A few more slots left for June 23: Register  by emailing  keijei1997@gmail.com

to receive your Zoom digits on June 22 (tomorrow) to the Virtual Interactive Forum

Constitutional and  Historical Context: Inciting to Sedition, Inciting to Terror on June 23 at 2pm

   (with movie clips, music vids, and performances by BTS at halftime) Part of the Intro

Constitutional Law Framework of “Rebellions” , “Seditions”
In constitutional law:
Constitutionalist then Law Dean Vicente Sinco on Revolution or Direct State Action: “It sometimes happens that the people rise in revolt against the existing administration [government] and through force or threats succeed in altering the constituted organs of the government. From the point of view of the existing constitutional plan, that act is illegal; but considered from the point of view of the State as a distinct entity not necessarily bound to employ a particular government or administration to carry out its will, it is the direct act of the state itself because it is successful. As such, it is legal, for whatever is attributable to the state is lawful. This is the legal and political basis of the doctrine of revolution.” (Underscoring supplied, Dean Vicente Sinco, Philippine Political Law). (see embedded video below)

Criminal Law Framework:
      In criminal law:
In the meantime however that “the people (who) rise in revolt” are not successful, the existing organs of government are provided with criminal laws thru provisions of the Revised Penal Code and special laws to prosecute persons for overt violent acts but not for thoughts or ideas or peaceful protests and assemblies (see People vs. Amado Hernández,  national artist) 

And when those laws encroach upon the right to freedom of speech , freedom of thought, or  the right to peaceably assemble, these provisions cross the line to being not just repressive but  out of bounds with the constitution. 

Find out on June 23

CODE

credits: as stated in the embedded video