Carlos Celdran again urges SC to declare unconstitutional crime of offending religion

Convicted offender Carlos Celdran on Wednesday renewed his plea for the Supreme Court (SC) to declare the crime of "offending religious feelings" unconstitutional.

Celdran contested decision by the High Tribunal's First Division which backed lower court rulings sentencing him to a jail term for disrupting service at the Manila Cathedral to stage a protest in 2010.

He also asked that his conviction be referred to the SC en banc and set for oral arguments.

Celdran had dressed as national hero Jose Rizal and held up a placard with the word “Damaso” -- after the villainous friar in Rizal's novel "Noli Me Tangere" -- before the clergy to protest the Catholic Church's opposition to the then-Reproductive Health Bill.

Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes "offending the religious feelings," or performing acts "notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful" in "a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony."

In his motion for reconsideration, Celdran said the "archaic" Article 133 "contravenes" the constitutional mandate of the separation of Church and state and restricts and regulates speech according to content and viewpoint.

He argued the said law is "not neutral" and is a "direct aid to religion," in violation of Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the enactment of a law respecting an establishment of religion or banning its free exercise.

The article also has no secular purpose, promotes religion by expanding its sphere and shielding believers from criticism, and creates an "an unnecessary and excessive entanglement" between the church and the state, he said.

He added that Article 133 gives the "subjective whims of the faithful" the power to determine which acts are "notoriously offensive."

"Based on these points, Article 133 is void. The law neither enumerates the acts which are forbidden nor provides a reasonable standard aside from the subjective 'feelings of the faithful,'" he said.

Celdran claimed his right to free speech was infringed upon by his conviction for holding up a placard bearing the word "Damaso," which he said he did in the tradition of Rizal to criticize some Catholic Church leaders' "unnecessary meddling in politics."

"Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code is an archaic provision that is anathema to a constitutional, and secular, democracy. It infringes on the freedom of expression as a prior restraint that inhibits individuals from speaking their minds," he said.

Celdran believes his case raises a constitutional question that spells "compelling and important decision" for a "sound" SC decision.

"This case goes beyond the Petitioner Carlos Celdran. What is involved in this case are fundamental constitutional rights of citizens, not only in the current times, but for generations to come," he said. —NB, GMA News