Freedom of Expression v Freedom of Religion: The Case of Carlos Celdran

Castillo, Sharla Louisse A.

ID No. 2014009444
castillosharla@yahoo.com
Human Rights Law, 5 to 7 PM
Submitted to: Atty. Rodel Taton

Introduction
Jose Rizal, our national hero was a communicative witness to the abusive deeds of friars
during the Spanish occupation. Through his famous novels we were able to take a glimpse of
what he and native Filipinos experienced during the Spanish colonization. According to his
novels, friars back then were very powerful and influential. They were authorized by the
Monarchy of Spain to administer not just ecclesiastical matters but also those political in nature.
Due to this odd combination of functions, they were not viewed as spiritual leaders who uplift
the spirits of those oppressed and weary; instead, they were seen as those villains who terrorize
Filipino natives through their socially unacceptable actuations.
Rizal depicted the horror done by these friars through fictional characters. One of these
fictional characters created by Rizal was Padre Damaso, a notoriously abusive priest.
Incidentally, Carlos Celdran wrote the word Damaso in the placard he held when he disrupted a
religious assembly last September 30, 2010, probably to relay a strong message to the Church
and for them not to emulate the doings of Padre Damaso during the Spanish colonization which
may stop their fingers dipping to political issues, particularly, the passage of the Reproductive
Health Bill which at that time was a hotly debated topic among politicians and legislators.
1

However unlike Jose Rizal, who expressed his thoughts and disgust to Spanish friars
through conservative but acceptable means which is writing novels centered on Spanish friar
abuses, Carlos Celdran chose to flaunt his hatred and despise through legally unjustifiable
actions. Their ideologies probably were identical, however the way they expressed their
observations greatly differ.
The Case of Carlos Celdran
Last September 30, 2010, during the hype of the issues on the RH Bill, several people
composing mainly of catholic church dignitaries and organizations together with religious
leaders in the persons of Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, Papal Nuncio, Ambassador de Villa and
other leaders of different Christian denominations attended the celebration of the second
anniversary of the May They Be One Campaign (MTBC) and the launching of Hand Written
Bible in the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila.
Carlos Celdran who was dressed in black suit with a black hat entered the church during
the ecumenical liturgical religious worship of Edgar J. Tirona. His outfit resembles the old style
clothes of Dr. Jose Rizal and his intentions on entering the church has been finally revealed when
he walked through the middle aisle in front of the altar and displayed a placard/board bearing the
word DAMASO. As part of his final act, he had blurted out the words Dont meddle in
politics. The religious persons filed a complaint against Carlos Celdran for the crime of
Offending Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and for the
consequences of his willful disruption of the said religious activity.

The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila decided in favor of the complainant and held
Celdran guilty of the crime under Article 133. Regional Trial Court of Manila affirmed the
decision of MeTC. Thus, Celdran addressed the issue in the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision
Celdran mainly argued that RTC erred in affirming the decision of the MeTC convicting
him of the crime punishable under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. The said provision
defined the crime of Offending the Religious Feelings through the following elements:
1

That the acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious

worship, or during the celebration of any religious ceremony

That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful

The Court of Appeals found that the elements of the said crime are present to uphold the
petitioners conviction. Element 1 is present since the incident happened inside the Manila
Cathedral which is a place devoted to religious worship. On the other hand, element 2 was
analyzed in the point of view of the complainant and not of the offender. The acts committed by
the petitioner were viewed as notoriously offensive to the feelings of those properly identified as
the members of the Catholic Church. Court of Appeals also affirmed on the observation of the
RTC that the acts of the petitioner were meant to mock, insult and ridicule the clergy.
The Court of Appeals denied the appeal of Celdran affirming the decisions of the lower
courts.

Freedom of Expression versus Freedom of Religion

Human rights are essentially inherent and fundamental to each person. However, conflict
arises when two or more basic rights intertwined. The classic example of this is the freedom of
expression and the freedom of religion. It has been the subject of numerous debates yet still to be
solved. Questions revolved mostly on whether freedom of expression has been limited by the
freedom of religion.
Freedom of expression is a guaranteed right to a person to express his opinion or belief.
This right is fully guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 which
provides that Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers1.
Moreover, this right is reiterated in Art 19, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides that, Everyone shall have the right to
hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice.2
However, the provision made it clear that the exercise of such right is not absolute as it
expressly provided in paragraph 3 that, The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of
this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
1 Article 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2 Article 19 (1) and (2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
4

restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect
of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order
or of public health or morals.3
This right has been included in the Philippine Constitution in Article III, Section 4 which
provides that 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. 4
Freedom of religion is guaranteed under Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,
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. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.5
It is worth noting that through Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 and as
reiterated in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the two rights may be said
to be protected both and be given an equal weight of importance. Article 18 of UNDHR provides
that Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others

3 Article 19 (3) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

4 Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
5 Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
5

and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance.6
Article 9 of ECHR added that the freedom to manifest ones religion or beliefs shall be
subjected to limitations such as those that are prescribed by law and those necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of public safety, protection of public order, health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.7
In order to resolve the conflict between these two basic rights that are usually intertwined, the
limitations and extensions of the each right will be discussed in relation to the crime committed
by Carlos Celdran.
Limitation of the Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic
society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. 8 In
modern day time, the modes of expressing ones opinions were diversely expressed in oral,
writing and even digital. Some are even creative in order to attract attention and to give emphasis
on his beliefs and opinions.

6 Article 18 of Universal Declaration on Human Rights

7 Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights
8 Handyside v. the United Kingdom, AN 5493/72, December 7, 1976
6

The right is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favorably received or
regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or
disturb the State or any sector of the population.9
Such was the case of Celdran. He had uniquely and creatively expressed his opinions and
beliefs regarding RH Bill that his action became controversial. Even his conviction of the crime
under Article 133 raised the doubt of the applicability of the law being favorable to religion.
It must be emphasized that a right may it be inherent and inalienable does not necessarily mean it
is absolute. Human rights are interdependent that the fulfillment of one necessarily includes the
respect for others.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly provides for restrictions on
the exercise of the right to freedom of expression specifically of the act committed by the
offender have offended the rights and reputations of others. This is also in relation to the
fundamental principle provided in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that
affirms the limitations of human rights. These are expressed in terms of duties to the
community and their scope is constrained in general terms by considerations that include
respect for the rights of others.10
The freedom of expression of Celdran must be restricted in respect of the rights and
reputations of others. As the Supreme Court stressed in the case of Zaldivar v Gonzales, freedom
of speech is not absolute, and must be balanced with the requirements of equally important
9 Ibid
10 Sturges, Paul (2006), Limits to Freedom of Expression? Considerations arising from Danish Cartoons
Affair, UK: IFLA Journal, Loughborough University, pp. 1-11
7

public interests.11 Limitation on the exercise of freedom of expression was expressed through the
balancing of interest test which requires a court to take conscious and detailed consideration of
the interplay of interests and observable in a given situation.12
Court of Appeals decided that the act of the petitioner in going to the front of the altar, during
ecumenical service and racing a placard with the word DAMASO inflicts injury or tends to
incite an immediate breach of the peace in that place of worship. He is entitled to a right of
freedom of expression that may be contrary to the beliefs of the religious persons inside the
Manila Cathedral but not to the extent of mocking, insulting and ridiculing the clergy and
religious. These persons are also afforded with rights to be respected.

Extent of Protection of Freedom of Religion

The importance of freedom of thought, conscience and religion has been regarded as one
of the foundations of democratic society. This importance has been reiterated in Article 18 of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Recent trends show that this right being a foundation of a society the role of religion
increases in the socio-political area. The scope of the protection afforded by this provision is
much broader that it applies to all personal, political, philosophical, moral and religious

11 Zaldivar v Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, 7 October 1988
12 Ayer Productions v Capulong, 160 SCRA 861, G.R. No. 82380, 29 April 1988
8

convictions.13 However, arguments will set in when other rights interfere with this right of
freedom of religion.
Human rights cases held that interference with this right must be necessary in a democratic
society which means that it must correspond to a pressing social need. The word necessary is
not interpreted as useful or desirable.14
Regarding protection against gratuitous offence, incitement to violence and hatred against a
religious community, the main question is whether right to protection of religious feelings is an
aspect of religious freedom. Several human rights cases questioned the protection of religious
feelings by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Admittedly, European Court
specifies that believers must tolerate and accept the denial of their religious beliefs and even the
propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith. 15 However, in the Kokkinakis judgment,
a State could consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct,
including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with the respect for
freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others16.
In this time, several means are applied by persons in offending the religious and inciting violence
and hatred against religious community. Some had provocative portrayals of objects of religious
veneration while others used all types of media to communicate their hatred of a founded
13 Report of the Council of European Court of Human Right, Overview of the Courts case-law on
freedom of religion, updated 31 October 2013, www.echr.coe.int
14 Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v Ukraine, AN 77703/01, 14 June 2007
15 Report of the Council of European Court of Human Right, Overview of the Courts case-law on
freedom of religion, updated 31 October 2013, www.echr.coe.int
16 Kokkinakis v. Greece, AN 14307/88, 25 May 1993
9

religion questioning their beliefs. As to the Philippines, Carlos Celdran was convicted of a crime
of offending the religious in his own unique way. His little act portraying Dr. Jose Rizal, the
national hero of the Philippines famous for his provocative novels, had caused commotion with a
group of catholic faithful attending a religious activity.
Celdran questioned his conviction under Article 133 of RPC and its constitutionality. As
held by the CA in concurring with the decisions of MeTC and RTC, he had committed willfully
and intentionally the said crime. The petitioners act prior to raising his placard inside the Manila
Cathedral in front of various religious leaders and others in attendance would show that he was
aware of the consequences of his acts. Noteworthy is the testimony of Ms. Ria Limjap, wherein
she revealed the circumstances of the petitioners plan to publicize his intended act by handing
her a camera to take pictures and be posted in Facebook. Undoubtedly, basing on the facts,
petitioner had willfully and intentionally committed the crime punishable under Article 133 of
RPC.
As held in the case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v Moldova, cases of
exceptional interference with the right of religion the State shall have the duty to determine
whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate. The State shall
take measures to ensure that this right will be protected and every person of different religious
beliefs and even non-believers be afforded with neutrality and impartiality of the State.17
In a case held by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, freedom of religion, although not
unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty and has a preferred position in the
hierarchy of values. Religious clauses of the Constitution are all designed to protect the broadest
17 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v Moldova, AN 45701/99, 13 December 2001
10

possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as he believes he ought to live,
consistent with the liberty of others and with common good.18
These court rulings also answered the question of Celdran to the constitutionality of Article 133
of the RPC. He further argued that the said provision violates Section 4, Article III of the
Constitution or the Non-establishment Clause and results to shielding them from criticism.
The court uphold the finding of the RTC and ruled that non-establishment of religion is
violated when the State shows preference for one religion over others or prefers religion to no
religion. Article 133 of the RPC is a crime against the free exercise of religion clause mandated
by the Constitution. The purpose of the penal statute is to impose punitive measures to those who
would ridicule and show disdain to the feelings and sentiments of a group of faithful while inside
a place devoted to religious worship or in celebration of a religious ceremony.

18 Ernesto Gonzales, et al vs. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union, G.R. No. 38178, 3 October
1985.
11

Conclusion
During the time of the Spanish colonization of the Philippines, Filipinos are greatly
deprived of their rights that are actually inherent to their existence. Without the brave young men
of our past, these rights will never be given to. The present generation has enjoyed the fruits of
the labored battle for freedom and existence of the heroes of the past.
It can never be denied that today each and every Filipinos are afforded with basic human
rights making him freely live in a society. However, it is to be noted for that every right a man is
invoking for must not necessarily infringed or deprived others of what they are also inherent to.
In the modern day era, it cannot be doubted that every person has been given a wide range to
exercise his freedom of expression. Yet, despite the given freedom to express oneself, it is
important to recognize the complex interrelation between this right and the others.
Carlos Celdran is afforded of his freedom of expression on every possible means he may
have thought of yet must not extend to the limits that may affect the rights of others. The
religious persons and the clergy are afforded of their right to be respected in as much as Celdran
is entitled to. His conviction of a crime does not mean of taking side with the religious groups
but a way to remind him of his responsibilities to his actions. In application of dura lex sed lex,
one must pay for the action he had committed despite how harsh the law is. Out of his acts and
intention he must pay for the consequences that it had resulted to.

12

Bibliography
Laws
1987 Constitution of the Philippines
European Convention on Human Rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Cases
Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861, G.R. No.
82380, April 29, 1988
Celdran, Carlos P. vs. People of the Philippines, C.A.-G.R. No. 36170, December 12,
2014
Gonzales, Ernesto, et al vs. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union, G.R. No. 38178,
October 3, 1985
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, AN 5493/72, December 7, 1976
Kokkinakis v. Greece, AN 14307/88, 25 May 1993
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v Moldova, AN 45701/99, 13 December
2001
Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v Ukraine, AN 77703/01, 14 June 2007
Zaldivar v Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, 7 October 1988
Journals
Sturges, Paul (2006), Limits to Freedom of Expression? Considerations arising from
Danish Cartoons Affair, UK: IFLA Journal, Loughborough University, pp. 1-11
Report of the Council of European Court of Human Right, Overview of the Courts
case-law on freedom of religion, updated 31 October 2013, www.echr.coe.int

13