Jesse Andres vs. Duterte: The DOJ’s Sedition Probe Unpacked

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo+- November 27, 2024

WHEN a former president calls for military intervention, the lines between free speech and sedition blur. Rodrigo Duterte’s sharp critique of President Marcos Jr.’s ‘fractured governance’ has the DOJ on high alert, with Justice Undersecretary Jesse Andres suggesting his remarks may cross a dangerous legal boundary. Supporters like Salvador Panelo claim otherwise, but this analysis uncovers the Philippine laws and precedents that could determine Duterte’s fate.

Setting the Stage: A Contextual Overview

Duterte’s statements, made during a press conference, accused President Marcos of being a “drug addict” and suggested only the military could resolve the country’s governance issues. These remarks came amid investigations into Vice President Sara Duterte’s handling of confidential funds, raising concerns about potential destabilization efforts.

Justice Undersecretary Andres’ remarks point to possible sedition under Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits acts intended to prevent the execution of laws or incite public uprising. Duterte’s statements, directed at the military, have been characterized by critics as destabilizing and an affront to democratic governance. Conversely, defenders argue these are exercises of free speech and reminders of constitutional duties.

The Legal Case for Sedition: Supporting Jesse Andres’ Assertion

1. Applicability of Article 139 (Revised Penal Code)

Article 139 defines sedition as acts inciting people to rise publicly and tumultuously to prevent the execution of laws or inflict harm for political ends. Duterte’s statement arguably:

Calls for military action: His suggestion that only the military can “correct” governance can be interpreted as urging disobedience or intervention contrary to constitutional norms.
Targets key officials: Referring to Marcos as a “drug addict” undermines the President’s credibility and may incite dissent within the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

2. Context of Sara Duterte’s Statements

Justice Andres suggests a connection between Duterte’s remarks and VP Duterte’s pronouncements, which included veiled warnings against political opponents. A coordinated pattern could indicate broader destabilization efforts, heightening the legal significance of the statements.

3. Ethical Standards for Public Officials

Duterte’s remarks may violate the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) by fostering distrust in government institutions. Although no longer in office, his influence as a former president carries ethical obligations to promote stability.

4. Jurisprudential Precedents

In People v. Perez (G.R. No. L-21049, 1923), the Supreme Court held that speech inciting violence or public disorder is punishable under sedition laws.
The Court has consistently ruled that free speech does not extend to statements endangering public order or inciting rebellion (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 2008).

The Freedom of Speech Defense: Counterarguments to Sedition

1. Protected Political Speech

Panelo’s defense cites the constitutional guarantee of free speech (Article III, Section 4, 1987 Constitution). Duterte’s statements, while provocative, could be interpreted as political commentary rather than incitement to violence.

2. Absence of Tumultuous Public Uprising

Sedition requires evidence of public disorder or intent to incite it. Duterte’s remarks, delivered in a press conference, lacked the immediate, direct call to arms necessary for sedition under Article 139.

3. Military’s Professionalism

Critics argue that the AFP’s loyalty to the Constitution mitigates any real threat of sedition. Without evidence of military disobedience or mobilization, the statements may fall short of actionable incitement.

4. Jurisprudential Precedents

The Supreme Court has upheld broad protections for political speech, emphasizing the need for a clear and present danger test (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 2006). Duterte’s remarks may not meet this standard.

The Legal Balance: Which Side Tips the Scales?

The legal arguments against sedition are stronger, primarily due to the lack of a direct and immediate threat to public order. While Duterte’s remarks are ethically questionable, proving sedition requires concrete evidence of intent and effect, which is currently lacking. However, the context of VP Sara Duterte’s controversies complicates the narrative, warranting further investigation to determine potential connections.

Recommendations

For Duterte

Exercise caution in public statements to avoid undermining constitutional governance or inciting unintended consequences.
Clarify remarks to demonstrate commitment to democratic processes.

For Jesse Andres and the DOJ

Investigate thoroughly but cautiously, balancing national security concerns with the protection of free speech.
Ensure impartiality to avoid perceptions of political persecution.

For VP Sara Duterte

Address allegations regarding confidential funds transparently to restore public trust.
Distance herself from statements or actions that could be construed as destabilizing.

For the Filipino People

Demand accountability from all public officials while safeguarding democratic freedoms.
Foster vigilance against rhetoric undermining institutional stability.

Conclusion

Duterte’s remarks may not cross the legal threshold for sedition, but their potential to erode trust in governance is undeniable. As political leaders continue to wield divisive rhetoric, the Filipino people must demand accountability, unity, and ethical leadership. The path forward depends not only on legal rulings but on the collective will to rise above partisan conflicts.