Crying over a hamburger

Is he free now?

[Reply]

While I completely acknowledge the outrage that a lot of people have with regard to the decision against Carlos Celdran, I urge everyone to be a little more objective and circumspect when reviewing the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.  

Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code does provide that the crime of “Offending Religious Feelings” is committed by “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.” In the Celdran case, the judge only had to look at whether or not 3 elements were present during the “Damaso placard incident” which I will refer hereafter as, the “Incident.”

First, was there an act committed by Mr. Celdran?  Yes – the Incident. 

Second, was the act committed inside a place devoted to religious worship OR during the celebration of a religious ceremony?  Yes, the act was committed at the Manila Cathedral — a place devoted to religious worship.  

Third, was the subject act notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful?  I believe that this was the critical issue in this legal proceeding.

In the 1939 case of People v. Jose Baes (G.R. No. L-46000, May 25, 1939), the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of determining whose feelings should be taken into consideration in the prosecution of a criminal case of “Offending Religious Feelings.”

The act in question in the Baes case was a religious funeral procession of a Protestant religion which passed through the grounds of a Catholic Church without the permission of the latter’s parish priest.  The Catholic parish priest filed a case of “Offending Religious Feelings” against the leader of the procession stating that he and his parishioners felt that their religious feelings were offended when followers of another religion entered their parish grounds to perform the said funeral procession.

In tackling the issue as to whose feelings must be shown to have been offended in a crime of “Offending Religious Feelings”, the Supreme Court declared that:

“(W)hether or not the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend the feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith.”

This means that, in deciding the case of Carlos Celdran, the Judge had to take into consideration the feelings of the Catholic faithful inside Manila Cathedral during the time of the Incident.  

In order to be found guilty, it only takes 1 person – 1 witness to categorically state that he or she was notoriously offended by the action of the accused.  In Mr. Celdran’s case, the prosecution presented a handful of witnesses who so testified that their “religious feelings were notoriously offended.”

The Judge really had no other choice but to find the accused guilty.

HOWEVER, I believe that there is a “freedom of expression” issue here.  Freedom of Expression is the right of a person to publicly express or communicate his or her opinions or ideas.  It is a sacred right enshrined in the Bill of Rights provision of our Constitution.  It is likewise recognized as a basic human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So why did the Metropolitan Trial Judge decide to convict Mr. Celdran?  Because the law which makes Offending Religious Feelings a crime is still a valid law.  It may be archaic, outdated, outmoded, antiquated — BUT it is still law.  There is a legal maxim which goes, “Dura lex sed lex” which, in English, is translated to, “The law may be harsh but it is the law.”  

As I said, I understand the outrage people have.  However, I do believe that the outrage should not be directed to the Judge but towards our Legislature for not amending or abolishing an anachronistic law which may have dire implications to one’s constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression (it must be noted, though, that the right of “freedom of expression” is not absolute and that a person’s right of expression is tempered by certain laws, for instance, laws against slander, libel, and intellectual property infringement).

Unfortunately for Mr. Celdran, our procedural rules do not usually allow Trial Courts to pass upon the constitutionality of laws.  This responsibility falls under the exclusive function and responsibility of our Supreme Court.  

Should Mr. Celdran raise the constitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code as being violative of the Freedom of Expression provision of our Bill of Rights?  Yes, I believe he should.  BUT I also think that the Legislature MUST take time to review ancient laws such as the crime of “Offending Religious Feelings.”

It must be noted that the Baes Decision of the Supreme Court was not a unanimous one.  Justice Jose Laurel’s Dissenting Opinion was brilliantly written. Invoking the Spanish legal scholar, Viado, Justice Laurel wrote:

“I believe that an act, in order to be considered as notoriously offensive to the religious feelings, must be one directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule; the offender, for instance, mocks, scoffs at or attempts to damage an object of religious veneration; it must be abusive, insulting and obnoxious”

Using Justice Laurel’s opinion and applying it on the Celdran case, Mr. Celdran could not have possibly committed the crime because his action was never for the purpose of ridicule.  He never mocked, scoffed at, or attempted to damage an object of religious veneration.

However, again unfortunately, Justice Laurel’s opinion was merely a dissenting opinion — one which was not shared by the majority of the Supreme Court.

Congress should take heed of Justice Laurel’s grave warning towards the end of his Dissenting Opinion when he questioned the narrow-minded interpretation of the law:

“(If) the gravity or leniency of the offense would hinge on the subjective characterization of the act from the point of view of a given religious denomination or sect, and in such a case, the application of the law would be partial and arbitrary, withal, dangerous x x x.”

This is definitely not the last we will hear of this case.  Undoubtedly, Mr. Celdran’s lawyers (led by my schoolmate at Ateneo Law, Marlon Manuel), will raise this matter all the way to the Supreme Court and our jurisprudence will be all the more richer because of it.

I wish Carlos Celdran well.

[Reply]

Jude Lopez Mancuyas
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 31st, 2013 at 5:55 AM

*nosebleed* Tissue nga, yaya!

[Reply]

teadrinker
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 31st, 2013 at 10:20 AM

“Third, was the subject act notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful?  I believe that this was the critical issue in this legal proceeding.”
- I am a Catholic. I may not be as zealous as other Catholics, but I consider myself among the faithful. Did the Court consider only the feelings of the faithful who were present during the act? If not, I don’t see the act as “notoriously offensive”.

[Reply]

Philip Nazareno
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 31st, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Hi teadrinker.  Unfortunately, in the case at hand, the Trial Court only had to consider the “religious feelings” of the people who were present inside the Manila Cathedral when the incident occurred.  Again, the dire warning of Justice Laurel as stated in his Dissenting Opinion in the Baes case should make us all pause and think:  “(If) the gravity or leniency of the offense would hinge on the subjective characterization of the act from the point of view of a given religious denomination or sect, in such a case, the application of the law would be partial and arbitrary, withal, dangerous x x x.”

[Reply]

teadrinker
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 31st, 2013 at 3:06 PM

I agree with Justice Laurel.

I
like that Celdran puts the spotlight on these issues, but it doesn’t
change the fact that he’s an arrogant prick. In this case, he went
against a bigger prick and lost.

[Reply]

CVS Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 3:15 PM

you also sound like one

[Reply]

hew me
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 4:47 PM

dead

[Reply]

Walter Robles
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Well we all do at some point, especially taking into consideration who’s hearing the things we say. Most of us, however, don’t end up in prison for sounding like a prick.

[Reply]

i’m sure he will have a lot of support from the public (me included).

[Reply]

May pag-asa pa. The court that handed down the decision was the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court. May Court of Appeals pa and Supreme Court. I hope he gets pro bono legal help. It could be quite costly. Not to mention tedious and time-consuming. Irritating, too, if not resolved for a long period of time.

[Reply]

funny how most of the hateful, bigoted and incendiary vitriol I see in comments about the rh issue and this are from people who happen to claim that god is on their side.

[Reply]

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10152664403600413&set=a.10150314632795413.564509.89494795412&type=1&theater

I saw this photo on facebook and it reminded me of staid religion has become in the Philippines.  Maybe people would be less critical of the Catholic church if they accepted criticism instead of acting aggressively towards it. 

[Reply]

Not only there are “righteous Catholics” but there are so many of them thriving in each religion, and that’s what people call “religious hypocrites.” Righteousness is not about religion or Catholicism. Whatever religion or faith one believes in, the essence of the truth of that faith or religion is by the way one leads and conducts his life and the trust he puts on his Supreme God. Even if one religiously follow all the doctrines and rules of a religion, say for example, attending a Catholic mass every day or every Sunday, doesn’t make him righteous. We can only be righteous by the unmerited gift of forgiveness and love of God through our Savior Jesus Christ, by not only admiring him or believing in Him, but taking up our cross to follow Him. Righteousness is something we cannot achieve because we humans are all imperfect, only the blood of Jesus Christ’s and his forgiveness can make us righteous.

[Reply]

Ms. C, I understand where you’re coming from ’cause he’s your friend.

Based on what I know about the case, I do believe he has to serve time because he did violate a law. Those who say that the verdict is against free speech got it wrong. I think this article explained it well http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2013/01/why-carlos-celdran-should-go-to-jail-for-his-2010-damaso-stunt/

Also, pwede na lang ba ang sorry when someone commits a mistake? I don’t think so.

Imagine if the Damaso act was done in a mosque, I am sure almost everyone will cry foul and will say that it was against peaceful worship.

[Reply]

CVS Reply:
January 29th, 2013 at 11:49 PM

how long do you think he should spend in jail?

[Reply]

KUMAGCOW Reply:
January 29th, 2013 at 11:58 PM

This time naman Ms C he’s got 14 followers LOL

[Reply]

CelebGPS
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 12:06 AM

Oh please! So now, you’re branding anyone against you as a “righteous Catholic”? Did I even say anything that warrants that comment?

FYI, I am pro-RH and I also criticize the Catholic church.

theIrrelevant Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 7:18 PM

mr. celdran himself may need this jail time to reflect, be a better person and influence his friends to become better human beings themselves. 
STET.

CelebGPS
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 11:45 PM

I believe he had good intentions in mind. He just made a wrong decision; bad judgment on his part. 

CelebGPS
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 12:07 AM

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t his sentence under probationary law? Which means he probably doesn’t even need to go to jail if approved for probation.

[Reply]

Lia Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 9:14 AM

I have to agree with you. I understand Carlos Celdran, I understand what he was trying to do, I am also pro-RH. I just think there is a proper forum for a protest. I am a Catholic, and even though I tune out when the priest starts spewing off anti-RH spiels during homily, I will not appreciate it if someone blatantly disrupts Mass.

I do think that the jail term is over the top, and would alienate more Catholics from the Church. Community service perhaps?

[Reply]

CVS Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 11:09 AM

fyi it wasn’t a mass he disrupted. it was a meeting inside a church

[Reply]

CelebGPS
Twitter: briandelro
Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 11:39 PM

It’s weird that no one knew (except for the priests) exactly what was happening. Mr. Celdran wasn’t sure either from what I remember. He thought it was a mass then later on said maybe it wasn’t. I read it was an ecumenical service. True?

However, Article 133 does not really care about what was going on since it states that it will punish any individual 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.”