PAT TINY M PATTEY

IDC 2023-01
CHARLIE COMPANY

Pura Luka Vega is being charged for the alleged violation of Article 201 of the Revised
Penal Code in connection with RA 10175, stemming from their highly controversial “Ama
Namin” performance.
1. Do you think Vega could be held liable under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code
in connection with Republic Act No. 10175? Please provide an example (either
yes/no) and list any relevant evidences.

No. Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code was amended by Presidential
Decree No. 969 passed and signed on July 24, 1976 by the former President
Marcos. Under Section 1, paragraph 2b of this law, states that “Those who, in
theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or indecent or
immoral plays scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by
virtue hereof, shall include those which: (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2)
serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography;
(3) offend any race religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs;
and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies,
lawful orders, decrees and edicts”. Therefore, Pura Luka Vega shall be charged of
PD No. 969 under paragraph 2b. She is not liable in violation of RA 10175, section 6,
hence, Article 201 was amended and PD No. 969 is a special law.

One example of evidences that she is liable in violation of PD No. 969 is she
posted her videos on social media while performing and dressed up as Jesus Christ
and danced to a punk rock version of the Catholic hymn “Ama Namin” which
offended many religious leaders and devotees. Under the Article III, Section 5 of the
Philippine Constitution, 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 be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights. The act of Pura Luka Veda is also unconstitutional
hence, she has preference or took advance of Jesus Christ image and heighten the
misuse and abuse of freedom of speech.

2. Are there any other laws that she could potentially face charges under? Please
explain.
There are no other laws aside from PD No. 969, paragraph 2b.