Overview: A High Court Ruling in a Contentious Case
The Court of Appeals (CA) of the Philippines has affirmed a Quezon City court’s decision to dismiss a case filed by retired Sandiganbayan Justice Harriet Demetriou against an exorcist priest, Fr. Winston Cabading. The charge centered on alleged offenses to religious feelings linked to questions about the 1948 Marian apparitions in Lipa City, Batangas. The 28-page ruling, promulgated on September 28, clarifies boundaries between religious discourse and formal religious rituals.
What the CA Decided
The CA’s 12th Division rejected Demetriou’s petitions for certiorari for lack of merit, agreeing with the trial court’s earlier ruling that the Facebook program where Cabading spoke did not constitute a “religious ceremony.” The court described the show as a platform akin to a broadcast, show, or dialogue, not a solemn act prescribed by religious ritual. In short, the Facebook livestream was accessible to the public and did not resemble a formal religious function.
Distinguishing Ceremony from Broadcast
The CA emphasized that the Facebook program, which featured comments, questioning, and dialogue about Marian apparitions, does not meet the test of a “religious ceremony.” The ruling stressed that a livestream is not akin to a special occasion or function performed under prescribed religious regulations. This distinction is central to the case, as it undercuts the basis for criminalizing Cabading’s public remarks under the accusation of offending religious feelings.
Legal Reasoning: Freedom of Expression and Limits
The appellate court also noted that the charge referenced a Pastoral Instruction and an Injunction Order from the Dominican Province of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. The CA held that such acts are not punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other specific laws, indicating a protective stance for religious dialogue conducted in public digital spaces. The decision aligns with a broader interpretation that not every critical or dissenting religious statement should be treated as an offense against religion.
Implications for the Defendants and Public Discourse
Demetriou’s challenge cited a fear of judicial overreach—“judicial legislation”—in defining what counts as a religious ceremony. The CA rejected that concern, arguing that broad definitions could chill necessary discussions touching on religion and religious history. By upholding the dismissal, the CA reinforces the principle that online platforms used for education, commentary, or debate about religious topics do not automatically become sacraments or religious rites simply because they involve religious content.
Background: The Lipa Apparitions and the Contested Verdict
The case stems from Cabading’s remarks questioning the 1951 Lipa Diocesan verdict that negated the authenticity of the 1948 Marian apparition—Our Lady, Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace. Demetriou labeled Cabading a “rabid critic,” arguing that his statements offended religious sensibilities. However, the trial court’s nine-page order in 2024 to quash the case found no basis for criminal liability, a position now backed by the CA.
What Comes Next?
With the CA’s ruling, the matter moves toward finality on the questions of free speech and religious discourse in the digital age. While internal church assessments of apparitions remain part of religious governance, the public airing of viewpoints through social media and livestreams remains within the realm of protected expression, absent acts that meet the formal thresholds of a religious ceremony.
Conclusion: A Landmark on Digital Dialogue and Religion
The Court of Appeals’ decision underscores a critical distinction between religious ceremony and online dialogue. As communities increasingly discuss religious history and practice on social platforms, this ruling offers a reference point for how authorities evaluate accusations tied to religious sentiments in the age of digital communication.
