Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders E. Recommendations 1. The Government of the Philippines must either repeal Article 154 of the RPC or at a minimum, it may amend it in a manner which ensures that its only restrictions on freedom of expression are: (a) necessary to safeguard national security, public order, public health or morals, or respect for the rights of others; (b) proportionate, using the least intrusive means available; and (c) limited to speech presenting a “clear and present danger ” to one of such interests. The laws setting out such restrictions must be precise and clear. Measures must also be adopted to ensure that prosecutorial discretion is not abused and that this provision is never utilized to suppress the exercise of the right to freedom of expression including by journalists and human rights defenders. 2. Building on the recommendations of the Supreme Court to judges in 2008 that in imposing penalties for libel, preference should be given to imposing a fine instead of imprisonment, and consistent with those of international human rights bodies, the Government of the Philippines should also repeal all criminal defamation laws, including those set out in Articles 353 to 355, Articles 358 to 362 of the RPC and Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. The law should be amended to make civil liability proceedings the sole form of redress for complaints of damage to reputation.116 In so amending the law, measures must be taken to ensure that civil liability cannot be imposed in a manner that unduly restricts the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. In keeping with the clarification of the Human Rights Committee, truth and public interest in the subject of the criticism must be recognized as defenses. Statements made against public figures that may be erroneous but made without malice should not be actionable.117 As recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, civil liability should include non-pecuniary remedies, such as apology, rectification and clarification and the law must ensure that financial awards are strictly proportionate to the actual harm suffered, and not to punish the person responsible for the harm.118 116 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, UN Doc. A/ HRC/14/23 (2010) at para. 83. 117 Human Rights Committee General Comment 34, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, para 47. 118 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, UN Doc. A/ HRC/14/23 (2010), para 83. 19