Retired Major General Romeo Poquiz was arrested on inciting to sedition charges after publicly urging the military to rise against the government.ย He was freed on bail but quickly questioned why โcritics like himโ are arrested while alleged corrupt officials remain free.
At first glance, his statement resonates with public frustration over corruption.
But legally and logically, the comparison doesnโt stand.
Hereโs why:
1. Sedition โ Corruption
- Different crimes, different laws. Sedition is about speech or actions that encourage rebellion or disobedience against lawful authority. Corruption involves misuse of public funds or abuse of office.
- Treating them as identical ignores the distinct legal definitions, evidence requirements, and processes.
Arresting someone for sedition is not the same as prosecuting someone for corruption.
2. Evidence and Speed
- Sedition cases often rely on public statements, speeches, or recordingsโevidence that is immediate and straightforward.
- Corruption cases require audits, financial trails, and documentary proof, which take months or years to build.
- The difference in pace is procedural, not necessarily proof of bias.
Poquizโs claim overlooks the complexity of corruption investigations compared to the immediacy of sedition charges.
3. The Red Herring
- Pointing to corruption cases diverts attention from the specific charge against him.
- Whether or not corrupt officials are punished does not erase the fact that he allegedly called for military disobedience.
Itโs a distraction tactic, not a valid defense.
4. Appeal to Emotion
- His statement taps into public anger over corruption, which is real and widespread.
- But emotional comparisons donโt change the legal merits of his case. Courts decide based on law and evidence, not on which crime feels worse.
Emotional appeal โ legal justification.
The Bigger Picture
Poquizโs arrest highlights the tension between freedom of expression and laws against sedition. His release on bail allows him to contest the charges, but his argument that โcritics are punished while thieves go freeโ is a fallacy.
The fairness of one case cannot be judged by delays or failures in another. What his statement does reveal, however, is a deeper frustration: the slow grind of corruption cases compared to the swift action against dissent. That imbalance fuels public perception of selective justice, even if the legal grounds differ.
๐ Sidebar: Know the Law โ Inciting to Sedition (Article 142, Revised Penal Code)
- Definition: Inciting to sedition occurs when a person, through speech, writing, or other means, urges others to rise against lawful authorities or spread hatred against government institutions.
- Penalty: Imprisonment or fine, depending on the gravity of the act.
- Key distinction:
- Sedition punishes the act of encouraging rebellion or disobedience, even if no actual uprising happens.
- Rebellion punishes the act of actually rising in arms against the government.
- Why it matters: The law is designed to protect public order, but critics argue it can be used to silence dissent when applied broadly.
Poquizโs claim is rhetorically powerful but legally weak. It conflates two separate issuesโsedition and corruptionโand uses public anger as a shield against accountability.
About The Author
1 Comment