celdran

Could and should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?” In the Philippines, it is possible. That is exactly what the judge ruled in a case filed by Monsignor Nestor Cerbo of the Manila Cathedral (Catholic Church vs Carlos Celdran) over Celdran's violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.

 

On September 30, 2010, Carlos Celdran staged a protest against the Catholic Church for blocking the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. He went to the Manila Cathedral dressed as Filipino national hero, Jose Rizal. Inside the cathedral and during an ecumenical service (not MASS but a meeting inside the church), Celdran shouted that the church should stop meddling in government affairs while holding a sign which read: “Damaso.”

 

The sign referred to “Padre Damaso,” the contravida priest in Dr. Jose Rizal’s novel, “Noli Me Tangere.”This anticlerical novel was written by the national hero to expose the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church friars and the Spanish elite during the Spanish era in 19th century colonial Philippines.

 

In his ruling, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 Judge Juan Bermejo Jr. stated:

“Wherefore, premises considered, accused Carlos Celdran is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two months and 21 days as minimum to one year, one month and 11 days…”



Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code stipulates:

“Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

As soon as this ruling came out, a fiery debate ensued among kababayans in the Philippines.

 

Many question the constitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, arguing that it directly violates Sections 4 and 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states:

“Section 4. No 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.

Section 5. 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.”

 

As these provisions in the Philippine Constitution were patterned after the US Constitution, it is important to understand the spirit and intent of the law, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

 

This would point to the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the same prohibition found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” This is followed by “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” -- known as the “Free Exercise Clause.”

 

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted by legal experts to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or the preference by the US government of one religion over another, notwithstanding the right to exercise religion or no religion at all.

 

People ask: Isn't it therefore a violation of the Constitution to suppress the right to free speech (Section 4 Bill of Rights) because of Article 133 which could arguably be in violation of another provision of the Constitution (Section 5, Bill of Rights) which mandates that "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion"?

 

Kababayans who oppose the judge’s ruling also argue against the use of the clause “acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” Who defines and who decides what is “notoriously offensive”?

 

Others also wonder if people from other religion (even atheists) enjoy the same protection under the law. And what about the secular groups or people? Can they also file a case against the Catholic Church, if they feel that their feelings are being offended by the religious institution?

 

Is there a counterpart of the law for the non-religious? If none, then, isn’t this a clear violation of the clause, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,” in the Philippine Constitution?

 

Those critical of the Catholic Church contend that priests who sexually abuse minors should be the ones sent to prison, as such transgression is a far graver criminal offense than protesting inside the cathedral. They point out that the act of protest is protected by the “Freedom of Speech” clause of the Bill of Rights.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, kababayans who support the complaint of the Catholic Church argue that no right is absolute -- that people should exercise their rights responsibly. They contend that the law just makes sure that exercising one’s right does not cross the line and offend other people -- in this case, the religious feelings of Catholics.

 

They say Celdran could exercise his “freedom of speech,” but he should have chosen a better venue. Staging his protest IN the cathedral (which is a place of worship for Catholics) is a clear violation of Article 133.

 

Celdran said he would appeal against the court’s decision, arguing that this uncommonly-used law is a threat to freedom of speech.

 

“I am calm but I am going to fight this till the end,” Celdran posted on Twitter. And this legal battle may go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

Legal experts say unless the Supreme Court rules that Article 133 is unconstitutional, then Celdran will have to face the consequences of his action pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

 

After listening to both sides of the argument, what is your opinion? Do you think Carlos Celdran SHOULD go to prison for "offending religious feelings?"

 

 

Blog GelGel is the anchor of The Filipino Channel’s “Balitang America”, the first daily television newscast about events and issues that matter to Filipinos in North America. Visit Gel's blogsite to read more Fil-AM Perspectives. Follow her on Twitter @GelSantosRelos.