Alima, Krischelle S.

Suico, Princess May D.

JD-1A

Legal Writing
Position Paper

Topic: The Constitutionality of Anti-Bastos Law

In an age of declining civility and amplification of offensive speech, either personally or via social
media, we think that it is timely for us to tackle about the recently enacted R.A. No. 11313 or the
“Safe Spaces Act”, commonly known in the Philippines as Anti-Bastos Law.

Republic Act No. 11313 is an act defining gender-based sexual harassment in streets, public
spaces, online, workplaces and educational or training institutions, providing protective measures
and prescribing penalties. It is the policy of the State to value the dignity of every human person
and guarantee full respect for human rights.

However, we stand to question the constitutionality of the enacted R.A. No.11313 on the following
grounds:

1. Article III - Bill of Rights, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution which states that “No law
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Under this provision, any law that broadly restricts what someone can say is likely to be
ruled unconstitutional in court. The Constitution provides for absolute freedom of speech
of which this act violates. Article 1 Section 4 of the Republic Act No. 11313 punishes
gender-based sexual harassments acts in the streets, public places, online and in
workplaces. Laws should regulate speech that is intimidating rather than offensive, which
is what most street harassment is. Mere catcalling and wolf-whistling may be offensive to
some people but it is not generally the case for everyone.

2. Article III - Bill of Rights, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution which states that “No person
shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”

Article 1 Section 10 of Republic Act No. 11313 provides that for gender-based streets and
public spaces sexual harassment, the perpetrator if caught flagrant delicto upon a complaint
on the streets received by the deputy shall be immediately apprehended and brought to the
nearest PNP station. Article 2 Section 13 of Republic Act No. 11313 provides that for
 gender-based online sexual harassment, the perpetrators upon a complaint received shall
immediately be apprehended.

The following provision is not in accordance to the due process of law requirement. The
question lies on the possibility of catching the perpetrator red handed doing any of the acts
prohibited by Republic Act No. 11313 in response to the complaint received by the
authorities. In ordinary circumstances, the prohibited acts had already occurred upon the
arrival of the authorities which would indicate that it would be impossible for the
perpetrator to be caught flagrant delicto. In such circumstance, the perpetrator will be
deprived of his right for fair notice and opportunity to be heard. Thus, the perpetrator upon
immediate apprehension by the authorities will be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law, of which violates his rights and is unconstitutional.

3. Vagueness Doctrine

Under the Vagueness Doctrine “a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.”

Article 1 Section 11 Paragraph A of Republic Act No. 11313 provides that acts such as
cursing, wolf-whistling, catcalling, leering, and intrusive gazing, taunting, cursing,
unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, and sexist slurs are unlawful
and should be penalized. For the common knowledge of an ordinary reasonable man, terms
such as misogynistic, transphobic, and leering used in this provision is so vague and broad.
A person who does not know whether his speech constitutes a crime under a vague and
overbroad law may simply refuse to speak to avoid being charged of a crime. The vague
and overbroad law chills him into silence thereby restricting his freedom of speech for the
fear of being penalized. Further, law enforcers and prosecutors will find it difficult and
confusing to determine whether or not such statements constitute a crime under this
provision for it is vague and broad.

The enactment of Republic Act No. 11313 is timely and of great importance. However, with these
arguments considered, we therefore stand for the unconstitutionality of Article 1 Section 4, Article
1 Section 10, Article 2 Section 13, and Article 1 Section 11 of the Republic Act No. 11313.

References:

1. 1987 PHIL. CONST. Art. III, S4

2. 1987 PHIL. CONST. Art. III, S14
3. SPS. Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R. Romualdez v. Commission on Elections and
Dennis Garay, G.R. NO. 167011(2008)
4. Sarah Marie Lacy, Street Harassment and the Law: Freedom of Speech, Fighting Words,
and the Reasonable Man Standard,
available at http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/strategies/sshlaw-
3concepts/?fbclid=IwAR1L11sjnBQT-THdYZE33UK6z6D5_v-
cKHWD6pHtXaj93zj24pgWRCI0mco, (last accessed Sept. 19,2019)
5. Ralph W. Aigler, Legislation in Vague or General Terms, available at
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1796&context=articles,
(last accessed Sept. 19,2019)
6. Miriam: Cybercrime Act Unconstitutional, available at
https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2012/1006_santiago1.asp, (last accessed Sept.
19,2019)