A guilty verdict from a local court for supposedly offending religious feelings has not slowed Carlos Celdran down.
Celdran—a Manila tour guide who made headlines in 2010 when he disrupted an ecumenical service to protest the Catholic Church's involvement in the then-raging reproductive health bill debates—even feels vindicated by the court's decision.
“'Yung Article 133 ay nung panahon pa ni Damaso,” he said, referring to the provision in the Revised Penal Code that he supposedly violated. “It's a Spanish-era rule na anti-blasphemy. In a weird way, parang pinatunayan niya 'yung point ko.”
On September 30, 2010, Celdran, dressed as Philippine national hero Jose Rizal, raised a placard with the word “Damaso”– a reference to the villainous friar from Rizal's novel "Noli Me Tangere” – during an ecumenical service to protest the Church's involvement in the RH bill debate. Aside from raising the placard, he also shouted "Stop getting involved in politics" before he was whisked away by the police.
For that action, the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court recently found Celdran guilty, citing Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes offending religious feelings. The law has been in the books since 1930.
Article 133 punishes anyone who "in a place of worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful."
For Celdran, the sentence against merely affirmed his point in the protest.
In an exclusive interview with GMA News TV's “Kape at Balita” aired on Thursday, Celdran, currently out on bail, described Article 133 as a “dangerous” and “outdated” law.
“Napaka-dangerous ng law na ito, Article 133. This is during the time of the Spanish pa. Napaka-outdated talaga ang law na ito. It infringes on human rights,” he told GMA News' Michael Fajatin.
He said his laywers are planning to take their legal case to the Supreme Court and will also seek to abolish the Revised Penal Code provision on offending religious feelings.
Asked if he would apologize again to make amends to the Catholic Church, Celdran said: “Na naman? O sige, magpu-public apology ako na naman. If this is a legal matter, kahit mag-apologize ako na naman, it won't change anything.”
“The battle is already in the courts already, even if the forgiveness comes,” he added.
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines earlier said they have forgiven Celdran even before the Manila court's decision.
“For me, the court has spoken and we respect the court. On our part, even long before, we have forgiven him. So whatever the court decides we respect it,” said CBCP president and Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma during a forum in Manila on Tuesday.
Celdran's case was not the first time someone was accused of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. There have been numerous instances since the 1930's in which people have been hauled to court over the law.
An early example is the August 1934 case, in which a group of people were accused of disrupting a pabasa in La Paz, Tarlac, when they began constructing a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel where the pabasa was being held. The group was acquitted after the court ruled that the act of building the fence was—while irritating to those present—could not be seen as offensive to the Catholic faithful.
Celdran—a Manila tour guide who made headlines in 2010 when he disrupted an ecumenical service to protest the Catholic Church's involvement in the then-raging reproductive health bill debates—even feels vindicated by the court's decision.
“'Yung Article 133 ay nung panahon pa ni Damaso,” he said, referring to the provision in the Revised Penal Code that he supposedly violated. “It's a Spanish-era rule na anti-blasphemy. In a weird way, parang pinatunayan niya 'yung point ko.”
On September 30, 2010, Celdran, dressed as Philippine national hero Jose Rizal, raised a placard with the word “Damaso”– a reference to the villainous friar from Rizal's novel "Noli Me Tangere” – during an ecumenical service to protest the Church's involvement in the RH bill debate. Aside from raising the placard, he also shouted "Stop getting involved in politics" before he was whisked away by the police.
For that action, the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court recently found Celdran guilty, citing Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes offending religious feelings. The law has been in the books since 1930.
Article 133 punishes anyone who "in a place of worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful."
For Celdran, the sentence against merely affirmed his point in the protest.
In an exclusive interview with GMA News TV's “Kape at Balita” aired on Thursday, Celdran, currently out on bail, described Article 133 as a “dangerous” and “outdated” law.
“Napaka-dangerous ng law na ito, Article 133. This is during the time of the Spanish pa. Napaka-outdated talaga ang law na ito. It infringes on human rights,” he told GMA News' Michael Fajatin.
He said his laywers are planning to take their legal case to the Supreme Court and will also seek to abolish the Revised Penal Code provision on offending religious feelings.
Asked if he would apologize again to make amends to the Catholic Church, Celdran said: “Na naman? O sige, magpu-public apology ako na naman. If this is a legal matter, kahit mag-apologize ako na naman, it won't change anything.”
“The battle is already in the courts already, even if the forgiveness comes,” he added.
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines earlier said they have forgiven Celdran even before the Manila court's decision.
“For me, the court has spoken and we respect the court. On our part, even long before, we have forgiven him. So whatever the court decides we respect it,” said CBCP president and Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma during a forum in Manila on Tuesday.
Celdran's case was not the first time someone was accused of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. There have been numerous instances since the 1930's in which people have been hauled to court over the law.
An early example is the August 1934 case, in which a group of people were accused of disrupting a pabasa in La Paz, Tarlac, when they began constructing a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel where the pabasa was being held. The group was acquitted after the court ruled that the act of building the fence was—while irritating to those present—could not be seen as offensive to the Catholic faithful.
Comments
Post a Comment