Harriet Demetriou, a former chairman of the Commission on Elections, was in the news recently.
Demetriou filed a complaint against a certain Fr. Winston Cabading before the Quezon City prosecutor’s office. In her complaint, Demetriou said Cabading committed the crime of offending religious feelings, as defined under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. Conviction for the offense carries a penalty of up to two years imprisonment.
A Roman Catholic, Demetriou is also a devotee of Our Lady, Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace. Demetriou said the Mediatrix of All Grace was a Marian apparition that took place in a Carmelite Monastery in Lipa, Batangas in 1948.
Cabading, a Filipino Dominican friar, is an exorcist in the Archdiocese of Manila and a teacher of theology at the University of Santo Tomas.
Demetriou accused Cabading of being a rabid critic of Mary. She said Cabading claims there exists a Lipa Diocesan Verdict, supposedly issued in 1951, which “negated the authenticity of the 1948 apparition of Our Lady, Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace.”
She said Cabading’s act “would necessarily imply that I have also become a victim of his blasphemous indulgence, and thus entitled to a cause of action for a criminal complaint.”
Demetriou asserted that it is the duty of the State to protect her religious freedom and that the free exercise clause of the Constitution mandates an absolute protection of the freedom to believe, i.e., “a person is free to worship any god he or she may choose, or none at all.”
She added that “Religious freedom, as a constitutional mandate, is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs.”
Demetriou said certain religious authorities told her that the verdict cited by Cabading is not found in the archives of the Vatican, and that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines is unable to present a copy of the verdict. Demetriou also said the verdict is not in the archives of either the Archdiocese of Manila or the Archdiocese of Lipa.
A news report quoted Demetriou saying, “One thing is for sure, what was pronounced from the beginning by some Philippine ecclesiastical authorities in 1951 until the present may have been a sham and an elaborate hoax calculated to deceive the Catholic faithful.”
The complaint against Cabading appears to have flaws.
Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, cited by Demetriou, penalizes anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
There is no indication that Cabading made his remarks “in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony.” Likewise, there is no indication that Cabading made the remark inside a Catholic church, or during a Catholic ceremony.
Cabading’s remarks can hardly be construed as “notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” Cabading simply said that a diocesan verdict indicates that the alleged 1948 Marian apparition does not exist.
In doing that, Cabading did not necessarily mock or disrespect Mary, there being no other words uttered to suggest that Mary does not exist, or that Mary is not worthy of reverence by the Catholic faithful.
The free speech clause invoked by Demetriou only guarantees the freedom to worship and not to worship. Nothing in the clause prohibits speech that may be contrary to other people’s religious beliefs, provided the speech does not constitute libel.
A statement of a priest which disputes the existence of an alleged Marian apparition may be contrary to the views of some Marian devotees, but it is not libelous.
Jurisprudence advises against State interference on whether certain religious dogma is correct or otherwise. The ascertainment of whether or not a certain Marian apparition actually took place is outside the competence of the State and, thus, beyond judicial review.