In a September 19, 2025 decision, Branch 306 of Quezon City’s Regional Trial Court dismissed the case against drag performer Pura Luka Vega – assigned as Amadeus Fernando Pagente at birth – who was accused of offending “religious feelings”.
How we got here
In July 2023, a video of drag performer Pura Luka Vega wearing a Black Nazarene-inspired costume while dancing to a remix of the song of “Ama Namin (Our Father, The Lord’s Prayer)” spread online, immediately becoming controversial because it, supposedly, offended “religious feelings”.
Pura was eventually declared as persona non grata in various localities whose “leaders” considered the performance as blasphemous and disrespectful to their religion, including the LGUs of Manila, Laguna, Nueva Ecija, Cagayan de Oro City, Bohol, Bukidnon, General Santos City, Floridablanca in Pampanga, and Toboso in Negros Occidental.
Navigating the complexities of these legal statutes, especially when they intersect with issues of public expression and religious sentiment, can require experienced legal representation. When criminal charges are involved, defendants may need to understand the potential consequences they face and the legal strategies available to them. A felony lawyer can provide defense guidance to individuals facing serious criminal allegations and help them navigate the legal process.
Cases were eventually filed against Pura, with laws that were supposedly violated includeing: Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, or for “Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows”; the Cyber Crime Prevention Act; and Section 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that performing acts “notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful”.
Where we are now
In June 2025, the Manila Regional Trial Court was acquitted by the Manila Regional Trial Court for violating of Article 201 (2)(b)(3) and (2)(b)(5) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175).
In the September 19 decision from Branch 306 of Quezon City’s Regional Trial Court, it was stressed that even if the “private complainants’ feelings were hurt or they felt insulted by the performance of the accused, again, they do not automatically translate into a cognizable legal injury under the rules.”
Signed by presiding judge Dolly Rose Bolante-Prado, the ruling stressed that the law – as it exists – protects religion as a “collective entity”.
“(A) careful reading of the provision of Article 201(2)(b)(3) of the Revised Penal Code reveals that it aims to protect religion as a collective entity. It criminalizes acts that offend the religious sentiments of the faithful as a group through immoral or indecent public exhibitions. It protects religion as a collective concern. The offense is considered public in nature, as opposed to private, since it is a violation agianst the religious community’s collective feelings and dignity and not its individual members’ subjective private feelings.”
The decision cited the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Baes, where it was emphasized that “offenses against religion are questions of fact judged according to the feelings of the religious faithful… as a group.”
As such, “the offended party is therefore understood to be the church or the religious organizations due to the collective nature of the injury.”
With this, the case filed against Pura before it is dismissed.
