Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings
Crimes offending religious feelings, a law that was intended to fortify theocratic Spanish rule, has simply been carried over to present-day democracy-- embodied in Section 4, article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. This study provides for a comparative analysis of the applicability of Article 133, a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Animo Repository
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/5590 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | De La Salle University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Crimes offending religious feelings, a law that was intended to fortify theocratic Spanish rule, has simply been carried over to present-day democracy-- embodied in Section 4, article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. This study provides for a comparative analysis of the applicability of Article 133, and old theocratic law, to contemporaneous laws in the Philippines, i.e. freedom of speech.;"The sprouts of contemporary governance-- democracy-- is manifested by the Constitution freedom of speech being one of the most vital laws of democracy. Following the great shift from theocracy to democracy, Article 133 has been found to be irrelevant in the present-day era-- an archaic provision that has confused its place to the Constitution and human-rights laws, which currently recognizes freedom of expression. Crimes offending religious feelings endangers the constitutional guarantee of free expression due to the absence of a clear and conclusive definition of what constitutes acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful, such being one of two vital elements of the provision. The Supreme Court has provided a vague standard of such offensive acts, basing solely on the feeling of the complainant. Subjectivity being its basis, the provisions becomes overly broad and impermissibly ambiguous. As such, Article 133 is unequivocally void for there exists no absolute and conclusive standards of what acts are prohibited or otherwise allowed, creating a chilling effect that can discourage a person in the expression of his ideas. |
|---|