Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia Following the passage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, offences committed under articles 139 to 142 on online platforms became subject to penalties “one degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code”.293 This is deeply problematic, as the CPA takes as its starting point the existing overbroad provisions in the Revised Penal Code and extends their reach to the online sphere, while increasing the penalties imposed on expression or information shared online. As noted above, articles 139 to 142 cover not only writings, acts or cartoons deemed “seditious”, but also “other representations” which can affect nearly any medium of communication. Legitimate advocacy regarding bills or laws or calls for legal reform could well fall under the broadly conceived “seditious” act of “preventing the promulgation of any law.” Expression of criticism of government policy or the conduct of a State official could be prosecuted as conduct which will “prevent the government, or any public officer, from freely exercising its or his functions.” Reporting of issues of public concern, such as corruption could be labelled as “seditious” and intended to “commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class”. Similarly, prevention of the “cabal(ling) and meet(ing) together for unlawful purposes” could be invoked as a ground to justify the impairment of the right to the freedom of association and assembly of civil society or union groups who press the government on matters of public interest. “Disturbing the peace of the community” and “the safety and order of the Government” can cover nearly any form of civil action, human rights advocacy or calls for legal or administrative reform. Any of these activities conducted online may run afoul not only of the Revised Penal Code, but also the CPA, and incur more severe penalties in contravention of Philippines’ international legal obligations. Case of Vice President Maria Leonor (‘Leni’) Robredo and others In July 2019, the Philippine National Police’s Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) filed criminal complaints alleging incitement to sedition and other charges, including libel and cyber libel, against Vice President Leni Robredo and 35 other individuals who had its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos 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”. 293 See Section V below, for further analysis of the CPA. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Republic Act No. 10175 (‘CPA’), section 6, Available at: https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2012/ ra_10175_2012.html; See above foonote 290 indicating Philippines uses indeterminate sentencing, where ‘one degree higher’ would enable the judge to impose penalties under a penalty term more severe than the one prescribed for under the Revised Penal Code. 83