By Ralph Ezra B. Viola
Dubbed the “Social Media Capital of the World,” the Philippines is at the center of the information revolution. Yet its criminal code predates the jet engine and the launch of the first man-made object into space, Sputnik 1.
The Revised Penal Code, as amended, was enacted in 1930 and took effect in 1932. It has remained the backbone of the Philippine criminal justice system for almost a century. By modern standards, the RPC is vintage.
The RPC is primarily based on the Spanish Código Penal de 1870, a law crafted for 19th-century Europe. Ironically, the country that introduced the Código has had three different criminal codes since 1870.
The Spanish Cortes and Monarchy have realized and addressed the complexities of modern society and thus enacted Ley Organica 10/1995 de 23 de Noviembre, del Código Penal, the current criminal code of España.
Meanwhile, the Philippines remains stuck in interpreting a 19th-century Spanish-based law, using American legal philosophies. Historian Carmen Guerrero-Nakpil said it best: the Philippines has spent three hundred years in a convent and fifty years in Hollywood.
To this day, the ghosts of our colonial past are still haunting our criminal justice system. Take the case of People vs Abilong, where there is an apparent contradiction. Abilong was sentenced to destierro and was prohibited from entering the City of Manila. While serving his destierro, he entered the City of Manila and was subsequently charged with evasion of sentence. He argues that the English text of the RPC does not make him criminally liable for evading his sentence.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed. The High Tribunal held that Abilong’s arguments hinged on a mistranslation of the Spanish text of the Code. Additionally, the Court also ruled that when contradictory interpretations of the Code arise, the Spanish text should prevail over the English translation.
To curb this lag between the rapidly evolving society and a vintage law, the Philippine Congress has enacted amendatory laws and special penal laws to complement the RPC. However, these are band-aid solutions to a bullet wound that refuses to close.
With no landmark jurisprudence to discuss, some parts of the Code are oftentimes assigned as reading matters. While other parts of the Code are inapplicable in the current Philippine setting. Take Art. 173, which defines and penalizes the falsification and/or use of falsified wireless, cable, telegraph, and telephone messages. The normal John and Joanne Dela Cruz might not even know what a telegraph is.
The RPC is not broken, and it needs no fixing. In fact, it has served as the guardian of this young democracy from succumbing to criminality. As the RPC approaches its centennial, it does not need more amendments. What it needs is recognition and retirement for its historical significance and contributions to Philippine society.
The recent public hearings conducted by the House Subcommittee on Penal Laws are steps towards that direction. The panel recognizes the current realities and is deliberating proposals for a new penal code. An acknowledgement that it is time for the RPC to leave the courtroom and enter the museum as a historical artifact and a silent witness to the Philippines’ legal evolution.
THE BARRISTER 