Barzaga faces 2 sets of criminal charges — DOJ
Text size
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday confirmed that suspended Cavite Rep. Francisco “Kiko” Barzaga is facing two separate sets of criminal charges, clarifying confusion over the cases he addressed during his appearance before prosecutors this week.
DOJ spokesperson Atty. Polo Martinez said Barzaga personally appeared at the DOJ on 22 January, for only one of the two pending cases, stressing that the complaints involve different alleged offenses.
Martinez said the first case is the one Barzaga himself cited in a social media post. It includes alleged violations of Article 153 (tumults and disturbance of public places), Article 155 (alarm and scandal) of the Revised Penal Code, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, or the Public Assembly Act of 1985.
The second case, however, carries more serious accusations.
Docketed as NPS No. XVI-INV-25L-00340, the complaint involves alleged violations of Article 142 (inciting to sedition) and Article 138 (inciting to rebellion or insurrection) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1834, in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Barzaga earlier said he was responding to an inciting to sedition complaint filed by the Philippine National Police–Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG).
The complaint stemmed from his public remarks on Mindanao secession and statements he made during a rally at Forbes Park in October 2025.
Confusion arose after sedition-related charges were absent from Barzaga’s social media post, raising questions about which complaints were covered by the counter-affidavits he submitted.
Martinez said the DOJ’s clarification was meant to confirm that both cases are active and pending.
Barzaga has insisted that the complaints arose from his public statements and participation in protests, which he said were exercises of free expression.
He also noted that no violence occurred during the rally cited in the cases.
In October last year, Barzaga was delisted from the Army Reserve Force for insinuating sedition with an attached photo of him wearing a military uniform.
