Freedom of Expression v Freedom of Religion: The Case of Carlos CeldranCastillo, Sharla Louisse A.ID No. 2014009444 castillosharla@yahoo.comHuman Rights Law, 5 to 7 PMSubmitted to: Atty. Rodel Taton

IntroductionJose 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.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 CeldranLast 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 DecisionCeldran 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 ceremony1. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithfulThe 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 ReligionHuman 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 frontiers[footnoteRef:1]. [1: Article 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights]

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.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Article 19 (1) and (2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]

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 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.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Article 19 (3) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]

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. [footnoteRef:4] [4: Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines]

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.[footnoteRef:5] [5: Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines]

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 and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Article 18 of Universal Declaration on Human Rights]

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.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights]

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 ExpressionFreedom 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.[footnoteRef: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. [8: Handyside v. the United Kingdom, AN 5493/72, December 7, 1976]

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.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Ibid]

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.[footnoteRef:10] [10: Sturges, Paul (2006), Limits to Freedom of Expression? Considerations arising from Danish Cartoons Affair, UK: IFLA Journal, Loughborough University, pp. 1-11 ]

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 public interests.[footnoteRef: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.[footnoteRef:12] [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]

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 ReligionThe 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 convictions.[footnoteRef:13] However, arguments will set in when other rights interfere with this right of freedom of religion. [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 ]

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.[footnoteRef:14] [14: Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v Ukraine, AN 77703/01, 14 June 2007]

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.[footnoteRef: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 others[footnoteRef:16]. [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]

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 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.[footnoteRef:17] [17: Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v Moldova, AN 45701/99, 13 December 2001]

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

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.

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.

BibliographyLaws1987 Constitution of the PhilippinesEuropean Convention on Human RightsInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsUniversal Declaration of Human RightsCasesAyer Productions Pty. Ltd. v Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861, G.R. No. 82380, April 29, 1988Celdran, Carlos P. vs. People of the Philippines, C.A.-G.R. No. 36170, December 12, 2014Gonzales, Ernesto, et al vs. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union, G.R. No. 38178, October 3, 1985Handyside v. the United Kingdom, AN 5493/72, December 7, 1976Kokkinakis v. Greece, AN 14307/88, 25 May 1993Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v Moldova, AN 45701/99, 13 December 2001Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v Ukraine, AN 77703/01, 14 June 2007Zaldivar v Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, 7 October 1988JournalsSturges, 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

12