Carlos Celdran has filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Supreme Court in relation with the First Division’s Resolution affirming his conviction by the Court of Appeals under Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code. This is the “Offending the Religious Feelings” law from the Spanish colonization era when abusive friars reigned supreme in our country.
Carlos, a known artist, heritage advocate, and activist for the Reproductive Health Law can go to jail over going to the Manila Cathedral, flashing a white board with the word “DAMASO” on it to the gathering, and shouting “Stop meddling in politics!” as he was being brought away by security guards.
I maintain that Celdran had no intention to offend anyone that day as I was on the phone with him hours before the incident. He told me that he was just going to take pictures for posting on Facebook. Despite having no ill intent, what happened, happened and he turned the incident into a political protest when he yelled as he did.
Nobody knew of the “Offending the Religious Feelings” law. After all, it was 2010 when the incident happened. More than 100 years have passed since our revolutionists freed the country from our Spanish colonizers. Apparently, this law was “discovered” by one of the policemen in the station where Carlos was brought in when they were looking for a charge that could be used in this case. All the lawyers who came to help Carlos were surprised that such a law even existed.
As already repeatedly said, the “stop meddling in politics” line was because of the Catholic hierarchy’s efforts to block the passage of the then RH bill. The incident became a turning point in the whole advocacy as more people became aware of how powerful the church remained. Public discourse on the bill and the Celdran case heightened.
Last August 15, Carlos was accompanied by RH advocates as he filed his MR. The gates of the Supreme Court were again the venue for RH advocates, this time calling for the Court to reverse its ruling, respect the constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression, and the separation of Church and State.
An important development in the case is the filing of another MR by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). This is the second time that the OSG has sided with Celdran in relation with this case. The first was during the time of former SolGen Florin Hilbay who called for the SC to acquit Celdran on the basis of the unconstitutionality of the “Offending the Religious Feelings” law.
Hilbay’s position was adopted by present SolGen Calida when his office submitted the MR to the SC. This is actually a rare case when the Government has sided with the accused. The norm is the State sides with the prosecution.
The original complainant against Celdran was Monsignor Cervo of the Archdiocese of Manila. Since then the Archdiocese has said that they have, a long time ago, stopped pursuing the case and has left it to government in terms of how the case should be handled.
The government, through the OSG has stated a clear position not once, but twice with two different sitting Solicitor Generals. In both cases, they asked for Carlos to be acquitted, and for Art. 133 of the RPC to be declared unconstitutional. If the supposedly aggrieved party in the case has ceased to be interested and government has said that Celdran should be declared innocent, the SC should take a second look at the resolution issued by its First Division.
Celdran, in his MR again assailed the constitutionality of Art. 133. Such a law has no place in a country where there is full constitutional guarantee to freedom of expression, and where the separation of Church and State is protected by the Constitution. His “stop meddling in politics” is political expression fully covered by freedom of expression. The non-establishment clause of the Constitution means that there is no State religion and prohibits favoring one religion over another (and some argue, over non-religion).
Celdran’s MR asked for an SC en banc to discuss the case. The First Division’s resolution, according to several lawyers I have spoken with seemed like a “minute decision” and not a full decision. Since the law’s constitutionality is the one questioned, it is best for the en banc, or the entire SC to discuss the merits of the case, and for the Court to issue a full decision that will decide on questions of constitutionality. The First Division’s Resolution simply stated that it affirms the conviction as ruled by the CA. It totally ignored the question of constitutionality.
This is important because this case is precedent-setting. It’s Carlos Celdran now, tomorrow, it can be any one of us. This case goes beyond Celdran.
The MR also asks the SC to call for oral arguments on the case. This will give the legal counsel of Celdran as well as the OSG the opportunity to argue and defend their positions in front of the Justices. Hopefully, the SC will call for one because after all, Art. 133’s adherence to the Constitution is being questioned.
Lastly, it is unimaginable that someone like Carlos Celdran can go to jail for expressing his political opinion. Carlos is NOT a dangerous person. Those who know him, and there are many, would attest to the many acts of kindness he has been doing for the less fortunate members of Manila’s communities. He is also known for his heritage advocacies and programs which have brought Intramuros, and the city of Manila into the consciousness of not a few people.
When he was detained in prison in 2010 for his DAMASO act, we stayed with him the whole time. A group of “caretela” drivers came and sat down with us. They were the people helped by Carlos and when they learned that he was in prison they came to visit and “guard” him. When we accompanied Carlos last August 15 to file his MR, two SC security guards told me that they knew of Carlos and that he is a good guy.
Carlos Celdran deserves to be free, not jailed. What he did was part of his freedom to express himself. The “Offending the Religious Feelings” law is archaic and goes against the Constitution.
Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code should be declared unconstitutional.
@bethangsioco on Twitter Elizabeth Angsioco on Facebook
