INCITING TO SEDITION IN RELATION TO OTHER CRIMES

Source: 

MARLO CAMPANILLA. (2020). INCITING TO SEDITION IN RELATION TO OTHER CRIMES. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from https://www.facebook.com/notes/marlo-campanilla/inciting-to-sedition-in-relation-to-other-crimes/3386608884691991/

 

What is inciting to rebellion?

Inciting to rebellion is committed by any person shall incite others to commit rebellion by speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners. The offender must not be a rebel; otherwise the crime committed is rebellion. He must incite others:

1. To rise publicly;

2. To take up arms against the government (e.g. wage war against the government); and

3. To attain the purpose of rebellion (e.g. to overthrow the government, which means removing the allegiance of the People to the government and its laws from the territory of the Philippines)

In People v. Nabong, G.R. No. 36426, November 3, 1932, at a necrological service on the occasion of the death of a communist leader, accused delivered a speech as follows:

“They committed a real abuse in seizing the flag. The members of the Constabulary are bad because they shoot even innocent women, as it happened in Tayug. In view of this, we ought to be united to suppress that abuse. Overthrow the present government and establish our own government, the government of the poor. Use your whip so that there may be marks on their sides.”

The accused in the Nabong case is not liable for inciting to rebellion since he merely incited the audience to overthrow the government, which is an object of rebellion; but he did not incite them to rise publicly and to take up arms against the government. He was convicted of inciting to sedition.

 

What is proposal to commit rebellion

Proposal to commit is committed by any person, who is decided to commit rebellion and proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

 

What is the difference between inciting to rebellion and proposal to commit rebellion?

In both proposal and inciting to commit rebellion, the offender induces others to commit rebellion. However, in inciting to rebellion, the inducement is made publicly; while in proposal, the inducement is done secretly. According to Albert, there is no proposal where there is publicity in the incitation or provocation. In sum, the offender in proposal to commit rebellion does not induce others by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners.

 

What is inciting to sedition under the original version of Article 142 the Revised Penal Code?

Under the original version of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, inciting to sedition is committed by any person shall incite others to commit sedition by speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners. The offender must not be a participant in sedition; otherwise the crime committed is sedition. He must incite others:

1.    To rise publicly;

2.    To rise tumultuously; and

3.    To attain the purpose of sedition (e.g. to prevent the government or public officer to freely exercise its/his function)

Note: An example of public and tumultuous uprising is Edsa Revolution III.

 

What are the additional forms of inciting to sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code as amended?

Under the original version of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, there is only one form of inciting to sedition. This concept is Spanish. However, Commonwealth Act No. 202 had amended Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code and inserted the prohibited acts under Act No. 292, which is an American origin. The additional forms of inciting to sedition involves seditious utterances or writing or scurrilous libels against the government or its authorities and concealment of seditious practices.

To constitute inciting to sedition, the seditious utterance or writing or scurrilous libels against the Government, or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof must:

a.    Tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office; or

b.    Tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes; or

c.     Suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or

d.    Tend or lead to stir up the people against the lawful authorities; or

e.    Tend or lead to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government;

f.      

In People v. Perez, G.R. No. 21049, December 22, 1923, accused, a municipal secretary, and the municipal president engaged in a discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General Wood, which resulted in Perez shouting a number of times:

“The Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood’s head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos for he has killed our independence.”

This is inciting to sedition of the second form because the words uttered: (1) instigated the poor to cabal and meet together for unlawful purpose; (2) suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies; (3) tended to stir up the people against the lawful authorities; and (4) tended to disturb the peace of the community and the order of the Government.

Perez was convicted of violation of Act No. 292, which is now punishable as inciting to sedition because of Commonwealth Act No. 202.

In Espuelas v. People, G.R. No. L-2990, December 17, 1951, accused had his picture taken, making it appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended from a tree. He sent copies of his photograph to several newspapers for their publication with a suicide note, which contained statements that he committed suicide because he was not pleased with the administration of President Roxas, that our government is infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis, and that he is ashamed of our government under Roxas and cannot hold high his brows to the world with this dirty government. He instructed his children to burn the pictures of Roxas if and when they come across them. This is inciting to sedition of the second form since this scurrilous libel suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies and tended to stir up the people against the lawful authorities.

 

Is proposal to commit sedition punishable under the Revised Penal Code?

The Revised Penal Code provides a penalty for proposal to commit rebellion but not proposal to commit sedition. However, the provision on inciting to sedition is sweeping enough to cover proposal to commit sedition.

 

What is cyber inciting to rebellion or cyber inciting to sedition?

If inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition is committed by using information or communication technology such as Facebook or twitter, the penalty for this crime shall be increase because of Section 6 of RA No. 10175 or Cyber Crime Law. If this is the case, the crime may be designated as cyber inciting to rebellion or cyber inciting to sedition.

 

Is the concept of inciting to rebellion and inciting to sedition with respect to public inducement the same?

In inciting to rebellion and inciting to sedition, the inducement is made publicly or by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners.

However, the other forms inciting to sedition, which is an American origin, can be committed with or without publicity. In sum, the inducement may be made through a meeting or chat group. In the case of Perez, the accused in a meeting was discussing with two persons regarding the administration of Governor General Woods when he uttered the seditious words of cutting the head of Wood with the use of bolo. He was not delivering a seditious speech in a public plaza. He was convicted of inciting to sedition.

 

Is it required in inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition that the third persons or audience be actually incited to commit rebellion, sedition or any evil acts against the government or public authorities?

No. It is not required.

Article 146 of the Revised Penal Code punishes illegal assembly where the audience are actually incited to commit rebellion or sedition. If the audience in an assembly are incited to commit rebellion or sedition, the audience, leader and organizer are liable for illegal assembly.

If the offender in a public plaza tried to incite audience to commit rebellion or sedition, he is liable for inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition. However, if the audience are actually incited to commit rebellion or sedition, the inciter shall be prosecuted for the graver crime of illegal assembly as leader; the organizer and the incited audience are also liable. In sum, the intention of the law is to make successful incitement as an element of illegal assembly but not as an element of inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition. To rule otherwise is to obliterate the distinction between inciting to sedition or inciting to rebellion and illegal assembly committed by a leader.

Moreover, there is nothing in the Revised Penal Code which required that the persons being incited are successfully incited to commit rebellion or sedition or any other evil acts. In the case of Perez, there is no showing that the two persons, who heard to seditious utterance involving the killing of Wood by the accused Perez, were successfully incited to kill or assassinate Wood.

 

Is intent to commit rebellion, sedition or any other evil act such as to assassinate the President an element of inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition?

No. It is not required.

In proposal to commit rebellion, the offender must be decided to commit rebellion. In sum, intent to commit rebellion on the part of the offender is essential in proposal to commit rebellion.

However, in inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition, it is not required that the offender is decided to commit rebellion, sedition or any other evil acts such as assassinating the President. In the case of Perez, there is no showing that the accused is decided to kill the Governor General (now President) by using a bolo, and yet, he was convicted.

In inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition, what is important is not the intent to commit rebellion, sedition or any other evil acts such as assassinating the President but the inciting effects of making seditious speech, writing or utterance on other persons.

 

What is the standard to be used in determining whether the words, speech or writing is seditious?

The Supreme Court in several cases is using the clear and present danger principle in connection with right to assemble. If this principle will be used in connection with seditious speech or utterance, a call to kill the President is not inciting to sedition. There is no clear and present danger that the President will be killed in a call to kill him. Without a clear and present danger, the statement is not inciting to sedition.

According to Dean Antonio Gregorio, the dangerous tendency rule and not the clear and present danger rule is generally adopted in the Philippines regarding sedition cases. It is enough that the words used may tend to create the danger of public uprising. It is not necessary that there be a clear and present danger of the substantive evil which the law aims to prevent.

However, Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code has adopted the dangerous tendency rule. To commit the crime of inciting to sedition, the speech or scurrilous libels must have a seditious tendency. The phrases “tend to disturb or obstruct,” “tend to instigate others,” and “lead or tend to stir up the people” in Article 142 is a confirmation of the “dangerous tendency principle” as the controlling rule in determining if the speeches, utterances or writings are seditious.

Applying the dangerous tendency rule, the fact that the public are not actually incited to kill the President or to commit rebellion or sedition is not indispensable for a successful prosecution of the crime of inciting to sedition. What is important is that the seditious words have a tendency to incite the public.

In the case of Perez, there is no a present and clear danger that Governor Wood would be assassinated by means of a bolo. It is almost impossible to assassinate the most powerful public officer in the country by merely using a bolo. And yet, he was convicting of inciting sedition.

 

Is the law on inciting to sedition unconstitutional since it is not based on the clear and present dangerous rule?

No. It is constitutional.

In Ponsica vs. Ignalaga, G.R. No. L-72301, July 31, 1987, the petitioner questioned the constitutionality of Article 142 on the ground that it was "borrowed" from the U.S. Sedition Act of 1198, which in turn has been struck down as inconsistent with the American Constitution. The Supreme Court sustained the argument of the Solicitor General, to wit: “Our law on inciting to sedition is not akin to the US Sedition Act of 1798, which was imposed on the American colonies by their British ruler. With the success of the American Revolution, the 1798 Sedition Act naturally ceased to have effect as it would be utterly incongruous to punish those who sought the overthrow of the British government in America. To annul our law on sedition is to give license to those who seek the application of lawless methods in the advancement of their political views. Our constitution surely does not contemplate this."

Of course, the Supreme Court may in a future case declare the dangerous tendency rule in Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code as unconstitutional or abandon Ponsica vs. Ignalaga case.

 

Is lack of intent to incite other persons to commit rebellion, seditions or evil act such as assassination of the President because the seditious statements are merely made as a joke a defense?

Inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition is malum in se. Dolo or evil intent is an element of this crime. However, whether lack of intent to incite is a defense in this crime or not is still debatable.

 

Source:
MARLO CAMPANILLA. (2020). INCITING TO SEDITION IN RELATION TO OTHER CRIMES. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from https://www.facebook.com/notes/marlo-campanilla/inciting-to-sedition-in-relation-to-other-crimes/3386608884691991/