atty. Ricardo A. Suñga III of FLAG, Quezon City, 1 August 2013. 120 Article 134 of the RPC. 121 Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R. No. 172070-72, 172074-76 & 175013, 1 June 2007. 122 People v. Lovedioro, G.R. No. 112235, 29 November 1995. 123 Article 139 of the RPC. 124 Article 251 of the RPC. 125 Rodolfo G. Palattao, The Revised Penal Code Made Easy, supra note 39, at p. 78. 126 People v. Umali, G.R. No. L-5803, 29 November 1954.