Inciting to sedition, an outdated penal provision

To strengthen the right to freedom of expression, party-list lawmakers have

proposed the deletion of Article 142 from the Revised Penal ode which penali!es the act
of "inciting to sedition#$
"This is an o%tdated penal provision which was &ased on Article 2'2 of the
Philippine ommission, a law prom%lgated d%ring the American occ%pation and intended
to clamp down on dissent,$ AKBAYAN party-list Reps# (&arra ")arry$ *# +%tierre! and
,alden )ello declared#
+%tierre! and )ello are p%shing for the passage of -) 4.2/ entitled "An Act
repealing Article 142 of Act 0o# 121/, as amended, otherwise known as the "Revised
Penal ode of the Philippines#$
Article 142 of Act 0o# 121/, as amended, reads3 "The penalty of prision
correctional in its maxim%m period and a fine not exceeding 2,444 pesos shall &e imposed
%pon any person who, witho%t taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, sho%ld incite
others to the accomplishment of any of the act which constit%te sedition, &y means of
speeches, proclamations, writings, em&lems, cartoons, &anners, or other representations
tending to the same end, or %pon any person or persons who shall %tter seditio%s words or
speeches, rite, p%&lish, or circ%late sc%rrilo%s li&els against the +overnment of
Philippines, or any of the d%ly constit%ted a%thorities thereof, or which the f%nctions of his
office, or which tend to dist%r& or o&str%ct any lawf%l officer in exec%ting the f%nctions of
his office, or which tend to instigate others to ca&al and meet together for %nlawf%l
p%rposes, or which s%ggest or incite re&ellio%s conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend
to stir %p the people against the lawf%l a%thorities or to dist%r& the peace of the
comm%nity, the safety and order of the +overnment, or who shall knowingly conceal s%ch
evil practices#$
The a%thors noted that the Revised Penal ode 5RA 121/6, as amended, which was
enacted in 1'12, has &een amended to accommodate &asic constit%tional rights#
They also noted that the more than fifty years gap &etween the enactment of the
ode and the 1'2. Philippine onstit%tion res%lted to the apparent conflict &etween the
rights granted &y the f%ndamental law and some acts defined &y the Penal ode as
offenses#
"The onstit%tion grants every person freedom of speech which is affirmed and
esta&lished &y Article 1' of the 7niversal 8eclaration on -%man Rights,$ the a%thors said#
9%rthermore, Article 1' of the 70:s (nternational ovenant on ivil and Political
NR # 3580B
SEPT. 5, 2014
Rights, to which the Philippines is a signatory to, states that3
"16 ;veryone shall have the right to hold opinions witho%t interference#
26 ;veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression< this right shall incl%de
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or thro%gh any other media
of his choice#
16 The exercise of the rights provided for in Paragraph 2 of this article carries with
it special d%ties and responsi&ilities# (t may therefore &e s%&=ect to certain restrictions, &%t
these shall only &e s%ch as are provided &y law and are necessary3 a6 9or respect of the
right or rep%tations of others< &6 9or the protection of national sec%rity or of p%&lic order,
or of p%&lic health or morals#$
As gleaned from the provisions of the onstit%tion and the 70 ovenant, the
a%thors stressed that "the offense 5inciting to sedition6 has no room %nder a government
which expressly promotes freedom of speech and expressions#$
"+iven that inciting to sedition is committed thro%gh forms of h%man expression,
penali!ing it clearly violates the constit%tional mandate to promote and protect the
citi!en:s right to freedom of expression# (t s%ppresses the right to free speech and
expression, and may &e %sed to p%nish citi!ens who are highly critical of the government,$
the a%thors concl%ded# 5146 dpt