Equal PRotection Revised

Pura Luka Vega, a prominent drag artist known for his provocative performances challenging
societal norms, faced legal repercussions stemming from his artistic expression. The charges
levied against Vega under the Revised Penal Code, specifically Articles 201 and 133, was due
to his drag performance of a remix version of "Ama Namin," a religious prayer. This
performance, which went viral and garnered significant attention, became the focal point of legal
scrutiny and moral controversy.
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code pertains to the propagation of "immoral doctrines,
obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows." Vega was accused of violating this
provision through their drag performance, which some perceived as offensive or indecent due to
its portrayal of religious figures in a non-traditional context. The use of religious imagery and
symbolism in Vega's act sparked outrage among conservative sectors, leading to legal action
against the artist. In addition to the charges under Article 201, Vega also faced accusations
under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes acts that "offend religious
feelings." This provision, often invoked in cases involving blasphemy or sacrilege, was applied
to Vega's performance due to its perceived disrespect towards religious beliefs and symbols.
The use of religious themes in an unconventional or provocative manner prompted allegations
of blasphemy and religious offense, resulting in legal proceedings against Vega.
Legal experts, such as University of the Philippines (UP) law professor Paolo Tamase and his
colleague John Molo, have offered insightful perspectives on the charges against Pura Luka
Vega and their constitutional implications. Their analysis delves into the broader legal
framework surrounding freedom of expression, the overbreadth of the laws applied, and the
potential for gender-based discrimination. Tamase contends that the charges against Vega,
particularly under Articles 201 and 133 of the Revised Penal Code, run afoul of constitutional
principles. He argues that these provisions are worded too broadly, encompassing speech that
should be protected under the Constitution. Tamase points out that while certain limitations on
speech exist, such as in cases of libel or obscenity, Vega's performance does not fall within
these exceptions. By applying statutes intended to regulate immoral or indecent conduct to
artistic expression, Tamase suggests that the law may be overreaching its intended scope.
Molo echoes Tamase's sentiments, underscoring the outdated nature of the Revised Penal
Code and its compatibility with contemporary societal norms. He notes that the Penal Code,
rooted in Spanish colonial-era legislation, may no longer align with the values of a modern,
pluralistic society. Molo emphasizes the importance of tolerance and freedom of expression in a
diverse society, suggesting that laws restricting speech based on subjective interpretations of
morality or religious sensibilities may be incompatible with these principles. By criminalizing acts
deemed offensive to religious beliefs or sentiments, these provisions effectively grant authorities
significant discretion in interpreting and enforcing the law. This discretion, if not properly
constrained, can lead to arbitrary or discriminatory application, particularly against marginalized
groups such as the LGBTQ+ community, to which Vega belongs.
The case of And Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec provides a significant precedent to Vega’s
controversy. Here, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the party's petition for
accreditation on moral grounds, contending that it espoused immorality and ran counter to
Filipino cultural values. The COMELEC argued that allowing Ang Ladlad to participate in the
electoral process would promote activities contrary to public morals, particularly regarding
sexual orientation and gender identity.
However, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled decisively against the COMELEC's moral
contention, emphasizing the primacy of constitutional principles such as equal protection and
freedom of expression. In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court recognized that the
COMELEC's denial infringed upon the fundamental rights of Ang Ladlad's members, particularly
their right to equal protection under the law.
The Court's ruling underscored the principle that moral disapproval, without a valid and secular
basis, cannot serve as a legitimate basis for discrimination or restriction of rights. It held that the
COMELEC's reliance on subjective moral judgments to exclude Ang Ladlad from the political
process violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, as it unfairly targeted a
specific group based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party provides crucial insight into this connection, as it
demonstrates how vague and sweeping laws can be weaponized to target specific groups.
Article 201 of the RPC, which pertains to the propagation of "immoral doctrines, obscene
publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows," is framed in overly broad language that lacks
clear definitions and parameters. This ambiguity allows for subjective interpretations and
arbitrary enforcement, which can disproportionately impact marginalized communities, including
LGBTQ+ individuals like Pura Luka Vega and his drag performances
Similarly, the charges against Pura Luka Vega under Article 201 of the RPC are rooted in
subjective moral judgments and lack a clear secular basis. The performance that led to Luka's
arrest, while provocative, falls within the realm of artistic expression and freedom of speech,
protected under the Constitution. Moreover, the Ang Ladlad case underscores the importance of
upholding equal protection principles to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and
gender identity. By striking down the COMELEC's discriminatory actions, the Supreme Court
affirmed that LGBTQ+ individuals are entitled to the same rights and protections as any other
citizen. Applying this precedent to Pura Luka Vega's case, it becomes evident that the charges
against him under Article 201 of the RPC constitute unjust discrimination and a violation of his
right to equal protection
In conclusion, the overbroad nature of the provisions charged against Pura Luka Vega, coupled
with the discriminatory application of these laws, directly contravenes the Equal Protection
Clause of the Philippine Constitution. The Ang Ladlad case serves as a compelling example of
how vague and subjective laws can be used to target marginalized groups, highlighting the
urgent need for legal reform to ensure equal rights and protections for all individuals, regardless
of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Equal PRotection Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Equal PRotection Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Equal PRotection Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pura Luka Vega, a prominent drag artist known for his provocative performances challenging

You might also like