Father Bernas: Can congregations’ religious feelings also be ‘notoriously offended’ by ranting priests?

Share:
LinkedIn0
Google+0

By Raïssa Robles

Jesuit priest-constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas poses today an intriguing question triggered by Carlos Celdran’s conviction of “notoriously offending the religious feelings” by holding up the sign “Damaso” before top bishops.

Fr. Bernas wrote in his column today at the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

Finally, Article 133 also raises an intriguing question: When a priest or bishop castigates or consigns to the netherworld those who oppose the Reproductive Health Law in a sermon before a captive audience of churchgoers, should he be penalized by the State or canonically censured for offending religious feelings? After all, defenders of the RH Law also have feelings! What is good for the gander should also be good for the goose.

He hit the offending nail right on the head when he said the controversy over Celdran’s conviction was all about the exercise of the right to free speech. And he also hints that the crime that Celdran was convicted is long overdue for scrapping :

Hence, an important question that must be asked is whether Article 133 violates freedom of expression and free exercise or nonestablishment of religion, especially since the crime is listed among crimes against the fundamental law. Freedom of speech is violated when speech is restrained or punished even if the speech does not present a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the state has the right to prevent.  Free exercise of religion is violated when a person is prevented from or punished for externalizing his religious belief or is forced to do something contrary to his religious belief. Nonestablishment of religion is violated when the state shows preference for one religion over others or prefers religion to no religion.

Carlos Celdran is being ordered punished for offending the feelings of others by speaking, orally or symbolically, against religious values dearly held by others. In other words, he is being punished for religious speech. I thought that this kind of offense already disappeared after the events of 1902.

To read the rest of his very thought-provoking column, click on this link.

Comments

  2. @46 Father Bernas . . .

    I think the constitutional commission (CC) that drafted the 1987 Constitution considered all the laws existing at the time during the deliberation and formulation of our present constitution. In fact the present constitution mandated that all existing laws shall remain valid until amended, repealed or revoked. Meaning that the congress has been given the authority and responsibility to amend, repeal or revoke inapplicable laws and those inconsistent with the constitution. For a short time President Cory was granted legislative powers until the first congress was convened. And from time to time the Supreme Court declares a certain law invalid.

    I believe that the CC knew that some laws, PDs, LOIs, etc were inconsistent with the constitution being formulated. So they included a provision for the removal or alteration of these laws and presidential issuances.

    But I can safely conclude that President Cory did not find Article 133 of the RPC inconsistent with the constitution. Same is true with the congress. And the Supreme Court because nobody has yet brought the issue of constitutionality of Article 133 before it. BTW President Cory repealed, amended and revoked a number of laws, decrees, letters of instructions and proclamations then. She also enacted laws like the Family Code. Below is an excerpt of pertinent portions of the 1987 Constitution.

    “Article XVIII – Transitory Provisions

    “Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.

    “Section 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened.

    “Section 10. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise provided by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress.”

    • Ang linaw PO mga CPMERs……. Atty. RENE IPIL had just provided us the valid answer , it came from the Constitution Itself at it’s of the Transitory Provision …. I will not go any further for others not to be offended,,,…Just study thoroughly the latest comment/posting of @Rene for it will answer all the problems of Celdran Case..I am an average engineer and first time to interact with a LAW and the Constitution…. But just remember YOU, ME and the FILIPINO people RATIFIED this Constitution on a plebiscite on the year 1987.