Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings

Clicks: 2
ID: 285310
2014
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #3,131 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Crimes offending religious feelings, a law that was intended to fortify theocratic Spanish rule, has simply been carried over to present-day democracy-- embodied in Section 4, article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. This study provides for a comparative analysis of the applicability of Article 133, and old theocratic law, to contemporaneous laws in the Philippines, i.e. freedom of speech.;"The sprouts of contemporary governance-- democracy-- is manifested by the Constitution freedom of speech being one of the most vital laws of democracy. Following the great shift from theocracy to democracy, Article 133 has been found to be irrelevant in the present-day era-- an archaic provision that has confused its place to the Constitution and human-rights laws, which currently recognizes freedom of expression. Crimes offending religious feelings endangers the constitutional guarantee of free expression due to the absence of a clear and conclusive definition of what constitutes acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful, such being one of two vital elements of the provision. The Supreme Court has provided a vague standard of such offensive acts, basing solely on the feeling of the complainant. Subjectivity being its basis, the provisions becomes overly broad and impermissibly ambiguous. As such, Article 133 is unequivocally void for there exists no absolute and conclusive standards of what acts are prohibited or otherwise allowed, creating a chilling effect that can discourage a person in the expression of his ideas.
Reference Key
persistent_1760655234_68f17782a5643 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Yu, Cindee Michelle S.
Journal Malay Journal
Year 2014
DOI
DOI not found
URL
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/5590
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.