42 Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders 3. At a minimum, Articles 134 (on rebellion), Article 138 (on inciting to rebellion), and the provisions on sedition from Articles 139 to 142 of the RPC must be substantially amended in a manner that conforms to the principle of legality and the rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to participate in public affairs, guaranteed in international law. The wording of the laws must be precise enough to allow individuals to foresee what actions are unlawful and in a manner that will reduce the possibility of arbitrary application of the laws, including against human rights defenders, or the violation of the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to participate in public affairs. On Article 146 of the RPC and Batas Pambansa 880: 1. The Government of the Philippines must revise Article 146 of the RPC and B.P. 880, as neither is compatible with international human rights law. In crafting a new law that would constitute a lawful restriction on the right to peaceably assemble, the Government should ensure that the presumption of the new law is in favor of holding peaceful assemblies and such presumption should be established in a clear and explicit manner. There should be no requirement of prior authorization to assemble, but at most a notification procedure, ideally only for large meetings that may interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic, so as to allow for rerouting of cars and pedestrians. The law must not subject participants or organizers of public protests to criminal or administrative liability, solely for failing to notify authorities of the meeting. The law and its implementation must also be revised to ensure that organizers and participants are not held responsible or liable for the violent conduct of others in the course of an assembly. 2. Law enforcement officers must be instructed and trained to respect the right of individuals to peacefully assemble, in a manner that is consistent with the respect for the right guaranteed in the ICCPR. Any law enforcement officer who violates the right to peacefully assemble should be held accountable, and victims of violations should have the right to an effective remedy and redress. 3. Law enforcement officers’ response to unlawful assemblies must be consistent with respect for human rights; this requires, among other things, that they must respect the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Thus, the authorities must ensure that law enforcement officials receive regular and continuing training on the use of force which is consistent with these Principles. Law enforcement officials who use excessive or otherwise unlawful force must be held to account. Consistent with these Principles, in cases of unlawful assemblies that are non-violent, law enforcement officers should avoid the use of force altogether. When that is not practicable or in the event of the outbreak of violence, any force used must be restricted to the minimum necessary, and must be proportionate. In the policing of violent assemblies, law enforcement officers may use firearms only in self- defense or in defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury or to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving a grave threat to life, and only when less dangerous means are not practicable.  In any event, the intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. On Article 147 of the RPC: Article 147 of the RPC should be revised in a manner to ensure that it is consistent with the principle of legality and the right of all individuals, without discrimination, to enjoy freedom of association. The prohibition of associations in the new law should extend only to those that present a “clear and imminent danger resulting in a flagrant violation of domestic laws” that are themselves consistent with international human rights standards. The law must ensure that suspension or involuntary dissolution of an association is a measure of last resort, which is sanctioned by an independent and impartial court. Furthermore, Article 147 should be revised so that it does not criminalize membership in the absence of active unlawful conduct beyond affirmation of membership.