Katrina Marie R.

de Dios September 7, 2017

Policy/Law Paper Politics & Governance

A Review of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines

Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines states that offending religious
feelings will be penalized by arresto mayor at its maximum period (6 months) to prison
correctional at its minimum (6 months and 1 day). The essence of this article is that it works as a
“blasphemy law”.
This “blasphemy law” was adapted from the influence of other countries like the United
states, where it existed but is not a primary part of their penal code, and from Spain during the
Spanish colonization era. Article 133 is a very conservative law bordering on liberalist views,
this is because it is conserving an aspect of the previous religious cultures while still trying to be
inclusive of all religions. This law’s goals are to in a way promote religious freedom and
A controversial case in relation to Article 133 is the Carlos Celdran case. This event
occurred during an ecumenical service/program at Manila Cathedral. According to witnesses,
Celdran (who was dressed as Rizal) walked into the middle of the center aisle, genuflected
before the altar, and then proceeded to raise a cardboard sign with Damaso written on it. He was
then amicably escorted out of the church. Before exiting the church, he said something along the
lines of “The church should not meddle in politics!”. This statement was in regards to the
Church’s opposition to the reproductive health (RH) bill.
This case was taken to court, where Celdran argued that he was merely exercising his
right to freedom of speech as stated in Article III Section 4 of the 1987 constitution, “No law
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” After two
years and twenty or so hearings, Celdran was found guilty by Metropolitan Court Judge Juan
Bermejo Jr. and was sentenced to a minimum of two months and a maximum of one year in
prison for violating Article 133.
 The Human Rights Watch said in regard to this occurrence, “This is a setback for free
speech in the Philippines, which prides itself on being a democracy. This verdict should be
reversed. Nobody should be jailed for voicing out an opinion or position, especially on a subject
that concerns the lives of millions of Filipino women and mothers.”
Other cases regarding the violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code are the
following: The People Of The Philippines Vs. Jose M. Baes (G.R. No. L-46000); The People of
The Philippines Vs. Procopio Reyes, Policarpio Nacana, Florentino Clemente, Hermogenes
Mallari, Marcelino Mallari, Castor Alipio, and Rufino Matias (G.R. No. L-40577); The People of
the Philippines Vs. Antonio Nosce (G.R. No. L-41757); and The Assistant Provincial Fiscal of
Bataan Vs. Ambrosio T. Dollete (G.R. No. L-12196).
I do not think that this law will be successful. Firstly, it is not as easily understood by the
people who it affects, that being all of the Filipino society. The criteria for the penalty is an act
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful and this is all that is written in the revised
penal code. The apparent definition of notoriously offensive within the context of this law is that
“An act is said to be notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful when a person
ridicules or makes light of anything constituting a religious dogma; works or scoffs at anything
devoted to religious ceremonies; plays with or damages or destroy any object of veneration by
the faithful.” and this may not be common knowledge.
Furthermore, Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines may not
necessarily be enforced by all areas of society, because it is dependent on the idea that all
citizens are educated about religion and law thus able to discern what are the classified
notoriously offensive actions for specific religions.
Though seemingly liberalist at first this law is conservative in essence with the main
point being the conservation of religious tradition/culture. Though it promotes freedom of
religion it also limits freedom of speech and expression. This law goes against Article III Section
4 of the 1987 Constitution.
This law also goes against Article III Section 5 of the constitution, which states that “No
law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.” Article III Section 5 being an extension of Article II Section 6, which is the
separation of state and church. Basically, church and government are separate entities and should
not be mixed. It would be difficult in this situation for the government to stay neutral and so does
not fully abide by the 1987 constitution.
Another reason this law will not or is not successful is because this law is highly
controversial and may be interpreted as the religious institutions abusing their influence to
persecute those who disagree with their values. Akin to one of the elements of fascism. This
situation would be similar to how the church functioned back during the Spanish colonization era
and is a very sensitive topic.
There is still a possibility, a slim chance, that this policy would be successful. This is if
they make clearer its definition so as to reduce the probability of it being misinterpreted. They
must also take into account the knowledge of the Filipino citizens about the different religions.
Another thing they must take into account is the government's neutrality and be sure to enforce
this. In all likelihood though it will not be likely.
References:
Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court. Retrieved September 05, 2017, from
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1958/may1958/gr_l-12196_1958.html
Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court. Retrieved September 05, 2017, from
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1934/nov1934/gr_l-41757_1934.html
Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court. Retrieved September 05, 2017, from
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1934/aug1934/gr_l-40577_1934.html
Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court. Retrieved September 05, 2017, from
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1939/may1939/gr_l-46000_1939.html
Arceo-Dumlao, E. S. (2013). Celdran found guilty in 'Damaso'. ​Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved September 06, 2017, from
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/348713/celdran-found-guilty-in-damaso
Gonzales, Y. V. (2015). 'Confident' Carlos Celdran appeals conviction over 'Damaso' act before
SC. ​Philippine Daily Inquirer. ​ etrieved
R September 06, 2017, from
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/733980/confident-carlos-celdran-appeals-conviction-over-damaso-ac
t-before-sc
Collas, S. (2013). ‘Notoriously offensive’. ​Retrieved September 05, 2017, from
http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/perse/?p=2065
Caguioa, L. & Escalona, P. (2013). The crime of offending religious feelings and Carlos Celdran.
Ateneo Law Journal.​ Retrieved September 05, 2017, from
http://ateneolawjournal.com/main/varticle/703
Guerrero, B. (2013). Article 133 revised penal code #DAMASO. Retrieved September 04, 2017,
from ​https://berneguerrero.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/article-133-revised-penal-code-damaso/