RTC Judge slams Hontiveros: “You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the law”

Regional Trial Court Judge Rowena Adlawan opposes the statement of Hontiveros that the Constitution specifies a definition on rebellion and invasion. The judge was dismayed about the interview of the senator, stating that there is no factual basis to declare Martial Law.

“I cannot help but be dismayed and disgusted because the senator said that the Constitution has made a definition of what rebellion or invasion is,” Judge Adlawan said. She also pointed out that the Constitution does not provide for the definition of the crime of rebellion. It is the Revised Penal code that gives the definition of the said crime.



Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides the definition of the crime of rebellion as stated in  Art. 134: The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purpose of removing from allegiance to said government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive (President) or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of their powers or prerogatives.

Judge Adlawan added that there have been news reports from TV and broadsheets about the Maute Group’s take over in Marawi, raising their ISIS Flag in the city. The judge respects Hontiveros’ right to express her opinion but Judge Adlawan can’t hide her dismay to the said Senator.

“I got dismayed for clearly, she has not been in touched with the realities and she also has no grasp on the law despite her being a lawmaker. She added that she would hate to hear from her party using that line: "pasensya na hindi kasi sya lawyer".

Judge Adlawan stated, “You do not have to be lawyer for you to understand the reality vis-a-vis the law.”



Read full post below of Judge Rowena Adlawan:

I watched the interview of Senator Hontiveros on the matter of the declaration of Martial Law. For her, there is no factual basis for it. I cannot help but be dismayed and disgusted because the senator said that the Constitution has made a definition of what rebellion or invasion is. 

For the record, the Constitution does not define the crime of Rebellion. You can find its definition in the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Art. 134 of the RPC states: The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purpose of removing from allegiance to said government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive (President) or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of their powers or prerogatives". She averred that what happened in Marawi did not constitute rebellion because Marawi residents did not rebel against the national government.

From the reports on TV and the newspaper, the Maute group raised their ISIS Flag in the city and took Marawi City from the control of the National Government, by rising publicly using high powered firearms for the purpose of removing allegiance of the Philippine government any part of its territory. While I respect on her right to express her opinion on the matter however I got dismayed for clearly, she has not been in touched with the realities and she also has no grasp on the law despite her being a lawmaker. And definitely I hate the words that I would hear later telling me: "pasensya na hindi kasi sya lawyer". You do not have to be lawyer for you to understand the reality vis-a-viz the law...

Source: RTC Judge Rowena Adlawan

Love this article? Sharing is caring!