Background: A Contested Case Over a Marian Apparition
The Philippines’ Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed a Quezon City court’s dismissal of charges against Fr. Winston Cabading, an exorcist priest accused of offending religious feelings. The dispute centered on statements Cabading made about the 1948 Marian apparitions in Lipa City, Batangas, and whether his remarks could be construed as a violation of law or religious norms.
The case originated when retired Sandiganbayan Justice Harriet Demetriou filed a civil complaint alleging that Cabading’s comments on a digital Catholic show recast the Lipa event in a way that offended the faithful. Demetriou asserted that Cabading’s public discourse, aired through a Facebook program, crossed legal boundaries designed to protect religious sentiments.
In its nine-page order issued in 2024, the Quezon City court granted Cabading’s motion to quash and dismissed the charges. The ruling was later challenged by Demetriou before the CA, prompting a 28-page decision issued on September 28 by the CA’s 12th Division. The appellate panel’s verdict ultimately upheld the trial court’s dismissal for lack of merit.
The CA’s Legal Reasoning: What Counts as a Religious Ceremony?
The CA agreed with the trial court that the Facebook program in question was not a religious ceremony. The ruling clarifies that a program broadcast online, even if it includes preaching and dialogue about faith, does not automatically constitute a formal or solemn act prescribed by a religious ritual or procedure. The court described the show as “similar to a show, broadcast, telecast, videocast, performance, or dialogue” rather than a sacred rite.
Crucially, the CA noted that the livestream was accessible to anyone with internet access, and its reach was not confined to adherents of a particular church or religious group. This broad accessibility, the court indicated, challenges arguments that the platform itself should be treated as a religious ceremony or other protected ritual.
Implications for Freedom of Religious Expression
The Court of Appeals also observed that religious expression occurs within a spectrum of activities, and simply engaging in dialogue about religion during a livestream does not automatically trigger criminal liability if it does not imitate or substitute for an official liturgical act. The CA rejected Demetriou’s argument that the trial court’s interpretation of what constitutes a “religious ceremony” amounted to judicial legislation. The court warned against an overly expansive definition that could chill legitimate religious discourse and other discussions on faith that occur outside formal ceremonies.
The CA’s decision underscores the careful balance between protecting religious sentiments and preserving the right to free expression, especially in a country with a deeply devout population and a rich tradition of public religious discourse. The appellate court emphasized that the charge alleging violation of a pastoral instruction or injunction of the Dominican Province’s hierarchy is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, further supporting the dismissal.
What This Means Moving Forward
With the CA’s ruling, Fr. Cabading’s detractors face a higher bar in pursuing similar cases where online commentary or commentary in a digital show touches on religious matters. The decision may influence how prosecutors frame charges in cases involving online religious discussions, debates about apparitions, and the boundaries of respectful discourse in digital forums.
As the Philippines continues to navigate the intersections of faith, media, and law, observers will be watching how courts interpret what constitutes a sacred rite versus an ordinary discussion in the public square.
