THE verdict is out.
On January 28, performance artist and cultural activist Charles P. “Carlos” Celdran was convicted for “offending religious feelings” by Judge Juan Bermejo of the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court’s Branch 4.
Celdran was sentenced to a prison term — ranging from 2 months and 21 days, up to 13 months and 11 days.
Celdran was found guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” for violating Article 133 (an almost “archaic” law, dating back to Spanish colonial times) of the Revised Penal Code. He is out on a P5,000 bail while he appeals his conviction.
The complaint was filed by Msgr. Nestor Cerbo, rector of the Manila Cathedral and a member of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) after Celdran walked into an ecumenical service at the Manila Cathedral on September 30, 2010, to advocate for the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill (which, after 14 years, has finally been passed into law in December 2012) amongst priests and clergymen.
Celdran, who is a noted Intramuros tour guide and performance artist, was clad in 19th century clothing similar to that of Jose P. Rizal’s — the country’s national hero.
Celdran carried a placard with the word “Damaso” written on it to the altar (“Damaso” is one of the antagonists in Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo — a corrupt and oppressive Spanish friar).
He proceeded quietly at first, and people at the church initially thought that it was part of an act and ignored him. This prompted the performance artist to speak in a loud voice and cause a commotion.
He was arrested by cops later on and stayed in jail for a night.
Two years later, the court made a decision on the complaint, saying: “The court submits that the act of the accused in displaying the placard with the word DAMASO written on it inside the Manila Cathedral, while an ecumenical service was going on, is offensive to the feelings of the faithful,” as declared by Bermejo in his nine-page decision.
International non-governmental organization and human rights advocacy group, Human Rights Watch, expressed alarm over the said verdict.
“We are alarmed by the court’s decision. Nobody should be jailed for voicing out an opinion or position, especially on a subject that concerns the lives of millions of Filipino women and mothers,” the group said.
Carlos Conde, Asia researcher for the group, said: “The government should ensure that pro-reproductive rights activists are not targeted using such archaic provisions of the Philippines’ Revised Penal Code. This case shows the potential for misuse and malicious prosecution and hence the need for urgent reform to this provision of the code.”
Even Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III has sought forgiveness for Celdran, albeit finding the venue where the performance artist made his protest inappropriate.
“I may sympathize with Mr. Celdran’s position. Perhaps the methodology during a Mass (Note: Celdran stands by his defense that it was an “ecumenical service” and not a mass), we don’t agree with it. Maybe if our priests, our religious will follow the example of the Pope and many other popes, Christian generosity and charity will prevail and perhaps they can forgive Mr. Celdran,” said Pres. Aquino during the 40th anniversary celebration of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).
Philippine Daily Inquirer opinion columnist Conrado De Quiros also has mixed sentiments about the issue.
“I said pretty much the same thing the first time I wrote about it. While I thought Celdran ought to be lauded for exposing how the Church had turned into the intrusive and oppressive power it was in times past, indeed for reminding us that we had a brilliant fellow by the name of Rizal who wrote the brilliant novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, I thought he also needed to be rapped for going overboard on it.”
“I have no problem with irreverence, I have no problem with outrageousness, I have no problem even with blasphemy and sacrilege. But I have a problem with violating other people’s rights.”
“The problem isn’t offending religious sensibilities. I have no problem with that, too, that is the natural, or professional, hazard of art. The problem is trampling over other people’s right to worship. Had Celdran mounted his protest outside the church — in the courtyard, even at the church’s very doorstep — I’d have no caveats with it. It would have been brilliant. Of course it would have offended the religious sensibilities of the more pious… But interrupting a Mass to press the point is quite another matter. To begin with, the problem with a shotgun approach is that it hits not just its target, it hits everybody else within range of the scatter. Celdran’s act did not hit the people celebrating the Mass — it was a concelebration — it hit those attending it. It did not just hit the clergy, it hit the faithful. Why should the flock have to pay for the sins of their shepherd?”
“Far more importantly, it was a trespass on an act of worship… No one is within his rights to interrupt someone in his prayer, or while he is communing with his God, even if that someone constitutes the minority,” De Quiros further opined.
The internet and social media are just as laden with heated discussions/arguments among pro- and anti-Celdran netizens.
Some reason that Celdran only exercised his constitutional right to freedom of speech — a fact that should, therefore, trump Article 133 of the antiquated Revised Penal Code.
Others insist that the venue for Celdran’s protest was inappropriate, and that he should be punished accordingly.
Disagreements even arose among men of the cloth.
CBCP President and Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma said: “We can only love and forgive but the decision of the court is the court’s verdict on the matter…we just say amen to the decision… More than anything else, love should prevail and we have learned our lessons in the process [that] respect should be given to every religion and respect places [of worship],” said Palma.
On the other hand, Fr. Roberto Reyes of Juan de Plasencia Franciscan Novitiate in Liliw, Laguna wrote: “Is Carlos Celdran in pain? Yes, but not in the way that others may understand. I know him and he is a friend. He is a bona-fide citizen of the Republic of the Philippines. We have shared much about the excesses of the Catholic Church long before he ever thought of his ‘Damaso act’ in the Manila Cathedral. Carlos’ pain is that of a Catholic who ask questions and seeks answers but instead of being given one is told to shut up and behave himself. While his Damaso act could have been better done outside the Cathedral and not inside while an Inter-faith gathering was going on, it was his choice for which he was ready to face the consequences.”
“There is another paradoxical twist to Carlos’ pain. His creative protest against the Church’s intrusion into the affairs of the state earned the ire of Manila Cathedral Rector Msgr. Nestor Cerbo who later filed a case against the latter. In the meantime, officers of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines forgave Celdran. But now, the courts which are instruments of the state decided to convict and sentence Celdran. While Cendran’s Damaso Act defended the state’s program on Population Management, it is the courts of the same state that is putting him behind bars.”
“This painlessness, apathy and snobbery on the part of some members of the hierarchy and powerful laity of the Catholic Church is not part of the ‘pain of Damaso’ but that which he causes and inflicts upon others.”
“I cannot look at Carlos Celdran and simply say, ‘Buti nga,’ and ‘you deserve to be jailed’ without in any way experiencing conflicting feelings inside. Some of her leaders and not the Church as such is culpable. Some may be guilty and may need punishment and more importantly, reform.”
“I feel the pain of those alienated by some of the leaders of the Church. Carlos Celdran may be doing us the favor of reminding us not only of the sins of the past but of the present as well. Painful as it may sound, it is not so much Carlos Celdran who is on trial, but Padre Damaso once again,” Fr. Reyes further wrote.
While arguments remain heated on the issue of constitutional right (i.e. freedom of expression) vs The Revised Penal Code, it is only fair to view it from another perspective, as a basis for introspection: Celdran was compelled to do what he did at the time, because the Catholic Church itself has threatened Pres. Aquino with excommunication and civil disobedience, for supporting the RH Bill.
Shouldn’t this also be deemed as an intrusive act, which violates Philippine law on an even grander scale? Does it not overstep the boundaries set by the Philippine Constitution?: “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II, Section 6).” If so, shouldn’t the Catholic Church face the consequences of its actions as well?
After all, a just and fair society cannot exist without equality. The laws of the land should apply to everyone.
But just like technology, laws can also become obsolete. It is up to a nation’s citizens to ensure that government leaders keep legislation relevant, inclusive and progressive; and to safeguard what is essential and fundamental — constitutional rights and democracy, above all.
(AJPress)
