DOJ orders probe vs Alvarez over possible sedition

MANILA (UPDATED) — The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday said it would investigate Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez after he urged the military to "withdraw" its support for President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.

"I have ordered an investigation on the statements of Congressman Pantaleon Alvarez to determine whether it has risen to the level of Sedition, Inciting to Sedition or even Rebellion," DOJ Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla said.

Over the weekend, Alvarez urged the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to withdraw its support for Marcos to force him to step down.

Remulla reminded Alvarez to "act in accordance to the highest standards of ethics, morality and nationalism, and avoid remarks unbecoming of a member of the House of Representatives."

Meanwhile, the Department of National Defense (DND) said the AFP remained committed to "upholding the Constitution under the leadership of the Commander in Chief President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr."

DND Secretary Gilbert Teodoro said Alavarez's statement "will not amount to anything but to a possible criminal investigation."

On Monday, the AFP reiterated its strict adherence to the chain of command in response to Alvarez's call. Marcos is on top of that chain of command, under the 1987 Constitution. 

READ: After Alvarez plea, AFP reiterates ‘strict adherence to Chain of Command’ 

CRIMINAL RAPS SOUGHT

Meanwhile, more House leaders have asked authorities to file charges against Alvarez, calling his remark "seditious."

"Former Speaker Alvarez’s irresponsible remarks are not only seditious but also undermine the stability of our government and the rule of law. We cannot allow such reckless behavior to go unchecked. We urge the appropriate authorities to take swift and decisive action against former Speaker Alvarez to uphold the integrity of our institutions and protect the democratic process," House Majority Leader Manuel Jose "Mannix" Dalipe said in a statement.

"It is unbecoming of a public official to go to an extent of inducing any government institution from faithfully serving a duly-elected government simply because one holds a different appreciation on foreign policy direction. Such statement which effectuate potential threats to government stability and may therefore cause social mayhem maybe legally interpreted as bordering to sedition and could be well attract legal repercussions,” House Assistant Majority Leader and Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said in a separate statement.

House Deputy Speaker David "Jay-jay" Suarez also criticized Alvarez’s remark as an “attempt to undermine the duly-elected government,” while House Committee on Constitutional Amendments Chairperson and Cagayan de Oro 2nd District Representative Rufus Rodriguez believes such statement could be basis for an ethics complaint against Alvarez.

“Uncalled for, especially from an elected official in the House of Representatives, to be calling for withdrawal of support. That is really rebellion. That is really seditious that they will withdraw support to our incumbent President who has the mandate of the people to govern our country especially… If others are minded, then that can be a basis for the complaint in the ethics committee,” Rodriguez told the media in an interview. 

Philippine law defines sedition as rising “publicly and tumultuously” to, among other acts, prevent the government or a government official from performing their duties. Rebellion, meanwhile, is “rising publicly and taking arms” against the government. 

Under the House Rules, the House may, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Ethics, punish its Members for any violation of the Code of Conduct and for disorderly behavior.

ALVAREZ REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE

Alvarez on Tuesday expressed readiness to respond should complaints be filed against him.

Alvarez also defended his remarks, saying what he said was neither seditious nor within the definition of disorderly conduct that might warrant an ethics investigation at the House.

"'Yung nangyari sa Davao del Norte, kasama 'yan sa constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech and assembly. Paano naging seditious at disorderly conduct ang pag-exercise ng constitutional rights? At bakit hindi ako magsasalita?"

(What happened in Davao del Norte is part of the constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech and assembly. How can the exercise of constitutional rights be seditious or be considered disorderly conduct? And why shouldn't I speak up?)

“Ok naman ako imbestigahan kasi alam naman natin ang elements ng crime ng sedition at ng rebellion. ’Pag binasa natin yung crime of sedition, talagang nakalagay doon na may kaakibat na violence ‘yan. Wala namang violence ang nangyari,” Alvarez said. 

The former House Speaker appealed for understanding if anybody was hurt by his remark, but he stands by his call, which he said, should be done peacefully. 

“Hindi ako nag-apologize… Syempre kung mayroon mang nasaktan. Edi pasensya. Pero para sabihin ko na nagkamali ako sa sinabi ko, hindi ako nagkamali. ‘Yun talaga ang gusto ko sabihin,” he said.