Crime expert explains "Inciting to kill the President"

Read more: Judge Marlo Campanilla. May 12, 2020. Inciting to kill the President. www.facebook.com/notes/marlo-campanilla/inciting-to-kill-the-president/3382326011786945. Under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Codes, the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding Four hundred thousand pesos (P400, 000) shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government, or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices.
[The] Perez Principle. Read more: Judge Marlo Campanilla. May 12, 2020. Inciting to kill the President. www.facebook.com/notes/marlo-campanilla/inciting-to-kill-the-president/3382326011786945.

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 under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code because the seditious words: (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.

The penalty for inciting to sedition is prision correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years). If the seditious words are posted in social media, the penalty shall be graduated to prision mayor in its minimum period (6 years and 1 day to 8 years) because of the qualifying circumstance of using information or communication technology under Section 6 of RA No. 10175. In such a situation, the crime can be described as cyber inciting to sedition.

[The] Dangerous Tendency Test. Read more: Judge Marlo Campanilla. May 12, 2020. Inciting to kill the President. www.facebook.com/notes/marlo-campanilla/inciting-to-kill-the-president/3382326011786945.

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.

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.

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.

Applying the dangerous tendency rule, the fact that the public are not actually incited to kill the President 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.

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. However, in the absence of a judicial declaration of unconstitutionality, a law is presumed to be constitutional.

Note: This discussion is for the benefit of those who will take the bar examination. This posting should not be used in discussing an actual case. Read more: Judge Marlo Campanilla. May 12, 2020. Inciting to kill the President. www.facebook.com/notes/marlo-campanilla/inciting-to-kill-the-president/3382326011786945.