00:00The National Bureau of Investigation investigated the heavy and dangerous statements of former President Rodrigo Duterte and his son, Vice President Sara Duterte.
00:13The words they used, do they have any answer in the law?
00:19Find out in the testimony of Joseph Moro.
00:21When I was killed, kill BBM, Lisa Araneta, and Martin Romales.
00:31I'm challenged to the military itself. If they are the protectors of the Constitution, are they willing to still protect the President who is a drug addict for another four years?
00:48The words of Vice President Sara Duterte and former President Rodrigo Duterte are now being investigated by the National Bureau of Investigation.
00:56But what is the answer in the law, if there are any, of this kind of statements?
01:01For the lawyers we talked to, it's not just a simple freedom of speech.
01:07What we're talking about here is the newly constituted authority, the President, and the public officer.
01:17Although you shouldn't be penalized for your speech, but there are certain speeches like incitement.
01:22Under the revised penal code, there are several speeches that are penalized.
01:29For the former Integrated Bar of the Philippines, President Atty. Domingo Cayoza, the violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is punishable by life imprisonment.
01:39In particular, Section 4 of this act, which is considered terrorism, is the act of killing, injuring, or putting a person in danger.
01:48The anti-terrorism law is very broad. If you were the prosecutor, you would rather use this, number one, because you have more leeway.
02:00It punishes threat to commit terrorism, Section 5. It also punishes conspiracy to commit terrorism.
02:09And what's conspiracy under that law? Two or more. You so fear, or you intimidate the government.
02:17But it's not necessary to make a plan before being punished.
02:21The act itself need not be executed because if it's anti-terrorism law, a plan, a proposal, a conspiracy, even if you don't execute, is already covered by the law.
02:34That doesn't need for the threat to be active. The fact that the threat is made could already be penalized.
02:44Kayoza also added that aside from the state, there could be a claim for libel or slander.
02:50The most serious complainant with respect to the vice president is the first lady because she made allegations that she was the one who bribed them first.
03:01She said that she was the one who gave the envelope for the bribe. In the sense, that's what she said.
03:10So you are actually inflicting a crime against the first lady.
03:17In statements about the military's support for the president in similar situations, it could be the basis for the complaint inciting to sedition.
03:27If those statements or utterances that you make tend to disturb the person from performing the functions of their office, that's an arguable element.
03:41If it could instigate others to do it themselves for unlawful purposes, if your speech will lead to stirring up the people against lawful authorities.
03:55But this could not be easily proven.
03:58The statements are suggested. It's not explicit in the incitement. But I think that while it may be difficult to prove the intent,
04:12if I were the judge, I would also look at the whole thing.
04:17In effect, what she's saying is, you should say something like a withdrawal of support.
04:22That's the usual scheme that is used so that it won't become coup d'etat because our laws now define and punish coup d'etat.
04:36What's in there is a swift attack.
04:38What those who want to incite coup d'etat are doing is not to say that it's a fight, but to say withdraw.
04:48For the lawyers we spoke to this morning, to say what the violations of the law are,
04:55an investigation needs to be carried out in order to investigate a strong case.
05:00For GMA Integrated News, Joseph Morong, for Tutok 24 Horas.
05:06For GMA Integrated News, Joseph Morong, for Tutok 24 Horas.
Comments