Carlos Celdran seeks SC help vs. conviction over ‘Damaso’ stunt

Cultural activist Carlos Celdran has asked the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction by a Manila court for disrupting an ecumenical service at the Manila Cathedral in September 2010.

In a petition for review, Celdran said the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the January 2013 decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila Branch 4 and an August 12, 2013 decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court, both finding him guilty of "offending religious feelings."

Celdran asked the SC to order his acquittal and declare Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code on "offending religious feelings" as unconstitutional.

Celdran was charged in 2010 after he, dressed as national hero Jose Rizal, held up a placard with the word “Damaso” before the Papal Nuncio, Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales and several bishops in protest of the Catholic Church's opposition to the then reproductive health bill.

"Damaso" was a reference to the villainous friar from Rizal's novel "Noli Me Tangere."

The Manila court initially found Celdran guilty of violating Article 133 of the RPC, which penalizes offending religious feelings. The decision was upheld by the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 32, and by the CA in January 2015.

In his petition with the SC, Celdran said the CA erred when it held that Article 133 of the RPC does not violate the 1987 Philippine Constitution. He said the crime of "offending the religious feelings" violates the non-establishment clause, his right to due process, and his right to free speech.

"Mr. Celdran, therefore, contends that a law that discriminates people according to their beliefs and ideology must be strictly scrutinized... Unlike Article 241 of the 1870 Penal Code, Article 133 requires the offended party to be a 'believer/faithful.' This is clearly special treatment and is violative of the Equal Protection Clause," his petition read.

He also stressed that the criminal intent required in Article 133 does not exist in his case. He said his intention was limited to political criticism and not to the mockery of the audience's religious beliefs, or of a particular religion.

Damaso

Celdran also said the word "Damaso" is a political speech protected by freedom of expression, and that his conviction failed the "totality of injurious effects test." He said the word "Damaso" was not directed against religious practice or dogma, and was not "notoriously offensive."

"The Court of Appeals erred in not construing the words 'notoriously offensive acts' as 'acts directed against religious practice, dogma, or ritual for the purpose of ridicule' in violation of Spanish and Philippine precedents, including authoritative commentaries," his petition read.

Celdran said in the first place, there was nothing to suggest that he indeed was referring to the infamous friar in "Noli Me Tangere" when he held up the sign inside the church.

"The errors of the lower courts are clear as the sun. Their decisions, if sustained, would add a new entry into the list of insults. They would have this country believe that the word 'DAMASO' is as vulgar as (curse words)... This is a reversible error," read the plea.

"DAMASO is not an insult and no law may be passed to strike it out from our cultural dictionary. Far from being an insult, 'DAMASO' is a polysemic word that suggests a variety of meanings, which legislators and courts have no authority to suppress under the Constitution. The facts of the case prove this point," it added. —KBK, GMA News