No to Cha-Cha: Marcos Jr. Shuts Down Push for Constitutional Reform

 

Introduction

Sedition laws in the Philippines date back to the early 20th century, when the country was under American colonial rule. The current sedition law, Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, was enacted in 1930 under US Governor-General Dwight F. Davis.

This provision makes it a crime to engage in "speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems" aimed at undermining the government or depriving the state of its legitimate authority. Penalties range from a minimum of 6 years and 1 day to a maximum of 12 years imprisonment.

Sedition charges have frequently been used against critics of sitting presidents and their policies throughout Philippine history. From the martial law years under Ferdinand Marcos to the Arroyo and Aquino administrations, journalists, activists and opposition leaders have faced allegations of sedition.

Under President Rodrigo Duterte, sedition complaints have made a resurgence as a tool to suppress dissent. Critics allege the administration has weaponized the colonial-era law to persecute its detractors and instill a climate of fear. High-profile sedition cases in recent years have renewed debate over the validity of this contentious law in modern Philippine democracy.

Duterte Administration's Stance

The Duterte administration has been a strong proponent of using sedition charges against critics of the government. President Duterte himself has expressed support for sedition laws, stating that they are necessary to "protect the state."

Under Duterte's presidency, accusations of sedition and inciting to sedition have become increasingly common. Many opposition leaders, journalists, and activists have found themselves facing charges. Duterte and his allies have accused them of plotting to discredit and overthrow the administration.

Critics argue that sedition laws are being abused to silence dissent. The government claims the laws are needed to counter destabilization efforts and defend Philippine democracy. However, some argue the laws themselves are anti-democratic and reminiscent of the Marcos dictatorship.

Recent Sedition Cases

The Duterte administration has aggressively pursued sedition charges against its critics. Some prominent cases include:

• In early 2018, the DOJ filed sedition charges against opposition senators Antonio Trillanes IV and Leila de Lima over accusations that they were involved in ousting Duterte. Both senators denied the allegations and claimed the charges were politically motivated.

• In July 2019, sedition charges were filed against Vice President Leni Robredo and 35 other opposition figures over allegations of involvement in "Oust Duterte" plots. The charges accused them of engaging in cyberlibel against Duterte. Robredo denounced the charges as "baseless" and an attempt to harass and intimidate the opposition.

• Also in July 2019, sedition charges were filed against Catholic priests and bishops critical of Duterte's war on drugs. The charges accused them of conspiring to discredit and oust Duterte. The Catholic Church protested the charges as suppression of dissent and retaliation for the clergy's social activism.

• In early 2020, journalist Maria Ressa and Rappler were convicted of cyber libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which is seen by critics as a form of sedition charge. Ressa accused the Duterte administration of weaponizing the law to silence journalists. The verdict was controversial domestically and internationally.

The series of sedition charges brought by the Duterte administration against opposition figures, clergy, journalists and critics has raised concerns about democratic backsliding and the criminalization of dissent. Critics see it as an attempt to intimidate and silence opposition to Duterte's policies.

Arguments Against Sedition Laws

The prosecution of sedition charges has been criticized on several grounds related to free speech, human rights, and the protection of legitimate political dissent.

• Critics argue that sedition laws infringe on the right to freedom of expression. In a democratic society, people should be free to criticize the government and express dissenting political beliefs without fear of prosecution. Sedition laws are seen as a tool for suppressing political opposition.

• There are concerns that sedition charges are applied arbitrarily to harass and intimidate government critics. Vague, broad definitions of sedition give authorities excessive discretion to limit speech. This violates principles of rule of law and due process.

• International human rights groups have condemned the use of sedition laws, viewing them as a violation of universal human rights principles. There are worries the laws could be abused to undermine civil liberties and democratic institutions.

• Some contend that in the absence of violence or imminent lawless action, speech should never be criminalized regardless of how critical or offensive it may be toward the state. The limits imposed by sedition laws go beyond what is acceptable restraint on free expression.

• It is argued that a healthy democracy requires allowing an open marketplace of ideas, including those that sharply criticize the government and challenge the status quo. Sedition laws detrimentally suppress legitimate political dissent that is vital for public debate.

• Critics say there are less restrictive ways the state can address any harmful consequences of speech without criminalizing expression. Sedition laws are unnecessary when there are laws against libel, incitement to violence, and acts that actually undermine state security.

• There are concerns that sedition laws could be misapplied to punish dissent, impacting opposition politicians, activists, journalists, academics and other groups who play an important role in democracy. This could have a chilling effect on political discourse.

International Comparisons

Sedition laws have a complex history around the world. Many democracies have repealed or narrowed sedition laws over time, recognizing their potential for abuse. However, some countries still retain broad sedition laws similar to the Philippines.

In the United States, the federal sedition law was allowed to expire in 1921, though individual states retained their own sedition laws for longer. The Supreme Court eventually ruled these state laws unconstitutional in the 1960s, finding them too broad and vague. Britain repealed its sedition laws in 2009, though some critics argued this left gaps in addressing extremism.

Malaysia and Singapore both have active sedition laws that have been used against government critics in recent years. The UN has called on these countries to repeal the laws, which it views as limiting free expression. However, the governments argue sedition laws help maintain social harmony in diverse societies.

India retains a sedition law inherited from British colonial rule. It has been used frequently against dissenters, journalists, activists and students. However, the Indian Supreme Court has tried to limit potential overreach by requiring actual incitement to violence in sedition cases. Despite this, many argue the law is still abused for political purposes.

So experiences vary - while mature democracies have moved away from sedition laws, other diverse democracies have retained them, arguing national security and public order require limits on speech that incites. However, critics worry the laws can too easily become political weapons. The debate continues.

Proposed Changes

There have been growing calls in recent years to reform or repeal the sedition laws in the Philippines. Critics argue that the sedition laws are archaic, overly broad, and prone to abuse by those in power.

Some of the proposed changes include:

• Repealing the laws entirely and relying instead on laws against incitement of violence or rebellion. This would get rid of vague prohibitions on speech against the government.

• Amending the laws to narrowly define sedition as only the actual organization of a rebellion or coup. This would protect free speech while still allowing the law to prohibit truly dangerous conduct.

• Removing the prohibition on "speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems" against the government. This language makes virtually any criticism of the government potentially illegal.

• Requiring an imminent danger of lawless action for sedition charges. This would limit charges to speech that poses a truly immediate public danger.

• Shifting the burden of proof to the government to show the speaker had intent to incite lawless action and that imminent danger was likely. This would prevent frivolous charges aimed at silencing dissent.

• Allowing truth as an absolute defense to sedition. This would stop charges against those criticizing actual government misconduct.

While outright repeal may be unlikely in the near term, many hope to see the laws reformed to firmly protect free speech and prevent abuse of power. The sedition laws are increasingly out of step with international norms, and changes could help solidify democratic freedoms in the Philippines.

Impact on Democracy

Sedition laws have long been criticized as antithetical to democracy and free speech. The ability to openly criticize the government is seen as a fundamental aspect of democratic society. By criminalizing certain forms of speech, sedition laws may restrict legitimate political discourse and dissent.

Some argue that democracies should respond to inflammatory speech through open debate and counter-speech rather than criminalization. Political dissent is not necessarily synonymous with advocating violence or public disorder. Democratic governments derive legitimacy and accountability from public discourse and should not limit speech without compelling reasons.

However, others contend that sedition laws are sometimes necessary, even in democracies, to curb speech that genuinely threatens public safety and order. Governments have a duty to prevent violence and chaos that could destabilize society. The boundaries between dissent and dangerous subversion are not always clear. Reasonable sedition laws, narrowly focused on speech that incites imminent criminality, may be viewed as compatible with democratic principles if applied judiciously.

Much depends on how sedition laws are formulated and used in practice. Overly broad laws open the door to abuse for political aims. But context matters - sedition laws that seem draconian during stable, peaceful times may arguably serve different purposes during periods of societal tensions, divisions or threats of violence. Democratic societies continue to grapple with balancing free expression, public order, and national security.

Role of the Courts

Under the Philippine legal system, the courts have an important duty to uphold the constitution and protect civil liberties. The courts act as a check against potential overreach of laws like sedition that could infringe on free speech and expression.

In recent years, the Philippine Supreme Court has taken a strict interpretation of the sedition law, limiting its scope and requiring clear evidence of actual danger to public order. The high court overturned a prominent sedition conviction against opposition lawmakers in 2010, ruling that political speech against the government is not enough to prove sedition.

Lower courts have also exercised caution in sedition prosecutions. In 2019, a Manila judge dismissed a sedition complaint against the vice president, citing a lack of basis that her public statements urged rebellion against authority. The judge held that sedition charges cannot be justified based solely on criticism of the administration.

Judicial oversight provides an important safeguard for democratic principles when applying outdated laws like sedition. By scrutinizing the validity of charges and sufficiency of evidence, the courts ensure the law is not abused to silence dissent. This interpretive role enables gradual reforms while avoiding sudden elimination of legal tools needed to maintain peace and order.

The Philippine judicial system faces public pressure and scrutiny in evaluating sedition cases. Its commitment to upholding constitutional rights and limiting laws that endanger free expression is vital to counter potential excesses of the government's anti-sedition drive.

Public Opinion

The Filipino public has shown mixed views regarding sedition laws and the recent charges. On one hand, public opinion polls have found broad support for President Duterte's policies and leadership. A survey by Pulse Asia in June 2019 showed his approval rating remaining high at 87%. His campaign against drugs and crime, of which the sedition charges are a part, is backed by many citizens.

However, other surveys suggest concerns about impacts on free speech. In a Social Weather Stations poll in July 2019, 60% of respondents said they were worried that criticizing the administration could lead to retaliation. And in an April 2019 survey by the same group, 51% agreed it's dangerous to print or broadcast anything critical of the Duterte administration, versus 43% who disagreed. This suggests many Filipinos recognize the risks posed by restricting political dissent.

Overall, public opinion in the Philippines remains divided on the issue. While Duterte enjoys widespread popularity, some segments of society are worried about implications for democracy and human rights. Views of sedition laws are likely influenced by individual political leanings and perspectives on national security versus civil liberties. More dialogue and understanding of both sides may be needed. But the close split in polls indicates this debate resonates with citizens across the spectrum.

Conclusion

The debate over sedition laws in the Philippines involves complex issues around free speech, public unrest, and national security. While the Duterte administration stands by the use of sedition charges to combat destabilization and threats, critics argue these laws restrict free expression and are open to abuse.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides - the need to maintain public order versus protecting civil liberties. Sedition laws remain in place in many democratic countries, but have also been removed in some as outdated and prone to misuse. Ultimately, it is up to Philippine policymakers, courts, and the public to decide if the benefits of these laws outweigh their potential costs.

As the legal cases around alleged sedition play out, broader questions remain about balancing security, stability, and democratic freedoms. This debate highlights the importance of ongoing discussion, reform, and evolution when it comes to laws governing speech. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line. But an open, evidence-based dialogue on these issues serves the public interest.

Moving forward, the goal should be laws that address real harms without stifling expression or enabling abuse. With thoughtful analysis and input from all sides, the Philippines can work toward a legal framework that defends both democratic order and the vibrant exchange of ideas fundamental to a free society.