Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders IX: Conclusion and Recommendations The process of updating the Philippines’ criminal laws provides the Congress of the Philippines with an opportunity to ensure that the Philippines’ laws on national security crimes and law enforcement practices conform to international standards. In order for the Philippines to fulfill its obligations under international law to protect all persons within its jurisdiction and subject to its effective control, in the context of ongoing threats from insurgencies and terrorism, in a manner that is consistent with human rights law, it must ensure that its national security laws do not infringe upon human rights or the work of human rights defenders. While many of the RPC’s outdated national security laws are not currently being enforced, as long as they remain law, their vague and overbroad provisions may be enforced in the future in violation of human rights law and they continue to have a chilling effect on the work of human rights defenders. With a view to ensuring that the process of amending the Revised Penal Code meets the intended aim of reflecting international best practices and being anchored in human rights, the ICJ recommends the following: On Articles 154, 358 to 355, and Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act: 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. 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. 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. On Articles 134, 138, 139 to 142 of the RPC: 1. The Government of the Philippines should repeal Article 134 (on rebellion) and Article 138 (on inciting to rebellion) of the RPC. 2. The Government of the Philippines should also adopt the proposal to repeal Articles 139 to 142 on sedition and inciting to sedition, which was made under the 15th Congress. 41