At this day and age, who would have thought that people
could still be sentenced to jail by simply expressing their opinion about
issues concerning society?
At a time when human rights are at the very core of our
basic laws, a person such as Carlos Celdran was given a verdict of imprisonment
after expressing his support for women’s reproductive health and opposition to
the Catholic Church’s meddling in the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill.
Even if the said bill is now a law (thanks to Congress), ironically, the Church
still managed to score a point with this latest conviction.
Background
On September 30, 2010, Filipino tour guide, cultural
activist, and performance artist Carlos Celdran staged a protest at the Manila
Cathedral. Dressed as Crisostomo Ibarra, the lead character in Dr. Jose Rizal’s
“Noli Me Tangere”, Celdran interrupted mass, raised a sign with the word
“Damaso” (pertaining to a character in
Rizal’s novel which symbolizes corrupt individuals in the Church), and shouted,
“Stop getting involved in politics!” Celdran staged the protest in front of
church-goers including Papal Nuncio Edward Adams, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio
Cardinal Rosales, and Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim.
The police apprehended Celdran on the spot and detained him.
The rector of the Manila Cathedral, Monsignor Nestor Cerbo, filed charges
against him for violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which
states:
“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.”
Verdict
On January 28, 2013, the Manila Metropolitan Trial
Court Branch 4 judge Juan Bermejo Jr. found Celdran guilty of violating Article
133 and was given an intermediate prison sentence of 2 months to a maximum of 1
year. Celdran, who was temporarily free due to bail, said he will appeal the
sentence up to the Supreme Court. Netizens and ordinary citizens alike lamented
their disgust and shock over the sentence, arguing that Celdran simply
exercised his freedom of expression and that no one should be imprisoned for
voicing out their opinion about a social issue. The hashtage #FreeCarlosCeldran
is once again trending in Twitter and comments of support poured into Celdran’s
official Facebook page.
Archaic, Punitive Law?
The lawyers of Carlos Celdran are arguing that
their client was charged guilty under a law that is as old as the Spanish
friars which Celdran saw in CBCP today—the Revised Penal Code. The 79-year old
penal code, which is a revision of the original Spanish penal code, still
contains archaic provisions that are no longer relevant and deemed inappropriate
for punishing criminal liability at this day and age.
Nevertheless, there are still provisions in the
law that enshrines the core of our constitution—human rights. This includes
Article 133, the same article which Celdran was found guilty of.
Article 133 became part of the RPC with respect to
the country’s Christian and Islamic roots but most importantly out of respect
for religious freedom. It is anyone’s right to be associated in a religion of
his/her own and exercise one’s religious beliefs. The article protects this
right by preventing one religion from offending the feelings and beliefs of
another religion, especially during the practice of such belief in one’s place
of worship.
Article 133 is upheld even further by the Bill of
Rights of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 5, which states:
“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…”
The Most Unfortunate Place and Time
The 1987 Constitution enshrines not just freedom
of religion but freedom of speech as well, as Section 4 of the Bill of Rights
states:
“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.”
This very passage in our Constitution guarantees people like
Carlos Celdran of the right to express their opinions no matter how these
opinions go against the beliefs of any group whether political, racial, or
religious in nature. Celdran’s protest in 2010 does not violate any laws if we
are going to look at it from the ends—the expression of support for women’s
reproductive rights and opposition to Church meddling in the passage of the RH
Bill.
But the end does not justify the means.
It’s totally agreeable that back when the debate over the RH
Bill is still hot, church leaders needed to be reminded of the limits of their
influence. But the means through which Celdran gave his astounding reminder
just defies the very core of our basic laws and makes him undeniably guilty of
violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.
There are two important phrases in this violation: “…acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful” and “…in a place
devoted to religious worship…”
By staging his protest during
Holy Mass, Celdran placed himself in the most unfortunate time and place to
express an unquestionable end. Whether it’s Holy Mass, Islamic sermons, or
Buddhist prayers, it is offensive to intentionally interrupt one’s exercise of
religious beliefs. We could argue that mass can sometimes be interrupted by cell
phones unintentionally ringing or babies suddenly crying, but these are not willful acts of interruption, nor offensive in nature.
What made Celdran’s act even more offensive is his
equation of Church leaders to corrupt Spanish friars while mass was going on by
flashing the now iconic word. No matter how accurate this comparison is, you don’t offend the faithful inside their
place of worship (and let us not begin questioning who we mean by “faithful”
here, for Christ’s faithful followers are all sinners after all). If the word
was posted outside of the cathedral, it could have been a different story for
Celdran.
An Important Lesson
There are a lot to learn from this landmark case.
One, you don’t step on one basic right in favor of another. If we can go around
it to avoid conflict but still achieve the same ends, then let us do so. We are
also made aware of the value of tolerance and how both Celdran and the Church should have
exercised it: The former should have exerted due tolerance despite his flamboyant disapproval of the latter’s position; the latter should have exercised due
tolerance by not going as much as filing a court case.
Most importantly, we are made aware of how our
church leaders, who are preachers of forgiveness, should have been the first to
exercise such virtue. It is understandable that the Church only wants to
prevent future disrespectful acts from happening, hence, the filing of the case. But this is not Christ’s way; if it were Jesus who witnessed such
act, He would admonish Celdran humanely and forgive Him for his trespasses. The church leaders who pursued this case are human after all—egotistic and filled with pride.
The only achievement of this verdict is the reiteration of respect and tolerance for religious
beliefs. But by putting Celdran behind bars, this achievement will only defeat itself. Free Carlos Celdran! TSS
-----
“To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.”
― C.S. Lewis
No comments:
Post a Comment