22 Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders defined under Article 134 of the RPC. To evade arrest, the five parliamentarians sought refuge in the offices of the House of Representatives, also known as Batasan, the parliamentary seat of the country. 138 The parliamentarians later became known as the Batasan Five. On 1 June 2007, the rebellion charges against Crispin Beltran and 48 others, including other politicians and human rights defenders, were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that there was no probable cause to indict Crispin Beltran for rebellion. With respect to the case against the other persons charged, including the Batasan Five, the Supreme Court held that their right to a preliminary investigation, which is a substantive right as it forms part of due process in criminal justice, was violated.139 It should be noted that in its judgment on this case, the Supreme Court implicitly admonished the Department of Justice for allowing its prosecutors to be “prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends.”140 Article 142 of the RPC, criminalizing inciting to sedition has also been used to suppress critical voices of human rights defenders, particularly journalists. For example, on 14 February 2007, Daily Tribune publisher Ninez Cacho-Olivares was charged with inciting to sedition for publishing an article alleging that the army willfully engaged in illegal activities and followed illegal orders from the President.141 Charges against Ninez Cacho-Olivares were subsequently dropped. C. The principle of legality and international law regarding rebellion and sedition laws Respect for the principle of legality in criminal law, which is sometimes expressed by the Latin phrase nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law), as alluded to above required that any offense must be established in law and defined precisely and unambiguously, so as to enable individuals to know what acts will make them criminally liable. It also prohibits the imposition of criminal sanctions for acts that were not criminal under national or international law at the time of their commission, and the increase of the penalty for a crime with retroactive effect. It is both inherent and explicit in Article 15 of the ICCPR which, among other things prohibits, retroactivity and guarantees that “no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed”. The principle of legality and the other elements of Article 15 of the ICCPR are safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction, and punishment.142 Among other things they aim to ensure that individuals will not be prosecuted for acts they could not foresee as punishable. Significantly, Article 15 of the ICCPR is a non-derogable right, thus the authorities’ obligation to respect it in full applies even in times of emergency.143 Because they can be overbroadly applied or used arbitrarily to detain and prosecute individuals, vague laws violate the principle of legality inherent in Article 15 of the ICCPR. They can also violate the States’ obligations under Article 9 of the ICCPR, which requires states to respect and protect the rights to liberty and security of the person, and the prohibition of arbitrary detention.144 The Human Rights Committee noted that “[t]he substantive grounds for arrest or detention must be prescribed by law, and should be defined with sufficient precision to avoid overly broad or arbitrary interpretation or application”.145 Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee opined that overly broad sedition laws can endanger freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the ICCPR,146 and noted that invoking national security and sedition laws to prosecute journalists and human rights defenders is incompatible with Article 19 (3) of 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 Ibid. Ibid. Vicente P. Ladlad, et al v. State Prosecutor, et al, G.R. Nos. 172070-72, G.R. Nos. 172074-76, and G.R. No. 175013, 1 June 2007. Committee to Protect Journalists, Attacks on the Press in 2007 - Philippines, February 2008. http://www.refworld.org/ docid/47c5677a2.html (Accessed August 2014); “Newspaper trio in Philippines face sedition charges”, Taipei Times, 16 Feb. 2007. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/02/16/2003349246 (Accessed August 2014). Pietraroia v. Uruguay, Communication No. 44/1979, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 76 (1984), paras. 13.2 and 17. Article 4 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 on Article 9 (Liberty and security of person), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, (advance unedited version) para. 22; see also Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on Algeria, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.95 (1998), para. 11. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 on Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, (advance unedited version) para 22. Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on Hong Kong, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.117 (1999), para. 18.