S1L11 – Rebellion has no penalty if the rebels win
I’m shuffling classcards again for today’s class recitation….Juan Dimacaawat? “Present, sir!”
Alright, Mr. Dimacaawat. Please read Art. 135 of your Revised Penal Code.
“Any person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.”
So tell your classmates, Mr. Dimacaawat. What is the penalty for rebellion or insurrection?
“Reclusion perpetua, Sir!”
Wrong. Sit down.
“Papano ako naging wrong, Sir, e katatapos ko nga lang basahin yung provision?”
Binasa mo nga pero hindi mo naman naintindihan. Pay attention class. The law will not spoonfeed you. The law will not tell you everything there is to know. The law expects you to know some basic ideas and to understand fundamental logic on your own. The question is ‘what’s the penalty for rebellion?’
The correct answer is: “IT DEPENDS.”
If the rebellion succeeds, there will be no penalty because the successful rebels will become the new government. Of course, they will not punish themselves. So there is only a penalty for a FAILED rebellion or a FAILED insurrection. Yet, if you read the law, you won’t find the word “FAILED” in it. Your own intelligence and common sense is supposed to supply that missing word in your mind as you read the law.
This does not apply to all crimes. If murder succeeds, with more reason there should be a penalty. Same thing with estafa, robbery, kidnapping, carnapping, physical injuries—in fact for all crimes EXCEPT rebellion (and its kin)—if the crime is successfully done, the penalty is imposable.
So why is it so different for rebellion? Because rebellion is the only crime whose outcome determines the person who will exercise the authority to punish.
This has a very important parrallel in administrative law. If there is no change in the person of the authority that imposes disciplinary measure, then it is still only that authority that can say who should or should not be disciplined.
Confused?
Take BENECO for example. NEA appointed a “General Manager” as well as a “Project Supervisor” but neither of them was able to assume office. Appointment to an office is meaningless without assumption of that office. In other words, the appointment of these two people is ineffectual—regardless how presumptively valid that appointment may be. The evidence of the ineffectual status of that appointment is the fact that they are not holding office in South Drive, or even in the driveway of BENECO.
“But they’re holding office in YMCA, sir.”
They can even hold office in Buckingham Palace if they want. It’s still not equivalent to assumption of office, because in the Articles of Incorporation, it is stated where a corporation’s headquarters should be—and that is a permanent location. Number 4 South Drive. That’s where it must conduct business. More importantly, that’s where its Board of Directors should meet.
This means that even if a number of directors can raise quorum, let’s say, in Boracay Resort, any meeting they hold there is invalid. In the same manner, any “BENECO board resolutions” signed in the locker room of YMCA will only be useful in the comfort room of YMCA. Pag-ilu.
Going back to “change of authority” (or lack of it) it’s clear that because of the failure to assume office of the NEA-appointed GM and PS, there has been no change in the person of the authority that imposes disciplinary measure. This means the two NEA-appointed officials cannot terminate anybody from the rank-and-file. They cannot hire replacements. They cannot even threaten anybody with insubordination. That power is still exercised by the unchanged persons in authority–meaning the existing GM and the existing Board.
But the opposite is different. There are four employees who went AWOL. In short, they committed “rebellion” and when did we say a rebellion can only be punished, class?
“When it FAILS!”
Correct. Had the “rebellion” succeeded, meaning had the two NEA appointees been able to assume office, these four AWOL’s would not be facing any penalty. If only the “rebellion” succeeded, these four would likely be department heads by now. As it is, they face sanction for going absent without official leave. Isn’t there anything they can do about it? Not much, except take a long shot at reinstatement by pleading for compassion.
Or they can sing, “I believe I can fly…!”
The author is a writer and lawyer based in Baguio City, Philippines. Former editor of the Gold Ore and Baguio City Digest, professor of journalism, political science and law at Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF). He is a photographer and video documentarist. He has a YouTube channel called “Parables and Reason”