Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders or public health, which is a recognized exception under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR.163 In its judgment the Court also expressed the view that B.P. 880 does not violate Article 19 of the ICCPR (guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression) since the law is content-neutral, with the “time, place and manner” restriction thereon limited to the “clear and present danger standard” and espouses a “maximum tolerance” policy.164 Significantly, the Court noted however that Section 15 of the law, requiring every municipality to establish “freedom parks” where peaceful assemblies may proceed without a permit, was not being implemented. The Court thus ruled that in cities where no such “freedom parks” exist, no permits shall be required for public assemblies.165 Four years later, in Integrated Bar Association v. Atienza, the Supreme Court again upheld the constitutionality of B.P. 880 but clarified that municipal governments could not arbitrarily deny permits under B.P. 880 without the authorities citing a specific reason for the denial.166 Article 146 of the RPC, on the other hand, defines the offence of illegal assemblies. The provision penalizes organizers and leaders of, and participants in public assemblies attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing criminal acts or any meeting where participants thereof are incited to commit treason, rebellion, sedition, or assault upon a public officer or his representative. Those convicted of being leaders or organizers of illegal assemblies may be punished by 6 to 8 years’ imprisonment. Individuals convicted solely as participants (i.e., for being present at such an assembly) may be imposed the penalty of imprisonment of 6 months, if they are unarmed. If they are found to be armed, they may be imprisoned for 6 years. If a participant is found to be carrying an unlicensed firearm, the law presumes that he or she intended to commit illegal acts, and makes that individual punishable as a leader of such an assembly. In 1972, when President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, acts described in Article 146 were considered political crimes. Human rights defenders who organized or participated in public assemblies were charged under this provision. Persons who were charged under this provision were then prosecuted before military tribunals, pursuant to General Order No. 12.167 Charges under Article 146, however, are no longer tried before military tribunals. Furthermore, the ICJ has not received information that indicates that human rights defenders continue to be prosecuted under this provision. B. B.P. 880 and Article 146 of the RPC are inconsistent with international standards safeguarding the right to freedom of peaceful assembly The right to assemble peacefully is enshrined in Article 21 of the ICCPR. While this right may be limited, restrictions must be (a) provided by and in conformity with the law; (b) imposed only in the interests of protecting national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; and (c) must be “necessary in a democratic society” for achieving one of these purposes.168 A close examination of Article 146 of the RPC and B.P. 880 reveal that they are inconsistent with international standards on the right to peaceful assembly. Article 146 is vague and overbroad. One of the types of assemblies defined as illegal under this provision is “any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission of crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or any of his agents.” As mentioned above, the provisions criminalizing rebellion and sedition and incitement to rebellion and sedition under the RPC describe acts that are imprecisely defined. These provisions, therefore, risk broad interpretation or arbitrary interpretation or application. 163 164 165 166 167 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Integrated Bar Association v. Atienza, G.R. No. 175241, 24 February 2010. General Order No. 12, 30 September 1972. http://www.lawphil.net/executive/genor/go1972/genor_12_1972.html (Accessed August 2014). 168 Article 21 of the ICCPR; Viktor Korneenko and Others v. Belarus, Human Rights Committee Communication No. 1274/2004, UN Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1274/2004 (2006), para. 7.3 (noting any restrictions on the right to freedom of association requires these elements). 25