82 Dictating the Internet: Philippines In the Philippines, the offence of sedition has been used to target members of the political opposition and critics of the ruling administration of President Rodrigo Duterte. This practice has been enabled through vague and overbroad legal provisions which allow for criminalization of a wide range of potential acts as “seditious”.290 Under Title Three of Philippines’ Revised Penal Code which covers “Crimes against Public Order”, article 139 defines sedition as an offence “committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods”, to “prevent the promulgation of any law”, “prevent the government, or any public officer, from freely exercising its or his functions”, “inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer”, or “commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class”. Article 140 penalizes an act of sedition with approximately six years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to PHP 10,000 (approx. USD 195), while article 141 punishes “conspiracy to commit sedition” with between six months and six years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to PHP 2,000 (approx. USD 39).291 Article 142 thereafter broadly defines the offence of “incitement to sedition” to include incitement “by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations” or through “publish(ing) or circulat(ing) scurrilous libels against the Republic of the Philippines” or which “tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office”, instigate individuals to “cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes”, “disturb the peace of the community”, “the safety and order of the Government” or “knowingly conceal such evil practices”. Such offence is punishable with up to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to PHP 2,000 (approx. USD 39).292 290 See ICJ, ‘Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders’, pp. 20 to 23, Available at: https://www.icj.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/Philippines-Criminal-Law-Provisions-Publications-Report-2015-ENG.pdf 291 Revised Penal Code, sections 139 to 141. Section 140 states that “The leader of a sedition shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos. Other persons participating therein shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos”. Section 141 states that “Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos”. These sentences are subject to periods provided under section 27 of the Revised Penal Code. Philippines uses indeterminate sentencing, and judges have the discretion to impose sentencing based on the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 4103, Available at: http://www.chanrobles.com/actno4103.htm 292 Revised Penal Code, section 142. Section 142 states that “The penalty of prision correccional in