Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security The Philippines: The Philippines has some limited anti-SLAPP protections in the environmental context. Notably, these procedures were not created by the legislature but rather by the Supreme Court in 2010 in their Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, following multistakeholder discussions.112 The Rules establish a SLAPP defence when legal actions are filed to “harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse” related to environmental laws and rights. If the defendant in a civil suit claims a lawsuit is a SLAPP, this triggers a summary hearing where the defendant must prove by substantial evidence that his or her acts were legitimately for the protection of the environment, while the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the action is a valid claim rather than a SLAPP. Based on the hearing, the court can decide to dismiss the action with prejudice (meaning it cannot be subsequently refiled). The defendant can also file a counterclaim for damages, attorney’s fees and costs. 113 The SLAPP defence is also available in criminal cases, triggering a summary hearing with the same burdens of proof as with civil suits although, for criminal cases, the judge dismisses the case if the accused shows that it was filed with intent to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle legal recourse.114 National Security Restrictions ostensibly based on national security, which is one of the legitimate grounds for restricting freedom of expression under international law, are a common area of abuse. It is legitimate for States to protect national security. For example, sharing sensitive security information about a State’s ability to protect itself, such as from physical or cyberattack, can pose a genuine risk to people’s lives. On the other hand, it is often very difficult to challenge national security restrictions on freedom of expression in court or otherwise. Furthermore, such restrictions are often used in a manner that is clearly rights abusive, such as to prevent criticism of the military or security establishment, or to suppress legitimate dissent (particularly from minorities in separatist or conflict areas) which does not pose any real threat of violence. This section outlines general standards which guide restrictions on freedom of expression based on national security grounds, followed by a more in-depth discussion of restrictions based on anti-terrorism and the issue of State secrets. In addition to official human rights sources, it refers to two highly influential sets of soft-law standards, the Johannesburg Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, April 2010, pp. 96-97, https://bit.ly/3UdEdVp. Supreme Court of the Philippines, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, 13 April 2010, Rule 6, https://bit.ly/3zSjP4e. 114 Ibid., Rule 19. 112 113 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 26