Quantcast

Commentary

Offending religious feelings

By

In September 2010, Carlos Celdran, outraged by the Church’s intervention in the debates over reproductive health rights, did the unthinkable. Sporting a dark suit a la Jose Rizal, he went to the Manila Cathedral where an assembly was then marking the anniversary of the “May They Be One” campaign and launching a project aimed at distributing five million Bibles to poor families. One of the witnesses said that while someone was reading a passage from the Bible, Celdran “proceeded towards the center in front of the altar and suddenly brought out a placard approximately one-fourth of an illustration board with the word ‘DAMASO’ written on it.”

For this stunt, Celdran was prosecuted and recently convicted by a trial court for violation of Article 133 of the Penal Code or Offending the Religious Feelings, a crime 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.”

The important question in Celdran’s case is not whether he is guilty of offending religious feelings; it is whether Article 133 is constitutional in the first place or compatible with nonestablishment and free speech rights. In other words, the issue is: Does the government have the authority to jail people for exercising their right to speak in a way that offends the feelings of the faithful? No.

First. Article 133 is a close cousin to the concept of lese majeste, that set of criminal offenses meant to sanction disrespect toward the crown or its agents. It was understandable for Spain to impose such penalties at home or in its colonies given that it operated under theocratic foundations. Thus, to defame the King or his subalterns is to defame God’s temporal embodiment.

Article 133 relies on the same theory because it was meant to prohibit disrespect toward the Church and its doctrines. But the Philippines is no longer a theocracy, and our Constitution categorically declares the separation of church and state. If the Philippine Supreme Court in the early days of the American colonial regime rejected lese majeste as a basis for convicting (then journalist, later justice) Gregorio Perfecto on the ground that libel against ministers of the crown no longer had any place in the Philippines, with greater reason should we reject Article 133.

Second. Our Constitution and jurisprudence frown upon regulations that penalize citizens for what they say, given the stunningly bad record of the government in policing controversial or dangerous ideas. Article 133 is a classic case of a content-based regulation, that is, a criminal offense based on the substance of what the speaker says, in this case Celdran’s act of raising the “Damaso” sign before the altar. Was this offensive to the feelings of many of those inside the Manila Cathedral? Of course it was, but that is also constitutionally beside the point.

What consequences should follow from Celdran’s speech? On the part of those who were offended, they are entitled to a very wide spectrum of reactions short of inflicting violence on Celdran: They can picket his famed Intramuros tours and appeal for a boycott, set up blogs and comment all they want on Facebook to criticize him, teach their children the value of disagreeing without being disagreeable, or act like a good Christian and accept Celdran’s apology.

On the part of the government, nothing, except to ensure that no acts of violence are committed by those offended and their supporters, on the one hand, and Celdran and his supporters, on the other. The principle of free speech prohibits the government from sending people to jail simply because it disagrees with the speaker or it deems the speech too hurtful. It requires Celdran to internalize the cost of his own actions, valued in terms of the undying hatred of conservative Catholics or his rock-star status among progressives. Put differently, our Constitution mandates that whatever consequence which follows from Celdran’s disrespect flows from the value of such act in the marketplace of ideas, not in the prosecutor’s office or the sala of Judge Juan Bermejo.

Third. Article 133 is also patently unconstitutional because it smacks of viewpoint discrimination. Why should offending the feelings of the faithful be so privileged in our society that only critics would be visited with jail terms? We are offended by many ideas on a daily basis, yet we cannot ask the government to require people who harbor inane ideas or beliefs to spend some quality time with convicted rapists, murderers, and thieves. If Msgr. Nestor Cerbo, the complainant in the case, decided to do a Celdran and raised a Satanist placard in a meeting among secularists and post-theists, those poor evolutionists cannot file a complaint for Offending the Feelings of the Rational and bother the good monsignor with a court case.

The point here is that the government cannot, through the criminal justice system, especially immunize certain institutions, ideas, and practices from public criticism without violating the Constitution. Such privileging is a species of support for the Church, and a form of establishment violative of the principle of secularism. It cannot favor one side of the debate by handicapping the critic from the other side with a threat of punishment. In the contest between the religious and the secularists for the hearts and minds of the Filipino people, the government, as umpire, cannot take sides by declaring that only the latter but not the former can commit a foul.

Florin T. Hilbay is associate professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law and director of the Institute of Government and Law Reform.


Follow Us


Follow us on Facebook Follow on Twitter Follow on Twitter


More from this Column:

Other Stories:

No related posts found!

Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Short URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/?p=45975

Tags: Carlos Celdran , column , Florin T. Hilbay , ‘offending religious feelings’



Copyright © 2014, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
Advertisement
Advertisement

News

  • Sayyaf man linked to Sipadan kidnapping falls
  • Drilon calls for sobriety as mudslinging, witch hunts loom due to pork scam
  • S. Korea ferry toll hits 150 as search gets tougher
  • If Napoles names Aquino allies, they’ll be brought to bar of justice – Palace
  • Lacson says diamond-studded earring snatched from wife fake
  • Sports

  • Wizards beat Bulls in OT to take 2-0 series lead
  • Pacers rally past Hawks 101-85 to even series
  • David Moyes out as Manchester United manager
  • Nadal to face fellow Spaniard at Barcelona Open
  • Defensive Chelsea holds Atletico in scoreless draw
  • Lifestyle

  • Haneda International Airport: A destination on its own
  • Wanted: Beauty queen with a heart that beats for the environment
  • Kim Atienza: At home with art and design
  • Life lessons I want to teach my son
  • Sweet party for Andi Manzano
  • Entertainment

  • Ex-Fox exec denies allegations in sex abuse suit
  • Kris Aquino backtracks, says Herbert Bautista and her are ‘best friends’
  • Summer preview: Chris Pratt enters a new ‘Galaxy’
  • Bon Jovi helps open low-income housing in US
  • Summer movie preview: Bay reboots ‘Transformers’
  • Business

  • McDonald’s 1Q profit slips as US sales decline
  • SEC approves SM’s P15B retail bond offer
  • $103M Vista Land bonds tendered for redemption
  • Oil slips to $102 as US crude supplies seen rising
  • SC stops Meralco power rate hike anew
  • Technology

  • Engineers create a world of difference
  • Bam Aquino becomes Master Splinter’s son after Wiki hack
  • Mark Caguioa lambasts Ginebra teammates on Twitter
  • Brazil passes trailblazing Internet privacy law
  • New York police Twitter campaign backfires badly
  • Opinion

  • One-dimensional diplomacy: A cost-benefit analysis of Manila’s security deal with Washington
  • No ordinary illness
  • Reforest mountains with fire trees and their kind
  • Day of the Earth
  • When will Chinese firm deliver new coaches?
  • Global Nation

  • No word yet on inking of US-PH defense pact during Obama visit
  • Filipina, 51, shot dead by 24-year-old American boyfriend
  • China, rivals sign pact to ease maritime tensions
  • Visa-free US trip? Do not believe it, says consulate
  • Obama visit to Asia seen as counterweight to China
  • Marketplace