EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regular Session 
)
SENATE
628
S. No
'19 
JUL18 P4 -04
Introduced by SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA
RECti 
I ’
AN ACT
REPEALING ARTICLE 133 OE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Freedom of expression, which is a fundamental human right, is indispensable 
in any democratic society.
Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that “[n]o law shall 
be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right 
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of 
grievances.”
Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 
Philippines, as a State Party, is bound to uphold the right of freedom of expression of 
its citizens and ensure that laws do not enforce unnecessary limitations to this right.
In 2018, activist Carlos Celdran faced imprisonment after the Supreme Court 
in Celdran v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 220127, 21 March 2018) upheld the 
decision of the lower court and found him guilty of the crime of offending religious 
feelings, as defined and penalized under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. This 
was after Celdran merely sported a Jose Rizal outfit and brought out a placard with 
the word “DAMASO” written on it in front of Catholic Church dignitaries and other 
people of different religions while saying “Bishops, stop involving yourself (sic) in 
politics” during an ecumenical meeting for the anniversary of the ‘May They be One 
Campaign,’ and the launch of the ‘Hand Written Bible.’


while there may be basis for an action for damages against Mr. Celdran, Art. 
133 of the RPC should no longer be considered a crime. The said provision reads:
A rt. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — T h e  p e n a lty  o f 
arresto mayor in its m a x im u m  p e rio d  to  prision correccional in its 
m in im u m  p e rio d  sh a ll be im p o s e d  u p o n  a n y o n e  w h o , in a p la ce  
d e v o te d  to  re lig io u s  w o rs h ip  o r d u rin g  th e  c e le b ra tio n  o f a n y  
re lig io u s  c e re m o n y  s h a ll p e rfo rm  a c ts  n o to rio u s ly  o ffe n s iv e  to  th e  
fe e lin g s  o f th e  fa ith fu l.
It is also important to note that in United Nations Human Rights Committee’s 
(UNHRC) General Comment No.22 on Article 18, it was emphasized that freedom of 
thought and freedom of conscience are protected equally with the freedom of religion 
and belief and that these freedoms are non-derogable, even in times o f  public 
emergency.1
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) itself, in its 18-page Manifestation 
regarding Celdran’s case, submitted to the Court that Art. 133 of the RPC should be 
declared unconstitutional since it is “simultaneously overbroad and void for 
vagueness” and that it does not contain an “objective standard and thus left [sic] 
judges with wide discretion over cases that may affect freedom of speech2 3.
In a statement. Amnesty International (AI) also called for the repeal of Art. 
133 of the RPC. AI argued that “right to freedom of expression under international 
human rights law protects the expression not only of opinions that are comfortable, 
inoffensive or politically correct, but also of ideas and acts that may, in the words of 
the European Court of Human Rights, ‘offend, shock and disturb.’”3
The archaic Art. 133 also violates the Constitution’s non-establishment clause 
and is already obsolete. It is no longer necessary.
Art. 153 of the RPC already penalizes disturbances of peaceful gatherings with 
the same penalties as provided in Art. 133, viz:
1 OHCHR. G e n e ra l C o m m e n t N o. 2 2 : The rig h t to  fre e d o m  o f  th o u g h t, conscience a n d  re lig io n  (A rt. 1 8 ) : .  
3 0 /0 7 /9 3 . R e trie ve d  fro m  h ttp s ://w w w .re fw o rld .o rg /d o c id /4 5 3 8 8 3 fb 2 2 .h tm l
2 B usine ssW o rld  (18 M a y 2016) SolG en echoes C eldran's c a ll to  ju n k  crim e  o f 'o ffe n d in g  re lig io u s  fe e lin g s '. 
R e trie ve d  fro m  h ttp ://w w w .b w o rld o n lin e .c o m /c o n te n t.p h p ? s e c tio n = N a tio n & title = S o lG e n -e c h o e s - 
C e ld ra n % E 2 % 8 0 % 9 9 s-ca ll-to -ju n k-crim e -o f-% C 2 % 9 1 o ffe n d in g -re lig io u s-fe e lin g s% E 2 % 8 0 % 9 9 & id = 1 2 7 6 5 1
3 A m n e s ty  In te rn a tio n a l (09 A u g u st 2 018) P h ilip p in e s: Q uash C o n victio n  f o r  P e a ce fu l P ro te st. R e trie ve d  fro m  
h ttp s ://w w w .a m n e s ty .o rg /d o w n lo a d /D o c u m e n ts /A S A 3 5 8 9 2 6 2 0 1 8 E N G L IS H .p d f


A rt. 
153. 
Tumults and other disturbance o f public orders; 
Tumultuous 
disturbance 
or 
interruption 
liable 
to 
cause 
disturbance. —  T h e  p e n a lty  o f arresto mayor in its m e d iu m  
p e rio d  to  prision correccional in its m in im u m  p e rio d  a n d  a fin e  n o t 
e x c e e d in g  1 ,0 0 0  p e s o s  s h a ll be im p o s e d  up o n  a n y  p e rs o n  w h o  
sh a ll c a u s e  a n y  s e rio u s  d is tu rb a n c e  in a p u b lic  p la ce , o ffic e , o r 
e s ta b lis h m e n t, o r sh a ll in te rru p t o r d is tu rb  p u b lic  p e rfo rm a n c e s , 
fu n c tio n s  o r g a th e rin g s , o r p e a c e fu l m e e tin g s , if th e  a c t is n o t 
in c lu d e d  in th e  p ro v is io n s  o f A rtic le s  131 a n d  132.
XXX
Also, under Article 32 of the Civil Code, a person can be held liable for 
damages in cases of violations of different Constitutional rights including the right to 
free practice of religion.
Thus, there is a need to repeal Art. 133 of the RPC for the aforementioned 
reasons.
The passage of this measure is earnestly sought.
LEILA M. DE L ife .


EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regulai’Session 
)
SENATE
628
S. No.
'19 
JUL 18 P4 -04
Introduced by SENATOR L E II^ M. DE LIMA
RECE.V.
AN ACT
REPEALING ARTICLE 133 OF ACT’ NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled:
1 
Section 1. Article 133 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the
2 
Revised Penal Code (RPC), is hereby repealed.
3 
Sec. 2. Effect on Pending Cases. - All pending cases under Article 133 of the
4 
RPC prior to its repeal by this Act shall be dismissed upon effectivity of this Act.
5 
Sec. 3. Immediate Release of Convicted Persons. -  The sentence of the
6 
persons convicted for violation of the Art. 133 of the RPC, as herein repealed, shall be
7 
automatically commuted and the persons serving said sentences 
shall be
8 
immediately released, provided that they are neither serving nor detained for any
9 
other legal cause.
10 
Sec. 4. Repealing Clause. - All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders,
11 
rules and regulations and other issuance or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act,
12 
are hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
13 
Sec. 5. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
14 
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general
15 
circulation in the Philippines.
Approved,