Inside Philippine politics & beyond

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

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

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

  1. Mang @Mel ,….very simple po , ganito po iyan.. CONCOM upon creation they derives their power on the Constitution. The Constitution said when you supersede , you revise , when you revise you overhaul so when you OMMIT or OVERLOOKED during all the process , what do you call that? PRINCIPLE of COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

    • Para mas maganda [email protected] …. ESTOPPED si BERNAS of any posting or comments against Art. 133… It was because he is one of the FRAMERs of the 1987 Constitution under the CONSTITUTIONAL power vested on CONCOM members to supersede the previous Marcos Constitution .

      Constitutional Power – is sovereign power- is also people’s power because we are the one who ratified the Constitution where CONCOM’s power emanates . Further upon it’s creation ,it will become co-equal with the Legislative, Executive and the Judicial Departments , so the PARAMOUNT WORKs of the CONCOM must be observed… Sige HUGAS PAA nalang si BERNAS .

      • Malawak a sir @parekoy he he, malinaw ang reasons ko, ,tinggnan mo quoted from BERNAS article’s mismo and From constitutional law na master ni BERNAS, papano naging makitid ako he he. Yam an padin idol KO pa rin si @baycas dito.. Kay CELDRANs case , hindi , lalo nat pag ang ping uusapan ay si BERNAS. Nom way Jose. He he

        • O kung gusto mo [email protected], katuwaan Lang natin e pag punta KO dyan sa Manila , meet tayo Kay [email protected] at punta tayo Kay @BERNAS , face to face challenge ko sya regarding sa mga comments Nya against Art.133 [email protected] at pagkatapos di inhuman tayo sa Timog ako taya sir, para makapag bonding tayo .. Ano sir shoot kayo he he. In two weeks dyan ako sir… Palagay KO Hindi magkakalayo edad natin . ESTOPPED si BERNAS sir.

  2. HUGAS KAMAY (Ikalawang Yugto)

    (Pag-iisahin ko na lang aking komento para sa maigsing panahon at matipid na puwang dito sa mga komento…)

    @Rene-Ipil, @pinay710, @Victin Luz, @sa lahat:

    Gaya nang nasabi ko na sa Unang Yugto ng “HUGAS KAMAY”(#43), nabasa na natin ang tugon ni G. Carmelo Sison nang siya’y kapanayamin at tanungin ni Gng. Raissa Robles ukol sa posibleng paghuhugas kamay ng Simbahang Katolikong Romano (sa blog post na “Ex-Comelec chair Christian Monsod thinks Carlos Celdran is not guilty“), nabasa rin natin ang akda ni Gng. Solita Monsod na pinamagatang “3 instances of hand-washing in Celdran case“, at nabasa na rin natin ang mga balita mula sa Internet hinggil sa posibleng amicable settlement nila Msgr. Nestor Cerbo at G. Carlos Celdran.

    Ito ang aking nahinuha mula sa tinuran nina G. Carmelo Sison at Gng. Solita Monsod, mga nakalap na online balita ukol sa naunsiyaming amicable settlement, sa panonood ng videos (panayam ni Gng. Monsod kay Attys. Reyes at Marlon Manuel at panayam kay G. Celdran), at sa pahapyaw na pag-aaral ng Rules of Court ayon sa Korte Suprema:

    1. Aminin man o hindi, si Atty. Ronaldo Reyes ang siyang kumatawan para kay Msgr. Nestor Cerbo simula’t sapul ng reklamo hanggang sa huli ng paglilitis. Siya rin ang may pakana ng pagsipot ng mga saksi laban kay G. Celdran. May lihim na galit man siya o wala, siya ang abogadong kumatawan sa nagreklamo. Pinayagan ito ng hukom marahil sa kapanipaniwala at sa ‘di maiwasang kadahilanan nang hindi pagsipot ng monsignor.

    2. Hindi tinanggap ang alok ni G. Celdran na paghingi ng kapatawaran (una noong siya’y nakapiit pa sa kulungan at pangalawa noong may pormal na liham na siya makalipas ang humigit-kumulang na 5 buwan mula nang siya’y maaresto) bago simulan ang paglilitis. Hindi natuloy ang amicable settlement.

    3. Ang hindi pag-urong ng asunto at ang pag-akto ng public prosecutor para ituloy sa paglilitis ang kaso ang siyang naisakatuparan. Usaping kriminal ito at hindi maaaring ipagwalang-bahala ng estado lalo pa’t may mga saksing magpapatunay ng krimen.

    4. Ang pananagutang sibil ay maaaring iwinaksi nang tuluyan o ipinagpaliban lang sa darating na panahon na kakailanganin. Sa hayagang pagpapatawad kuno ng mga obispo, malamang hindi na ito hahabulin pa kung sakaling hindi pa ito iwinaksi bago ang paglilitis.

    5. Ang paghuhugas kamay ng simbahang tinutukoy, kung totoo man ito o hindi, ay iniiwan ko na lamang sa paghuhusga ng mga mambababasa.

    • Ito po ang karugtong sa komentong naghihintay pa ng basbas ng moderator…

      @Victin Luz,

      Pinagsusumikapan ko pong magpaliwanag nang maayos dito sa blog na ito…sa abot ng aking kaalaman at pag-aaral sa bawa’t paksang aking ninais at ninanais na pagkaabalahan.

      Nawa’y huwag n’yo po akong bigyan ng pagkakataon upang lisanin ang blog na ito dahil lamang sa iresponsable n’yong paratang na ako’y may pinapanigan. Kung may napanigan o may napaboran po ako sa aking mga kuro, iyon po ay ayon sa katotohanang aking mga nabatid at ayon din po sa aking palagay.

      Pangalawang beses n’yo na po akong pinaratangan ng mali dito lang po sa blog post na ito. Sana po ay ‘wag nang maulit muli.

      Salamat po sa inyong pang-unawa.

      • Copy @sir Baycas ,,, my apology to you… Hindi na po mauulit @sir Baycas … Saludo padin ako sa iyo Justice Baycas.

      • Copy @sir Baycas ,,, my apology to you… Hindi na po mauulit @sir Baycas … Saludo padin ako sa iyo Justice Baycas. Opinion Lang din po ako Sir. Thanks

      • sir baycas, mula’t sapul iginagalang kita, sanay malaman mo. at maraming salamat po sa mga sangkatutak na butil kaalaman na pinagsikapan mong idikdik sa kaisipan ko. taos puso po akong nagpapasalamat. kaya lang po MERON PA PO BANG PAGASA NA MAPALITAN ANG MGA MALING BATAS NG ATING BANSA?(pagdidiin lang po katanungan, hindi po ako sumisigaw)para sa susunod na generasyon ng mga anak at apo natin.

      • hindi lamang pala sa wikang Ingles mahusay c Justice Baycas, matatas din pala s Wikang Filipino, natumbok mo ang paghihimay nang usapin kay Carlos Celdran, nailahad mo ang mga impormasyon para sa gayon ay makagawa ng paghihimay-himay ang mambabasa! saludo ako sayo sir. salamat at nagkakaroon pa ng kaliwanagan ang isyu na ito..

      • @sa lahat:

        Maraming salamat!

        —–

        May pag-asa pa para maiwasto o mapawalang-bisa ang batas.

        Kongkretong ehemplo ng 2 paraan: Cybercrime Prevention Act na sinisiyasat na ng Korte Suprema. Art. 133 ng RPC na nais i-repeal ayon sa mungkahi ni Sen. Pia Cayetano.

        May paraan, mahaba lang ang daan.

        Ang mahalaga’y, huwag mawalan ng pag-asa.

  3. HUGAS-KAMAY

    Nabasa natin ang pananaw ni Carmelo Sison (sa “Ex-Comelec…” na blog post), nabasa rin natin ang kay Solita Monsod, at nabasa na rin natin, more or less, ang sanang amicable settlement na naunsiyami (#40)…

    Tunghayan naman natin ang pasaway…

    Kahit bawal ang pasaway…

        • sir baycas paki linaw nyo nga sa akin itong katayuan ng ronaldo reyes. sabi nYA HINDI NYA KLIYENTE pero REPRESENTATIVE AT KAIBIGAN LANG NYA SI CERBO. puede po ba sa batas yung iisplika mo ang kaso ng isang tao eh hindi mo naman sya kliente? eh ano po ang relasyon nya dun sa nagsakdal parang NILILITO ni atty reyes ang tao sa kasong ito ni celdran. mukhang style ng abogado ni corona ang ginagawa nitong reyes na ito. aral kay cuevas.puede po ba sa korte na palagi ang abogado or sinuman representante ang haharap?ano po ito AUTHORIZATION style? puede po ito sa korte?

        • Yes, I’ve been wondering sbout that too (what @pinay asked above).

          If indeed his client is no longer interested in pursuing the case, shouldn’t Atty. Reyes have, at some point, shared this information with the Court?

          I’m not a lawyer (so I really wouldn’t know for sure), but one would think that there ought o be a proper legal procedure to follow in situations such as this. By withholding this information, can one accuse Atty. Reyes of false or misleading representation? Just asking.

        • @pinay, @Cha, @sa lahat:

          Sa asunto kriminal dalawa ang pananagutan ng kung sinumang masasakdal: (1) kriminal, at awtomatiko, (2) sibil.

          Hindi na maitatatwa na ang reklamo ay nagmula kay Msgr. Cerbo. Ang monsignor ay di humarap ni minsan sa pagdinig ng kaso. Entonces, si Atty. Ronaldo Reyes ang kaniyang kinatawan.

          Ang unang huwes ay nagtakda ng maaaring amicable settlement – mula Disyembre 2010 hanggang Mayo 2011 – sa iba’t-ibang takdang petsa. Naunsiyami ito. Umusad ang kaso sa paglilitis bunsod ng di pag-urong ng reklamo.

          Dahil umakto na ang state prosecutor naging People of the Philippines v. Celdran na. Hindi na maaaring maiurong pa ang kaso dahil kriminal ang pananagutan ni Celdran.

          Maaaring sa buong proseso (o along the way) naiurong na ang pananagutang sibil gawa ng pagpapatawad kuno ng mga obispo nguni’t ang pananagutang kriminal ni Celdran ay nananatili. At ang paglilitis nga’y tumagal mula makalipas ang Mayo 2011 hanggang ngayong Enero 2013. Hinatulan siya ni Judge Bermejo, na alam na nating lahat, “Guilty”.

          Ngayong araw na ito, naghain na ang kampo ni Celdran sa Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 ng Maynila ng kanilang apila sa kaso. P1,510.00 daw ang halaga nito.

          —–

          HUGAS kamay nga ba?

          Ang bawa’t isa na ang siyang may HUSGA.

        • sir baycas, opo naintindihan ko po ang paliwanag nyo pero ang talaga hindi ko maintindihan eh bakit itinuloy pa ang kaso eh HINDI NAMAN HUMAHARAP KAHIT MINSA ANG NAGREKLAMO. noon po nagka kaso ang isa kong kamaganak pero noong hindi dumating sa unang bista ang nagreklamo sa kamaganak ko dismiss na po ang kaso. ibig sabhin HINDI na interesado yung nagsakdal kaya dapat eh dismiss na ang kaso. eh paano po kung yung sinasabing KINATAWAN eh may lihim na galit dun sa nasasakdal eh di parang sya na ang nagdidiin dun sa nasasakdal? wala na sa eksena yung tunay na nagreklamo kundi yun nang kinatawan? nakakalito ang batas na ito. puede na kahit sino ang kumatawan sa nagsakdal? parang maling systema!!

        • [email protected]

          Sa palagay ko ay hindi kilanman iniurong ng simbahan ang usaping sibil dahil hindi ito huminto ng pag-“prosecute” kay Celdran sa pamamagitan ni Atty. Reyes. Si Atty. Reyes ay ahente lamang ng prinsipal – ang simbahan. Si Atty. Reyes ay hindi bumitaw sa kaso hanggang matapos ito. Samakatuwid ang “forgiveness” na sinasabi ng simbahan ay “lip service” lamang o kasinungalingan.

          O kaya ay niloko ni Atty. Reyes ang korte at hindi nag-withdraw ng appearance niya bilang abugado ng simbahan sa kabila ng kagustuhan ng prinsipal nito na huwag nang ituloy ang kaso – at least the civil aspect. In this event Atty. Reyes is guilty of unethical conduct for appearing in court without his client’s authority.

    • @Baycas,,

      HUGAS KAMAY……sino kaya ang naghuhugas kamay sa advertisement mo sir? It was the game/battle plan the RCC wanted just to pinned down Celdran and sent a clear message to us PRO RH BILL that BEWARE . Opinion Lang po sir.

        • @Victin Luz,

          Maghunos-dili lang po kayo sa inyong pagbunton ng sisi sa mga Constitutional Framers, ‘di lang kay Fr. Bernas.

          Ang mga batas na nilikha, nililikha, at lilikhain ay yuyukod lamang ayon sa pangkasalukuyang Saligang Batas.

          Sino ang makapagsasabing mangyayari ang kaso ni Celdran at mauungkat ang Art. 133 ng Revised Penal Code? ‘Yan na nga po ang hiling ko, bagama’t mumunting hiling, na pag-usapan, irebisa, bigyan ng makabagong interpretasyon, at husgahan kung constitutional ba o unconstitutional ba ang Art. 133 ayon sa 1987 Constitution.

          Nawa’y umabot ang usapin sa Korte Suprema.

          —–

          Hindi kita sisisihin sa “pagkondena” mo kay Fr. Bernas, kalayaan n’yo po ‘yan. Ang sa akin lang ay dapat palawakin ang pag-iisip. Isang paraan diyan ay magbasa nang magbasa.

          Ano nga ba talaga ang naging papel ni Fr. Bernas noong nililikha ang “Cory” Constitution? Dapat ba niyang inisa-isa ang bawa’t batas na nilikha pa noong sinaunang panahon?

        • Dapat Lang na inisa isa nya na ribisahin ang lahat ng batas ng Pilipinas noon dahil sa mga nasabi kung dahilan sa mga previous comments ko, ngayon kung nakaligtaan nya na AMENDAHAN ang Art. 133 noon,…ay wala na syang karapatan na humusga sa ano mang bagay na nakalaan sa ART.133 at kung ano man ang resulta o magiging resulta sa paggamit ng batas na Ito , dahil ulit ulitin ko , dumaan sa kanya ang pag rebisa ng 1987 salitang batas natin….

          Tanong ko sa iyo Ito, sa mga kasamahan nya noong 1987 Constition Revision, MAYROON ba sa KANILA ang nagbigay ng argumento laban sa Art.. 133?

          Ang tanung ko sa iyo uli [email protected] ,,,,HUGAS KAMAY ang ” BALL’s EYE ng iyong komento #43,,, bakit , sino ang naghuhugas KAMAY,, ? HUSGAHAN at HUGAS KAMAY ay naapkalayo ng ibig sabihin..

          HUSGAHAN vs HUGAS KAMAY……napakalayo po ng ibig sabihin sa isa’t isa,, wag na lang KUNG may pinapanigan ka. Opinion Lang po [email protected]

        • Sa mga kasamahan nya as FRAMER of the 1987 Constitution , with regards to the CELDRAN CASE , did anyone of them gave negative comment’s about Art.133 sir @BAYCAS? Tell us here sir.

        • @Sir Baycas, nagbasa po ako ng nagbasa ng libro ng BATAS at mga komentaryo natin dito , lalong lalo na ang SA IYO at sa mga ABOGADO ng CPMERs . I also read and studied the article of BERNAS, MONSOD,COJUANGCO, PANGGALANGAN and etc.. They were with US PRO RH so they PICTURED only ONE SIDE of the COIN neither YOU sir @Baycas was SHOWING the OPPOSITE SIDE of the COIN [email protected], like the way you had done at Corona’s trial .

          Si BERNAS ay Nagsabi at ikaw din ang NAGSABI , halos lahat ay nagsasabi na ang BATAS 133, ay NILIKHA PA NOONG UNANG PANAHON,, @sir Baycas , Filipino people are already SMART , SMART enough to tell US,… ” SINAUNANG PANAHON ” means their was NO WAY BERNAS could have OMITTED not to REWRITE AMENDMENTs to ART. 133 in the drafting of 1987 Constitution… If Celdran was the Collateral damage by the FRAMERs not reviewing fully the 1987 Constitution including ” HUGAS KAMAY ” BERNAS , ..WHY BLAME the CHURCH NOW?

          If the meaning of ” notoriously offending the feeling’s of the faithful ” was not properly DEFINED by Art.133 so as the Court who handled CELDRANs case, WHY BLAME the CHURCH now [email protected]?

        • baka puwedeng makisingit at maki-usiyoso.

          a bit of trivia.

          —

          Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. was one of 50 appointees of the late President C Aquino after she ‘ issued Proclamation No. 9, creating a Constitutional Commission (popularly abbreviated “ConCom” in the Philippines) to frame a new charter to supersede the Marcos-era 1973 Constitution.‘

          “Proclamation No. 9, s. 1986
          – WHEREAS, a Constitutional Commission tasked with proposing a new charter “truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people” has been created under Article V of said Proclamation No. 3;”           – Proclamation No. 9, s. 1986

          Again, their mandate was to ‘frame a new charter to supersede the Marcos-era 1973 Constitution’.

          Their beautification into the ConCom didn’t involve reviewing or adopting or repealing all other existing laws (city ordinance, provincial, corporation, etc.) of the Philippines, including the Penal Codes (Revised or not even from whence it originated).

          Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. and 46 others (1 walk out, 2 dissenters) didn’t have to wash their hands dahil hindi naman sila nagkamay nuong pinaghandaan ang 1986 (87) Constitution. :smile:

          The Supreme Court is yet to receive the case to question the Constitutionality of Art. 133 used in the Celdran case. OR the legislative can review, amend or repeal it and other obsolete codes still lurking in the era of antiquated laws.

          The Philippines’ Legislative Branch can do that now, thanks to an obsolete Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. (Sen.Pia moves to repeal Art.133 of Revised Penal Code)

          —

          – Proclamation No. 9, s. 1986

          – THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONS

          – Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986

          – The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

        • Mang @Mel,… Opinion ko, kahit pa po to AMEND lang ang pagka buo ng Constitutional Commission , which I can not agree @mang Mel, ang linaw ang mandato nila is to SUPERSEDEs the Marcos Constitution , means to REVISE the 1976 Constitution…. NOW UNDER THE THEORY of COMMAND RESPOSIBILTY , sabit pa din ang mga FRAMERs ng 1987 Constitution especially BERNAs now that he posted writings AGAINST ART.133. COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY , mang @Mel , still BERNAS is not allowed to eat his cake nor correct their MISTAKEs as 1987 FRAMERs on not rewriting the SINAUNANG PANAHON of Art.133, by riding on CELDRANs case.. HUGAS KAMAY parin sya.

        • @Victin

          ading, natangkun iti ulum nga talaga. :lol:

          talagang ayaw mong bitawan si J Bernas SJ., anu?

          bahala ka. you can believe what you want.

          Sarado bintang kay J Bernas SJ.

          ang sulat mo, “NOW UNDER THE THEORY of COMMAND RESPOSIBILTY”.

          :lol: it has nothing to do about theory…
          you are mixing apples with guyabano. how’s the mango up there in palawan BTW.

          puro ka biro

          good am.

        • [email protected] ,…please allow me to post here and explain to you the FRAMERs of 1987 to mention BERNAS why they can not escape culpability in case Art.133 of the RPC will be declared OPPRESIVE by the highest Court of the land.

          @mang Mel, Proclamation #9 issued on April 23,1986 ” the law governing the Constitutional Commission of 1986 ” was issued by CORY
          I agree. But the ConCom of 1987 still derives it’s authority from the Constitution in fact ConCom became 4th Department of the Government besides the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. Co-Equal Branch na sila na with regards to their vested powers , they can not be interfered, contoled by the 3 departments because of the PARAMOUNT TASK assigned to ConCom. It’s power are subject only to applicable constitutional restrictions.. SARILI NILA ANG MUNDO ang CONCOM during that time and any OMMISSIONs , ERROR thereby they cannot ESCAPE COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY .

          Hindi ko sinasabi na dapat perfect silang lahat ang mga miyembro ng CONCOM 1987 DAHIL TAYO MGA , we also RATIFIED that Constitution at dapat may kaslanan din tayo dahil IBINOTO natin . But the VOICE of the PEOPLE is the SUPREME LAW so we have to abide by it.

          Now , si BERNAS kung nagkamali man sya ,kasi hindi rin nya tiningnan maige ang nilalaman ng REWRITTEN 1987 C before the drafting of the same C , ngayon sya pa ang pumupuna at kumukutsa ( 1907 mas malapit sa edad ni BERNAS Ito ) sa KAPALPAKAN na ginawa nila na kasama sya….

          Nobody is telling here we can not amend ART.133 or other Laws , but the participation of BERNAS thru his article and comments at Celdran case were all wrong and MISPLACED….. ESTOPPED na daw sya sabi ng mga lawyers , people.. HUGAS KAMAY iyan na MALINAW.

        • He he [email protected], bawal padin ilabas ang mangga dito kabayan , may insect pa ding kumakain sa mga bunga ng mangga.

          KULTIT NGAMIN DAYDIAY mga PADE mang @Mel , ULBOD met. Di da met maytured nga labanen isu da . Syak laban nak basta may katuwiran ako. Mahirap magkunwari at magsinungaling [email protected] He he see you kabayan at Melbourne on JUNE again.

  4. A CONSTITUTION is a legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity. A STATUTE is a legislation from the people’s representative’s subject to limitations by the superior authority .

    Father BERNAS being an Honorable leader of the church, a lawyer and also Dean of the College of Law of prestigious school, a well known Constitutionalist , a top caliber journalist and others unquantified quality qualification’s on his pocket ( a substantially completed individual ) was also one of the known ” sikat na kagalanggalang pa ” Framers of 1987 Philippine CONSTITUTION.

    He graduated with honor’s and had his Masteral and Doctoral Degrees also at prestigious universities here and abroad and an expert of THEOLOGY. But I should say , BERNAS sleeped on his job while he was FRAMING our 1987 Constitution to the extent that ” MABABAW din PALA SIYA ” WHY?

    I THOUGHT THAT THIS KIND OF OFFENSE ALREADY DISAPPEARED AFTER THE EVENTS OF 1902.

    With all his time studying LAWs and practicing Law and a FRAMER of the Supreme Law of the Land of 1987 REVISING the 1976 Constitution , he did not NOTICE that Art. 133 . Notoriously Offending the Religious Feelings of the Faithful still EXIST during the FRAMING. How many millions of pesos did we spent in revising the 1987 Constitution ? Peoples money they spent, ” di bale pera Lang iyan di ba ” but what about CELDRAN , the Curtailment of His Freedom ? His sleepless nights his anguish , his frustatuted FEELINGs … If only BERNAS rewrite a sentence amending Art. 133 during the revision of 1987 Constitution HIS fellow Shepherds of the RCC who were opposed to the protest of Celdran could have not hide under the CLOAK of Art. 133.

    Now he has the GALL to say that offense should have disappeared already….

    Maybe , I am thinking after the excellent performance of PNOY let us try PAQUIAO , because even though he was KO by Marquez at 6th round , he voted NO to RH BILL. .. Opinion Lang po Ito habang indefinite ang TRO ng CYBERCRIME LAW.

    • Paquiao was better than BERNAS because Paquiao can always remember that he was KOed by Marquez on the 6th round of their 5th fight while BERNAS can not remember that while they were Framing the 1987 Constitution , Art. 133 , particularly the offense against religious feelings still exist.

    • The offense was not in the charter but in the penal code. Fr Bernas had nothing to do with this code.

      • Agree mam @Raissa , but when they Framed the Constitution ( 1987 ) they revised it and when you revised you OVERHAUL the same , the Bill of Rights and was what inside are to be SCRUTINIZED because that is our Basic rights and the Freedom of Speech and of the Press so as our Freedom Of Religion are the one that must be taken into CONSIDERATION MOST.. THEN ALL the laws’s of the Land ( existing ) RPC, special law’s , Presidential Decrees,proclamations etc., pertaining to each of our Basic Rights are compounded together , to be reviewed thoroughly and HARMONIZE to the on going REWRITING of a Constitution before it was drafted…

        With the status of BERNAS he can not say now he OVERLOOKED that Art.133. Otherwise he really slipped on his job as member of the 1987 Constitutional Commission [email protected]

        • I can not give BERNAS the Benefit of the Doubt , because he was not an ordinary lawyer , a dean of college of Law , an intelligent journalist and a Shepperd of the Church master of THEOLOGY where FRREEDOM of RRELIGION so as FFREEDOM of SPEECH and of the PRESS for so many centuries interacted, intertwined , harmonized to the extent that these two basic rights CONTRADICT with each other…. I believe BERNAS can not eat his Cake nor correct that mistake now by utilizing the CELDRANs CASE ma’am @Raissa.

        • Hoy Victin!

          Musta na!

          Ideally dapat perfect yung 1987 Constitution, pero malamang hindi dahil ang concentration ng framers ay more on palitan yung Martial Law at makabagong demokrasya, sovereignty at ekonomiya. Yung mga archaic laws at mga obsolete ay hindi masyadong nabigyan ng pansin dahil sa mga nabanggit kong concentration.

          Pero yung 1987 constitution ay pinagtibay yung Juicial Review, meaning anuman na kakulangan ay pwedeng iwasto.

          Hindi ako apologist ni Bernas at mga framers ng 1987 Constitution, pero napakalawak ng constitution at given lang sila ng limited time dahil sa transition from Martial Law, Revolutionary Government at makabagong demokrasya. So may lulusot at lulusot. Lero ang essence ay ang Fundamental Laws ang supreme at hindi ang mga putal-putal na mga inherited pa sa mga kadtila at Amerkano. Note hindi lang si Bernas ang nag-iisang miyembro ng gumawng 1987 constitution, pero sya ang pinka influential sa pagawa nito.

          Note ang Constitution ay living document at hindi absolute na di a pwedeng baguhin. Pwedeng mag repeal, mag amend at magdagdag.

          Nasan ka ba noong 1987?

        • He he martial law,@ Parekoy ,, hmm teka , 2nd year o 3rd year ata ako sa C.E. Mapua sir , but what I still remember I ,when Santillan at Feati U., nahagisan ng pill box ang ulo nya , patay sya at labas ng kanyang UTAK, kawawa sya .that was the last time I joined the KM rally. Natakot ako kasi few meters lang kami ng Presidente ng Student Body ng MAPUA at that time, muntik na kasi I was the throwing whistle bomb sa part namin…

          Tama ka @parekoy dapat baguhin at ayusin kaya lang baka lalo nilang pahabain ang trono ng mga politico he he..

        • 1972….Santillan Case

          1987…..had frequented the office Atty. Padua of la union and for a while with my barkada ret. col. DIVINA with the artist a Emily Leoren pero saglit lang at nakalabas ako sa C 7 before the DIVINA brothers and Col. Paguntalan o I forgot the name declared COUP at 7 . He he those where the days @ parekoy…

        • @parekoy,, tama ka sa lahat ng paratang mo . Ang pinagtataka kulang kung bakit nakuha pang magbitaw si BERNAS ng ganoong statement., Lawyer’s said ” you have to go to court both with clean hands ” @parekoy , and it should be APPLIED also to journalist in writing article’s .

  5. @Baycas ,, ” while Celdran made an offensive act, it is very far from being a religious offense. ( notoriously offended the feelings of the faithful ).

    About the passing of RH BILL was the main reason of the protest of Celdran. But the disagreement on this Bill was on the issue of protecting the unborn centered for most of the time the question of when was HUMAN LIFE BEGINs or Conception because of the word ABORTION . .The RCC defense came from the Bible And even one Senator said Sperm cell has a life itself , basing his argument on the Bible . Believing the Bible was already a religion much more if you use it as your defense.To believe God or not to believe God is already a religion . Your Faith and the way of your life is your religion,,… and what was violated at Celdran case was a religious feelings of the faithful,, How come that the analysis of my IDOL here the Celdran case was far from religious offense..

    • It appears you are lost from the multitude of your comments as well as mine and others.

      In the blog posts entitled “Criminal law professor questions constitutionality of the crime of ‘offending religious feelings'” and “Ex-Comelec chair Christian Monsod thinks Carlos Celdran” is not guilty” blog posts, please CTRL+F (or, “search”) and read @Rene-Ipil’s and @saxnviolins’ comments. You will also get our frame of mind when you read mine.

      That is our opinion as regards the application of the definition of “notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful” or “offensive to religious feelings” to the Celdran case.

      What you have just written in No. 40 of this thread is your opinion. I will not argue against it anymore. I hope you will understand.

      Suffice it to say…and just to repeat my belief:

      While Celdran made an offensive act, it is very far from being a religious offense (a notorious offense to the feelings of the faithful). And such an act was [constitutionally] protected mime and speech.

      • @ganito [email protected] kasi, very high ang expectations ng ating kababayan sa BLOG ni mam RAISSA and Sir ALLAN since the Trial of Corona especially when Corona was Convicted, karmihan na sa atin If HOT ISSUEs like this one, people are reading first our comments on this blog before turning to the daily papers , and THEY DO BELIEVE on us ESPECIALLY YOU SIR. Mas marami na ang naniniwala sa atin kaysa mga sinasabi sa DYARYO… That is why I am always pursuing here a BALANCE and HONEST posting, ika mga BALANCE at HINDI HALF BAKE JOURNALISM sa mga admirer natin at especially sa iyo uli [email protected] ……Sa akin I do believed that the penalty was HARSH and too FAST to be decided by the Judge and also ART.133 was oppressive and can be subjected for amendment by our legislators…..But those articles witten BY THEM and posted by you addresses only 1/2 of the TRUTH. For me , NO OFFEND to my co CPMERs , we have to tell also the other side of that article ,in FAIRNESS to our readers. They have to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth , di po ba @SIR..

        Idol ka sa karamihan dito [email protected] remember…sa totoo lang tayo, tutal opinion Lang naman ang ping uusapan natin dito kamo then why not open the DOOR for the truth to come out?

  6. Please “feast” on the following news items regarding the amicable settlement that never came to fruition.

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/202411/news/nation/carlos-celdran-walks-free-after-family-posts-p6-000-bail

    Carlos Celdran walks free after family posts P6,000 bail
    CARMELA G. LAPEÑA, GMANews.TV October 1, 2010 4:23pm

    Celdran has since apologized for the method he used in protesting, but he remains defiant and has vowed to continue supporting the controversial RH bill.

    xxxxx

    Meanwhile, Celdran said he was willing to join the President if they will be excommunicated by the Catholic Church for their stand on artificial contraception.

    “If ever you’re going to be excommunicated, sabay tayo (I will go with you),” Celdran said in a Balitanghali report.

    The issue of Aquino’s possible excommunication erupted after Bishop Nereo Odchimar of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) told Radio Veritas that imposing the sanction of excommunication on Aquino was a possibility but not a “proximate possibility.”

    Celdran advised the President “to stay strong.”

    —–

    http://210.16.22.74/news/latest-news/31392-celdran-at-mga-pari-bukas-sa-amicable-settlement

    Celdran at mga pari, bukas sa amicable settlement
    Wednesday, 08 December 2010 00:02

    Dumalo si Carlos Celdran sa pre-trial ng kaniyang kasong paglabag sa Article 133 ng Revised Penal Code o offending religious feelings sa Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4.

    xxxxx

    Sa pagdinig, kapwa inihayag ng kampo ni Celdran at ng mga kampo ng complainant na sina Msgr. Cerbo Nestor at Allan Araiza, security officer ng Manila Cathderal, ang pagiging bukas sa amicable settlement.

    Muli namang itinakda sa Marso 10, 2011 ang susunod na pagdinig.

    Sinabi ni Atty. Marlon Manuel, abogado ni Celdran, na umaasa silang sa nabanggit na petsa ay makapagsusumite na sila ng kasunduan kaugnay ng amicable settlement.

    —–

    http://www.philstar.com/breaking-news/637283/manila-judge-asks-celrdan-and-catholic-church-have-amicable-settlement

    Manila judge asks Celdran and Catholic Church to have an amicable settlement
    By Sandy Araneta | Updated December 9, 2010 – 5:10pm

    MANILA, Philippines – A Manila judge urged the Catholic Church and a tourist guide, now facing charges for offending the religious feelings, to have an amicable settlement during the continuation of trial of said case over the disruption of the ecumenical mass at the Manila Cathedral last September 30.

    Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Alfonso Ruiz II of Branch 4, ordered lawyers of both parties to resolve the case out-of-court, and inform him if nothing happens. The next hearing was set on March 10, 2011.

    Lawyer Marlon Manuel, legal counsel of tour guide Carlos Celdran, who played Judas Iscariote in the “Jesus Christ Superstar” in the Metropolitan Theater 2001 Lenten presentation, said he and Catholic Church Lawyer Ronaldo Reyes will first discuss the parameters for the amicable settlement. Manuel expressed hope to settle their differences.

    Manuel said both parties agreed to talk about the amicable settlement, as long as these are reasonable.

    —–

    http://bomboradyo.com/news/latest-news/43827-hiling-na-amicable-settlement-ni-celdran-kinatigan-ng-korte

    Hiling na amicable settlement ni Celdran, kinatigan ng korte
    Last Updated on Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:01
    Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:59

    Posibleng mauwi sa amicable settlement ang isyung namamagitan sa kontrobersyal na si Carlos Celdran at Simbahang Katolika na nag-ugat sa isyu ng Reproductive Health BIll.

    Sa ginawang pagdinig, kinatigan ni Judge Alfonso Ruiz III ng Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 ang kahilingan ng kampo ng tourist guide na bigyan sila ng pagkakataon na makipag-ayos sa Simbahang Katolika.

    —–

    http://www.remate.ph/2011/03/celdran-nag-sorry-simbahan-dedma/

    Celdran nag-sorry; Simbahan dedma
    by Mar 11, 2011 6:28am HKT

    MATAPOS ang anim na buwan, humingi na ng paunmahin sa Simbahang Katoliko ang kontrobersiyal na tour guide na si Carlos Celdran kaugnay sa ginawa nitong pag-abala sa isang misa na idinaos noong nakaraang taon sa Manila Cathedral sa Intramuros, Maynila.

    Hindi umano mabigyan ng panahon ng Simbahan ang isyung nabanggit dahil sa pagiging abala nito, lalo ngayong panahon ng Kuwaresma.

    Sa isang letter of reconciliation na ipinaabot ni Celdran sa Simbahang Katoliko sa pamamagitan ng Manila court, inamin ng Reproductive Health Bill advocate na mali ang kanyang ginawang pag-abala sa Banal na Misa noong Setyembre 30, 2010.

    Isinapubliko rin ni Celdran ang paghingi niya ng paumanhin sa Simbahan sa pamamagitan ng pagpapaskil ng mensahe sa kaniyang Facebook account.

    “Submitted my one page letter of reconciliation to the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) using the Holy Sacraments as my guide. The bishops are busy throughout Lent, said their lawyer, and need time to discuss my letter. I have to go back to trial on May 10, 2011,” anang FB post ng tourist guide.

    Ayon naman kay Msgr. Nestor Cerbo, rector ng Manila Cathedral, nakarating na sa kanila ang impormasyon hinggil sa liham ni Celdran, bagamat hindi pa nila ito pormal na nakikita.

    Sinabi rin ni Cerbo na si Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales ang siyang magdedesisyon kung tatanggapin nila ang paumanhin o hindi, bagama’t nilinaw na palagi namang bukas ang Simbahan sa mga taong humihingi ng paumanhin.

    “It would be up to Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales to decide if it will be accepted. The final decision is not mine,” ani Cerbo.

    Inamin rin ni Cerbo na ideya nila na humingi ng paumanhin si Celdran, ngunit inabot pa ng anim na buwan bago ito ginawa ng tourist guide.

    xxxxx

    Nitong Huwebes ay pinayagan ni Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 Judge Alfonso Ruiz III ang kahilingan ng kampo ni Celdran na bigyan siya ng pagkakataon sa isang amicable settlement sa kaso.

    Ayon kay Atty. Marlon Manuel, abogado ni Celdran, umaasa sila na may maaabot na silang kasunduan bago ang pagharap nila sa susunod na pagdinig na itinakda sa Mayo 10, 2011.

    Dumalo para sa kampo ng Simbahang Katoliko ang kanilang abogado na si Atty. Ronaldo Reyes kung saan inilahad niya na kailangan pa ng kanyang kliyente ng sapat na panahon para pag-aralan ang draft letter ni Celdran na humihingi ito ng paumanhin sa Simbahang Katoliko. Kyle Gatus

    • Thanks @baycas. The timeline of court hearings you researched and submitted here are very much appreciated.

      The Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 Judge Alfonso Ruiz III handling the case then was in motion for an amicable settlement.

      The pairing judge, Judge Bermejo, lacked amicable consideration to push through his predecessor’s motion.

      —

      “Sinabi rin ni Cerbo na si Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales ang siyang magdedesisyon kung tatanggapin nila ang paumanhin o hindi, bagama’t nilinaw na palagi namang bukas ang Simbahan sa mga taong humihingi ng paumanhin.

      “It would be up to Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales to decide if it will be accepted. The final decision is not mine,” ani Cerbo.”

      The actual Complainant in paper was a front. The RCC or CBCP hierarchy claims the ‘Bishops have long forgiven Celdran’. Where did it fit into the picture frame of events, mga kagalang-galang na mga Obispo?

      —

      “Dumalo para sa kampo ng Simbahang Katoliko ang kanilang abogado na si Atty. Ronaldo Reyes kung saan inilahad niya na kailangan pa ng kanyang kliyente ng sapat na panahon para pag-aralan ang draft letter ni Celdran na humihingi ito ng paumanhin sa Simbahang Katoliko.”

      Is Atty. Ronaldo Reyes from the PAO (fiscal [gov’t/state]) office? Or a private lawyer representing the RCC?

      • I agree with your analysis Mel.
        (1) The complainant was an employee of the Church
        (2) The complaint was of a “fire and forget” nature — all the plaintiff had to do was file it and then the government would take over
        (3) The complaint, even if it was being processed by prosecutors, could have been stopped cold and not prospered if witnesses had not showed up.
        (4) All the witnesses who showed up were Church employees
        (5) Forgiveness? Give me a break

        • As early as 08 and 09 December 2010 news reports, the Judge was for an amicable settlement.

          “Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Alfonso Ruiz II of Branch 4, ordered lawyers of both parties to resolve the case out-of-court, and inform him if nothing happens. The next hearing was set on March 10, 2011.”

          I’d like to draw your attention to –

          “… si Atty. Ronaldo Reyes kung saan inilahad niya na kailangan pa ng kanyang kliyente ng sapat na panahon para pag-aralan ang draft letter ni Celdran na humihingi ito ng paumanhin sa Simbahang Katoliko.”

          Isn’t it odd that the letter of Celdran was referred to as a ‘draft letter’. But it wasn’t necessarily rejected by the Church, right?

          So, what does it take to make it acceptable for the plaintiff to accept an amicable settlement from Celdran?

          Hey @baycas, how much was the entrance fee for that All You Can Eat Buffet Feast again? Part of the menu was; innuendo. And the cashier exclaims “Show me da money!”

      • [email protected]

        The naked truth is that the Church prosecuted the criminal case to the end. The Church, through Father Cerbo, was the complainant who was represented in the case by a private lawyer, Atty. Ronaldo B. Reyes. Upon court’s cognizance of the case, the complaint paper including the affidavits or the statements of the initial witnesses served as supporting documents to the Information or public prosecutor’s resolution filed before the court.

        Theoretically, the complainant’s participation ended insofar as the criminal aspect of the case is concerned because the People took over as the plaintiff. However, the civil aspect is also litigated together with the criminl aspect of the case unless the civil action is separated. It appears that both the criminal and civil aspects were litigated simultaneously. That is why Atty. Reyes acted as private prosecutor under the supervision and control of the public or trial prosecutor.

        Theoretically again, the Church cannot amicably settle the People’s case but it can compromise the civil damages, if any. So the Church’s witnesses before became the witnesses of the State and the Court can now compel them to testify. But in actual practice, the court encourages the parties to settle amicably including payment of damages if warranted. In fact the court would “coerce” both parties to agree in a settlement for practical reasons. The civil aspect is settled and no witnesses appear. Of course the court will not dismiss the case right away. After three or four subpoenas to the witnesses, the case will be dismissed provisionally if the same witnesses failed to appear in court. The case is dismissed permanently if unrevived after a period of time. Less case, less work, more accomplishments.

        Clearly in Celdran case, the Church, through Atty. Reyes acting as private prosecutor, litigated the case until conviction of Celdran. But the Church was not awarded any payment for damages for no evidence was presented by the private prosecutor to justify same. Indeed, even the cost of litigation is “de officio” – meaning borne by the State. Meaning that the Church merely wanted Celdran to go to jail, nothing else.

        My other point is that Atty. Ronaldo B. Reyes could not prosecute the civil aspect of the Celdran case on his own because he was neither the principal complainant nor the public or trial prosecutor. Obviously, the Church is lying by saying that a layman, Atty. Reyes, prosecuted the case on his own. Or that the Church has already forgiven Celdran but it is the People’s case already and they could not do anything to stop the case.

        • @Rene,

          Theoretical or not, was Atty. Ronaldo Reyes from the PAO (Public Attorneys Office) or privately representing Msgr. Nestor Cerbo and the RC Church?

          Granting your theory (albeit hypothetical) that both civil and criminal matters were altogether before Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Alfonso Ruiz II handling the Celdran case. And since the original judge ‘ordered lawyers of both parties to resolve the case out-of-court’ . An amicable settlement for both parties was not even reached during the Pairing Judge Bermejo’s time, what was lacking to make it acceptable for the plaintiff?

          IF Atty. Ronaldo Reyes was indeed a private lawyer, as you wrote, that represented the private interests of the Church. And there was no compensation for the plaintiff from the Bermejo judgement, what were the missing details in Celdran’s letter (in addition to his apology) that would have made the amicable settlement complete and acceptable for both parties? And remember, the Church hierarchy (the bishops) claims to have long forgiven Celdran for his trespasses.

        • [email protected]

          I believe that Atty. Ronaldo Reyes was a private lawyer representing the Church.

          The plaintiff in this case is the State. The offended private party is the church. The proposed amicable settlement is between the Church and Celdran. Apparently the apology from Celdran was not enough to placate the Church which prosecuted Celdran to the end. Maybe the Church would not settle except a jail sentence for Celdran. So Celdran should have offered a plea for a lesser offense of unjust vexation which carries only one to thirty days jail time.

        • oh okay, thanks @Rene.

          On appeal, I believe a reversal to Judge Bermejo’s judgement (IMHO).

          WE all know that a political mime demonstration by epal was hardly a “notoriously offending the religious feelings” to majority or all of the Ecumenical Service participants, attendants including the program hosts.

          A trespasser perhaps with an informal attire with a sign board. One or two might have been offended by the stunt on entry and display, or chant when exiting, but ‘notoriously offended the religious feeling’? How can one define offending the religious feeling with a political protest against the Priests and Bishops’ masquerading into secular politics – outside of the church’s teachings?

          His protest was not even against his Church’s dogma or religious teachings, but a silent, mime political protest towards the RC priests’ meddling in gov’t and political affairs (e.g. RH Bill).

          The conviction was overreaching or overacting. A crime? Perhaps during the spanish feudal colonial times. IMHO

        • maraming salamat @baycas.

          na miss ko iyon ahh! tsk tsk. naging klaro at maliwanag mula sa dalawang abugado.

          The relationship between Atty. Ronaldo Reyes and Msgr. Nestor Cerbo is so convoluted with actuations. Atty Reyes denies on record that Msgr. Cerbo is not his client, yet Atty. Marlon Manuel attests that for 2 years and 4 months, Atty. Reyes represented Msgr. Cerbo as the complainant in the case.

          Finger pointing, four pointed reverse fingers says that Atty R Reyes is not telling the truth. His court representations proves otherwise.

          Perjury in the Court of Cyber Opinion.

          Thanks @baycas.

  7. Aba Ginoong Barya

    Aba ginoong Barya, nakapupuno ka nang alkansya
    ang prayle ay sumasainyo
    bukod ka niyang pinagpala’t pina higit sa lahat,
    pinagpala naman ang kaban mong mapasok
    Santa Barya Ina nang deretsos,
    ipanalangin mo kaming huwag anitan ngayon at kami ipapatay.
    Siya nawa.
    – Marcelo H del Pilar
    (deretsos = friar fees)

  8. @ victin luz

    The reason why I thought you are mocking/ ridiculing my name is when you said hello letlet @test test then followed by he he…….. gives an impression of mocking me, however if you didn’t followed it with he he, I would think of nothing of it, then you repeatedly calling me @brother. You hurt my feelings. Ok granted you have a friend who is Letlet (Joselito) as well, it’s no good to presume that everyone who is Letlet is gay (male), your generalization thinking is wrong.

    I loath people who are mataas, I never speak nor act as if I’m very mataas here in England .Again your presumption is wrong. Respect and politeness to other people/ animals/ objects here is well observed. Like British, we Filipinos become straightforward (to the point of being blunt) in saying our piece of mind if we believe there is a transgression of our being in anyway, in any matter. If you think NAPAKATAAS ko in saying my piece of mind, then your presumption is wrong again. The British always say thank you, please, excuse me, sorry and this attitude rubs on to us the Filipinos here Respect and.Politeness are always in the forefront in dealing with a lot of things here, it is a hallmark of good manners/ behavior.

    So like British, we say thank you to the sales assistants in supermarkets/ shopping centres/ malls. One time when I visited pinas, we went to SM supermarket, I kept saying thank you to the assistants behind the counter and in the till. My sister said to me why do you keep on saying thank you to these people. I said to her it’s my way of letting them know of my appreciation for their help, like the British way. Hindi ito pagyayabang. I loath pagyayabang. I’m saying this as a matter of fact. We say thank you to whoever helps us in one way or another – binmen, gardeners, medical people, etc- and wherever we are. Like British, we say excuse me or sorry, if we bump someone accidentally in the street, or just walking right infront of someone. If we don’t say excuse me or sorry, it’s a height of discourteousness. If we say something which is a misconception/ misconstrued/ wrong presumption of what is being said by someone, right there and then, we are corrected, we APOLOGIZE/ SAY SORRY. This is the Brirish way. RESPECt, POLITENESS and SINCERETY ( ALSO TO ADMIT A MISTAKE WHEN SOMEONE IS WRONG) ARE THE HALLMARKS OF GOOD MANNERS, and these are some of the values Joe America keeps on telling us to look in our senatorial candidates.

    • What did isay when you 1st castigated me, isn’t it ang sabi ko ay 3rd tracer on my comments that I lost in answering your #33 posting , and even told you ” not offending po ” the word ” PO ” is a show of respect from me to you ,, but you hit me again on your second commets @ ma’am letlet… Pasenya na hindi na din maganda ang dating sa akin ang pangalawang comment mo..

      Be as it may @letlet,, i am very sorry if i hurt you . My apology let let.

      • @for my comments opinion BELOW @Baycas # 37..

        I quote: The Equal Protection Clause does not guarantee ABSOLUTE EQUALITY. What it guarantees is merely LEGAL EQUALITY , or EQUALITY of ALL PERSONS before the LAW, which means that the law should not treat a person differently from another who is similarly situated..

        If a Bishop or Priest went to the private ground of another religious sect , or on the opposite street to CONDUCT their OWN MASS/SERMON to the extent of disrupting the on going ceremony/meeting of that another religious sect and does notoriously injured their religious feelings,…… The latter sect’s can avail too , like Celdran ART. 133 as their weapon in going against those Bishop and Priest in the Court,..the Court being the GUARDIAN of our RIGHTs .

        Art.133 doesn’t say that you have to be religious to be punished under this Law. It was how you did and where you did. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike , under like circumstances and conditions BOTH as to PRIVELEGEs and LIABILITIES enforced.

        If the priest delivers his cermon and pictured as political rights , I believe Celdran protest too was also his political rights but delivered in wrong venue and the Fact it was against Art.133.

        Why blame the CHURCH now on the case of Celdran? Those opposing the Court Decision and Art. 133 ,why not SUE the CHURCH( agent ) now on to what you think your religious feelings was also notoriously offended when they gave sermon,s during masses or on other circumstances where you were offended. If you have the BASIS why not File a case against those Priest so that we can prove if EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE under our CONSTITUTION will be afforded to you.

        I thought FREEDOM of SPEECH and of the PRESS is INVIOLABLE and affordable to all of US. With Restriction’s and exemption like Privilege Speeches and LAWs passed or adopted by our legislatures.

        • Did the RCC lobby against RH BILL while you are having your bible studies people? Did a priest of the same sect OBJECTED , PROTESTED against RH BILL and offended notoriously your religious feelings while a mass/meeting was going on inside your church being conducted by the same sect like Celdran did? If there was , you the offended can file a case notwithstanding who they are .. Avail Art. 133 walang exeption iyan , kahit pa si POPE ang nag disrupt sa meeting nyo….I can not understand what was the double standard of that LAW they were talking about.

      • Victin & Letlet @ 38

        I followed with some amusement your exchange of words. I think it is right that a gentleman like Victin should apologize as he did to a lady like Letlet. Knowing Victin, I am sure he meant no disrespect to Letlet. But Victin hurt the feelings of Letlet more by his signature ending “he he”. To me, that means he stands corrected by a better argument. Very harmless indeed. And Victin unwittingly hit Letlet not once but twice by assuming wrongly that the lady is a man which in itself is a very very grievous mistake.

        I admire both of you. Letlet for standing on her principles and Victin for asking apology for whatever trespasses he might have done to Letlet. Lastly, if I may, I believe both of you are valued CPMers. Let’s move on because the war against corruption and abusive government officials is not over.

  9. Again, I believe Celdran was convicted on a “religious” crime for his “political” action…

    Political, not religious

    But how can Celdran be irreligious when his intent was merely to be impolitic? In other words, what we have here is not religious speech. It is political to the core. His intent was to protest the clergy’s opposition to the then reproductive health bill. His explicit message was that the Church should keep its hands off secular politics and respect the constitutional wall of separation. His symbolism, the bowler hat and funereal suit, came from Jose Rizal, and Damaso is from Rizal’s “Noli Me Tangere” that all students are required by law to read.

    The Catholic clergy  act like a political party when they disagree with officials elected by the people, and then ask to be protected like a religion when the people disagree disagreeably. They shouldn’t have their cake and eat it, too.

    They have used the pulpit to lobby against the RH bill that they dislike, citing biblical and papal teachings. But when they preach to captive audiences during Sunday Mass, I know many churchgoers—myself included—who feel gravely offended at the intrusion into their contemplative space, however urbane and civilized the assault. Yet for me, the solution is merely to suffer the officious proselytizer, not to jail him.

    Two strands

    This brings us to the other approach, namely, constitutional law. There are two strands to the legal defenses for Celdran. The first is criminal law, to show how the “elements” of the crime are not present. It wasn’t “notoriously offensive” since the prosecution witnesses themselves initially thought it was innocuous at worst. It didn’t offend religious dogma, nor did it intrude into the sacrament of the Mass.

    And surely, if the Catholic Church had been offended, then why has its highest officialdom deliberately stayed away from the case? After all, if on RH the clergy has positioned itself as the sole interpreter of what is religiously correct, shouldn’t the court take its bearings from them as the true interpreter of what is religiously offensive?

    The second strand is constitutional law, for the court to strike down the specific provision because it privileges the religious over the secular. Professors Harry Roque and Florin Hilbay have compared this law to lese majeste (that punishes disrespect for the King as “God’s temporal embodiment,” says Hilbay) and which was thrown out by our courts during the American period.

    It creates double standards that protect the religious but not the secular from those who disagree with them. If the shoe were on the other foot and, for instance, the Filipino Freethinkers felt affronted by a religious sect, can they file criminal cases against the sect? That is the double standard that offends two of the most important clauses in our Constitution. The Equal Protection clause ensures equal treatment to all and prevents the privileging of religious over secular belief. The Non-Establishment clause bars the use of governmental power to support religion, of allowing a church to rely upon the sword of Caesar to do its work.

    The preceding was an excerpt from:

    Missing the forest as well as the trees
    By Raul C. Pangalangan
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    11:55 pm | Friday, February 8th, 2013

    • Again, I always believe that Freedom of Expression protects even offensive mimes, speakers, and writers.

      Raul Pangalangan said in his PDI column February 8, 2013 “Publisher’s Note” (already linked above, just awaiting @raissa’s moderation) as takeaway message in the last part:

      Finally, many commentators, before they defend Celdran, would first lament his irreverence. When it comes to freedom of speech, irreverence is irrelevant. Nice speech doesn’t need constitutional protection. Only offensive speech does. Chairman Mao said: “A revolution is not a dinner party … it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.” Given the deep injustices that the Damaso caper protested, including dark episodes in the Catholic Church’s own history, Celdran’s rant was far too genteel and civilized, and only exposes the gap between the worship that is performed in the temples and the transformative faith that we must live out in our lives.

      Emphasis mine.

      While Celdran made an offensive act, it is very far from being a religious offense (a notorious offense to the feelings of the faithful). And such an act was protected mime and speech.

      • Thanks for this baycas. Very interesting, especially when contrasted to how certain commenters here initially reacted to the Celdran case — they were all but baying for Celdran’s blood because what he did was so allegedly unexcusable, unrefined whereas Rizal was “respectable” because he wrote books, gave speeches and respected church worship. Tone trolling at its finest.

        • THIS ->> Pangalanan: “Given the deep injustices that the Damaso caper protested, including dark episodes in the Catholic Church’s own history, Celdran’s rant was far too genteel and civilized, and only exposes the gap between the worship that is performed in the temples and the transformative faith that we must live out in our lives.”

      • Pangalanan: “The subliminal text is this: We Filipinos prefer form to substance. We love institutions and care less what they stand for. We revere organized religion, but ask not about spirituality, transcendence and communion with all beings and their earth. We defer to courts and the Revised Penal Code, but ask not about justice, fairness and righteousness.”

      • of all the analyses made, i have to give my hats off to you Justice Baycas, one must dissect the Celdran case to see if the law was applied to him without a scintilla of doubt.. i really hope that there would be a judicial review on this, and its time to repeal Article 133 for being inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution’s freedom of speech and expression..

        • Thanks, too, @Alan and @jeffcrazy.

          Will post another comment, this time, with regard to Mareng Winnie’s Saturday column putting into writing what they at “Bawal ang Pasaway” had unearthed, so to speak.

    • I totally agree that Celdran’s was a political crime. Note that even during the time of Padre Damaso, Rizal did not assail the religious beliefs per se, but how the friars were interfering in civil governance. What is wrong is not religion itself, but how it is used to hold sway over the other aspects of people’s lives.

      What Celdran did was in bad taste, at the very least. But to go as far as hailing the guy to court and clogging our already choking dockets is a bit of overkill. By all means, ban the guy in all religious premises, excommunicate him, and read a pastoral letter against his action if that should placate their righteous indignation. But most of all they should pray for this lost sheep of the Church’s flock. That is what Jesus would have done Himself.

      “Damaso” was a political statement during a religious event. As a political statement, it is neither a civil nor a criminal offense. It did not assail the Bible, which was the topic of the ecumenical gathering, nor did it assail any dogma or magisterium of the Church. The protest assails the actions of some church people with regards to a sectoral issue that is the subject of a pending legislation. It is definitely covered by free speech.

      Was it appropriate? My answer is no. He is the Carlos Celdran and even if he did it outside of the basilica, the press would still have given him the mileage he wanted. It was like visiting a house unannounced but you were still let in, but you still stood up and calling attention to yourself called your hosts descendants of a whore. That was not cool at all. And for that, Carlos Celdran should recite the Act of Contrition, 3 Our Fathers, 10 Mary’s, and 3 Glory Be’s while kneeling on mongo beans.

      • “I totally agree that Celdran’s was a political crime” should have been “I totally agree that Celdran’s was a political offense”. :)

  10. It just came to mind. What happened to Mideo Cruz and his exhibit in CCP which many Catholics found offensive and in bad taste.

    Did the CBCP sue with fervor the artist and CCP? Was the artist forgiven?

    To me, Celdra,’s was a much lesser offense than Cruz’s considering the revise penal code.

  11. Get Real

    3 instances of hand-washing in Celdran case

    By Solita Collas-Monsod
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    11:55 pm | Friday, February 8th, 2013

    There definitely is a Pontius Pilate flavor in the Catholic Church’s stance on the conviction of Carlos Celdran, who was sentenced to a prison term of two months and 21 days to one year and 11 days for the crime of “offending the (sic) religious feelings” under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (circa 1930 or 1932, and to my admittedly limited knowledge, last applied in 1939).

    Peachy Yamsuan, whose title is director, Archdiocesan Office of Communications, The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, released the following (as seen in the RCAM website):

    “Statement on Conviction of Mr. Carlos Celdran.

    “The Archdiocese of Manila did not pursue the Case against Mr. Carlos Celdran for Violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. While deeply disturbed by the incident, then Manila Archbishop Gaudencio B. Cardinal Rosales gave instructions for the Archdiocese to no longer pursue the case. The Criminal Case against Mr. Celdran was pursued by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor and a lay private prosecutor. Based on the Decision of the Court the prosecution presented four witnesses, none of whom were from the Archdiocese of Manila. Three of the witnesses were from the Episcopal Commission on Biblical Apostolate of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines which organized the event at the Cathedral where Mr. Celdran performed the deed he was prosecuted for. One was a regular mass goer at the Manila Cathedral who was present at the event.

    “Cardinal Rosales has long forgiven Mr. Celdran.

    “How the case on appeal proceeds from hereon is not up to the Archdiocese of Manila or the Church but to the Courts.”

    No doubt, Peachy (she is the sister of a very good friend, Perla Roy) was following instructions and had legal advice as well, but the Reader will agree that the hand-washing is there: The Archdiocese/then Manila Archbishop Rosales did not pursue/gave orders not to pursue the case (washing of the hands once); the case was pursued by the public prosecutor and a lay private prosecutor (washing of the hands twice); the witnesses were not from the Archdiocese of Manila (washing of the hands thrice). But other facts will present a less-than-blameless picture of the Archdiocesan leadership, or at the very least depict a situation where the Cardinal’s orders were not obeyed. Consider the following:

    The private complainant in this case was Msgr. Nestor Cerbo, rector of the Manila Cathedral, and by his very position a member of the Archdiocese of Manila. Interestingly enough, Cerbo was not even present when Celdran pulled his “Damaso” act, and yet he filed the complaint. Did he do it on his own? One doubts it, but one should not speculate.

    Therefore, when the Cardinal, head of the Archdiocese, gave his orders not to pursue the case, Cerbo, his subordinate, should have immediately withdrawn his complaint, right? And the matter would have ended then and there. Fact: Cerbo had all of two years and more within which to withdraw his complaint, because that’s how long the trial lasted, but he made no move to do so in all that time. So the question is: Was Cardinal Rosales’ order unclear, or did Cerbo perform an act of disobedience? I tend to think it may be the latter, and with Cerbo assuaging his conscience by not appearing even once (another fact) during the trial, either as a spectator or as a witness. Definitely, his absence was consistently noted and questioned by defense lawyer Marlon Manuel.

    Consider now the part of the Archdiocese’s statement that “the case was pursued by the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, and a lay private prosecutor.” The part about the private prosecutor is certainly accurate. But the part about the public prosecutor is a stretch because… Fact: Although the public prosecutor was present during the trial, he never once participated actively in the proceedings (he was even sometimes absent). It was the lay private prosecutor (serving pro bono)—Ronaldo Reyes—who ran the whole show. Another Fact: Reyes, as private prosecutor, was representing the private complainant, Monsignor Cerbo (as the transcript of the trial will show), although he (Reyes) seems now loath to admit (in my TV show “Bawal ang Pasaway…” last Monday) that he was representing or had represented Monsignor Cerbo. But one thing sure: Just because Cerbo was not paying him does not remove the responsibility from Cerbo that he had retained a private prosecutor—in clear defiance of his master’s orders.

    Finally, consider the part of the Archdiocese’s statement that the four witnesses “were not from the Archdiocese of Manila.” The only way that this statement can be accurate is if one regards the Archdiocese of Manila as an office, and not a geographical location. But while the four witnesses (one is a priest, two have the same surname, and the fourth is a friend of one of the two) may not be employees of the Archdiocese, they certainly work within the Archdiocese (in Intramuros, where the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines office is located). This part is an exercise in hair-splitting (or rather, hand-washing).

    Postscript: In his attempt to come to an out-of-court settlement with the Church, Celdran formally apologized for his behavior, and then, heeding the advice of Reyes, confessed his “sin” at the Manila Cathedral. He was told that there was no sin, and therefore no penance was needed. Will the real Catholic Church please stand up?

    SOURCE: opinion inquirer net/46509/3-instances-of-hand-washing-in-celdran-case

  12. @Mel,

    Just watched video of Karen Davila interview with DAR Sec. De los Reyes and It reminded me of what you said in our earlier conversation at #19.1:

    “It depends on how you look at it. As for the DAR head, intrigues of incompetence are one sided. If there is one, Agrarian Secretary Virgilio de los Reyes failed to communicate his gains, challenges and limitations of implementing it in full. Fair and realistic expectations, or what are not possible were not clearly communicated satisfactorily with the public.”

    Those people at DAR may have read your mind. :)

    In case you want to watch, it’s on Youtube , “dar sec de los reyes says it’s unfair for bishops to call for his resignation”

    • @Cha

      Nice of you to pick it up and wrote it as “Those people at DAR may have read your mind.”

      Dala ng CPMers iyan. During the Corona trial, there were many, ‘Trending’ posts in snippets that came from the CPM during these heydays. Many of Raïssa’s commenters found their bylines in other outlets. Para sa inang bayan. Mainstream Media – its writers, journalists, reporters and freelancers’ contributions or write-ups are attributed in Raïssa’s blog too.

      —

      “A suitable and not too late public relations campaign by DAR Secretary

      “Where the mainstream media fails to patronize your hard work, the Cyber Plaza Miranda is the right place to showcase them.”


      • The DAR Secretary and agrarian reform

        BY DEAN TONY LA VIÑA
        POSTED ON 02/14/2013 1:47 PM
        UPDATED 02/14/2013 2:59 PM

        One cannot fault the farmer-beneficiaries for these protest actions, although at times these go over the top and are done without context. After all, it has been more than two decades since the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Carp) in 1988, which was extended for 5 more years under RA 9700 or the Carper law on Aug 7, 2009. The new law was meant to complete the acquisition and distribution of the remaining one million hectares of private agricultural lands to landless farmers. To this day, many farmers have yet to be awarded their certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs).

        Decades of struggle to own the lands they till is simply too long for our impoverished farmers. And it is but right for the State to address their concerns and listen to their grievances.

        Fair play

        Yet to empathize with our farmers does not mean that we have to take all their accusations against the DAR Secretary without any reservation. As always, there are two sides in a coin just as there are two sides in every controversy.

        It is just not right and grossly unfair to jump at the conclusion that the Secretary is all to blame for the problems that the DAR is facing simply because his critics say so.

        Fair play demands that we also hear the side of his story.

        READ THE COMPLETE ARTICLE at http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/21806-the-dar-secretary-and-agrarian-reform

  13. Last Sunday. 3rd of Feb, I attended the mass in London, UK wherein I saw a card on a long bench that says: SPEAK OUT FOR MARRIAGE………………www.catholicchurch.org.uk
    ( Affix postage stamp and write the name of your MP on the dotted line.

    ……………………………..MP
    House of Commons
    Westminster
    London SW1A OAA

    At the back of the cars says:

    Dear Member of Parliament,

    As a concerned constitutent I urge you to vote against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

    – Marriage between a man and womanis the foundation of the family and provides the
    best circumstances in which to raise the next generation.

    – This is why society has recognized marriage as having an identitydistinct from other
    relationship,however much love or commitment may be invloved; marriage is about
    the common good.

    – No mainstream political party promised such radical change in its last
    manifesto. There is therefore no mandate for it.

    Please vote against it and let me know your views.

    Name…………………………………
    Address……………………………..
    ……………..

    I thought it’s only in the Philippines where the catholic churcesh meddle/ intervene in the legislation of the lawmakers, but also in UK. I suppose Vatican is leading the charge brigade by asking the catholic churches throughout the world to disseminate its church doctrines and dogma to their flock, whereby, adherence is a must to show faithfulness

    • @Letlet, I am voting against the Same Sex Marriages,.. It is because currently, Majority of the Populace of the Universe especially in the Philippines will not accept it for reason Still OFFENDING to HUMAN FEELINGs if not NOTORIOSLY he he…. Not on our time although some US states nodded to this Marriage , I think to be FAIR with our SWISTERs and BWROTHERs we can give them a DE FACTO relationship , with some rights and privileges like living as Husband and Wife and have a DE FACTO SETTLEMENT of PROPERTY which could be CONJUGAL PROPERTY or ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY of PROPERTY before or UPON entering into a DE FACTO relationship..

      What can you say @Brother LETLET , he he joke lang,..will my suggestion FAIR enough at the moment while we are waiting our HUMAN FEELINGs to Settle Normally ? He he

      • same sex marriage was an issue in Canada but it was quite opposite to what happened in the Philippines re on celdran’s case. in canada, a church was ordered by the court to conduct gay marriage or face criminal charges. the church had to do it…in the Philippines, the Catholic priests do not hold sacred the limits of their religious teachings by questioning the reproductive health bill then. my canadian friend said…and you don’t even have divorce…we used to be that way (TAKE NOTE) in the 60s. how come the philippines is so medieval? if the priests favor a candidate, then, all the more canadians would rally against the candidate because we believe it is a violation of the separation between the church and the state, an interference…your democracy is so immature…yours is just a quarrel between personalities and not about real issues…..

    • @letlet, …For the time being, I object to the same SEX MARRIAGEs . It is still OFFENDING to HUMAN FEELINGs if not NOTORIOUSLY ( he he ). Not yet accepted by the majority Internationally .

      In order to respect the better rights of our ” kabaro ” and for their common good , a DE FACTO relationship must be decreed and allowed and to have also DE FACTO SETTLEMENT of PROPERTIES which could be CONJUGAL , ABSOLUTE or SEPARATION of PROPERTIES.

      Ano @brother LetLet, he he joke lang, will my suggestion suffice your problem.?

      • 3rd tracer sent,… If we allow same sex marriages ,it will still be OFFENDING to HUMAN FEELINGs if not NOTORIOSLY ( he he ).

        In order to respect the better rights of our ” kabwaro ” and for their common good, I suggest a DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP coupled with CONJUGAL, ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY or SEPARATION of PROPERTY REGIME on their DE FACTO SETTLEMENT… He he @letlet, brother he he joke lang ,.. OK sa iyo ito..

      • what do you mean [email protected] test? Are you mocking my name or testing me for what? I have my principles in life wherever I go ” I respect people so I want people to respect me as well”.

        • Got 3 tracer as an answer to your posted comment ” let ” nawala lahat sa airy. Then I tried that one test test. Pumasok naman… not offending po.

        • @letlet….. Here are my VIEWs of my my three ( 3 ) lost answers I posted around 2:30am today.

          Gay Marriages today or majority of the populace especially in the Philipppines thought , still OFFENDING to HUMAN FEELINGs . Not yet accepted ( majority ) today. And I suggest DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP of the same sex coupled with a DE FACTO SETTLEMENTs of PROPERTY like conjugal , absolute community , or separation of OWNERSHIP before or upon the relationship. A law must be decreed.

          Now, with regards sa ” pakikialam ” ng RCC , here is my view which is not included in my lost 3 comments posted earlier.

          FREEDOM of SPEECH and of the PRESS is INVIOLABLE to all Human Being ,natural or artificial with LIMITATIONs subject to a better rights and welfare of the others.

          Sabi nga sa Celdran case your PROTEST defend on HOW YOU DO IT and WHERE YOU DO IT, subject to a better rights and common welfare of the others.

        • Just posted my 4th tracer @letlet and again ,it was lost in the air .. I don’t know why.. DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP is my answer and FREEDOM of SPEECH and of the PRESS is INVIOLABLE subject to the better rights and common welfare of the others..test test again

        • Any PROTEST must defend on HOW YOU DO IT and WHERE YOU DO IT again subject to the better rights and welfare of the others. That FREEDOM although INVIOLABLE ,it is not ABSOLUTE but with limitations.

        • This campaign/ debate on GAY MARRIAGES is still ongoing

          Will you stop referring to me as @ brother, I AM A WOMAN. Don’t you know that Letlet is a name for a woman – short for Leticia. You may point out that some gays are also using it, but remember they are mal, so they are FAKE WOMEN. What planet are you in you’re not aware of this. What made you think I’m gay? Your presumption is wrong, you owe me an apology.

          The reason I posted this campaign on ” AGAINST THE GAY MARRIAGES” by the UK catholic churches is to point out that POLITICALIZATION of RCC is happening not only in the Philippines but also in Britain, and most possibly throughout the world as the case maybe. I DIDN’T POST THIS UK RCC CAMPAIGN FOR MY BENEFIT.

          Reading your comments here in Raissa’s blog are very informative and enlightening, but suffice it to say, you should be careful next time in blurting out your views on someone’s comments because you could be barking on the wrong tree as in my case, as you really hurt my feelings as you repeatedly call me @brother. You owe me an apology.

        • @letlet, I had a good friend his name was Joselito and we call him ” letlet ” so I thought you are a boy, because Joselito was a boy ma’am . I am not blurting my view’s because you asked for it neither I am barking on the wrong tree. My comments was for you and I can justify them.

          When my 3 comments was lost in the air for so many hours, I tested one and I said Hello [email protected] test ,test,….but you assumed that I am mocking you @sister letlet and you wanted respect…… TAGA SAAN ka ba ma’am at napakataas munaman magsalita……mahirap lang po kami dito @letlet , pero call ako kung gusto mo magbastusan tayo…. I don’t owe you an apology ma’am letlet although I am correcting myself.

          What principle do you have @mam letlet, when word’s of NO meaning , like HELLO and test test you had interpreted and translated as a word of DISRESPECT? FROM WHERE are YOU @letlet,,, are you related to Queen Elizabeth? bastos ba ang taga England ? O sobrang dami ang pera MO….

    • The priest’s sermon dealt with the reasons why the catholic churches are against the GAY MARRIAGE.

    • I too disagree with terming the “union” of same sex indiviuals – marriage, but I can accept that they can have legal rights as consenting adults with respect to some rights as married couple like living under one roof, commonality of assets, inheritance but not the freedom to adopt a child and call it a family..

      Heterosexual marriages are specifically by nature designed for pro-creation. Defects of biology prevents a few hetero marriages from procreating so to me adoption by them is acceptable. Same sex indoviduals impossibly, cannot and not designed so that earth continues to be inhabited.

      Call the union any name other than marriage. Let’s preserve what marriage connotes as originally intended for. It is regular and acceptable naman to add new terms in dictionaries.

  14. Thanks, @Cha, for sharing Mareng Winnie’s opinion. She is not just the wife of Celdran’s second witness but she certainly is opinionated…high caliber at that (though I disagreed with some of her articles esp. when she said gloria truly won in 2004)

    Well, hers, I also believe, is another explanation of Judge Bermejo’s decision (the B-R-D conviction of Celdran).

    However, I was trying to be careful in my analysis because I wouldn’t want to take my perception of an error in judgment against the judge.

    I belabored the idea of convicting Celdran myself armed with the available information from the decision and some googled reading materials on the subject.

    Referring to my Comment No. 23.1, it turned out that the offended witnesses’ point of view is supreme in the interpretation of Art. 133. It’s a one-sided affair. Moreover, the subject matter “religious feelings” and “notoriously offensive” are terms that can be interpreted subjectively.

    It’s really not hard to convict Celdran because People v. Baes somehow dictated the outcome. After all, what J. Laurel only held in that case is his dissenting opinion. The right interpretation of Art. 133 would have been J. Laurel’s if only the SC majority in People v. Baes sided with him.

    Tough luck for Celdran because he will need a review of the vague and overbroad Art. 133 and, perhaps, a re-interpretation of People v. Baes in order to scrutinize his act based on the strict definition of the subjectively- and arbitrarily-interpreted “notoriously offensive to religious feelings”.

    Only then may he be readily presumed innocent and may he be easily heard that he didn’t mean to ridicule religious practice, dogma, or ritual. Only then may he be understood as not hindering Free Exercise of Religion. Only then may he stand a chance of reversal of conviction.

    On a probably equally important thing is that winning the appeal does not absolve him of his wrongdoing, that is, impolitely exercising his Freedom of Expression.

    —–

    @Cha and the rest:

    This IS really the Court of Public Opinion.

    I was labeled “Justice” even before I entered law school. It was just a joke among blogging friends.

    And up till now, I haven’t set foot in such a school…because, it’s common knowledge…I am not a lawyer.

    —–

    Again, to everyone:

    In the same way I thanked Mr. Gutter for the Senate Funds revelation, I would like to thank Padre Damaso, this time, in opening our eyes to our fundamental laws and how they affect our lives…greatly.

    • HISTORY of Art. 133…

      The case of Balcorta (25 Phil. 273 [19131) reveals that an Aglipayan, who, uninvited, entered a private house, where services of the Methodist Episcopal Church were g conducted by 10 to 20 persons and who then threatened the assemblage with a club, thereby interrupting the divine service, was found guilty under Article 571 of the old Penal Code (similar to Art. 133, Revised Penal Code).

      – Pamil v. Teleron, G.R. No. L-34854 November 20, 1978

      Pamil v. Teleron holds some jurisprudence on Art. 133.

      This is Art. 571 of the Codigo Penal which is similar to Art. 133:

      “Código penal vigente en las Islas Filipinas y Ley Provisional dictanto …”

      Art. 571. Serán castigados con la pena de arres-
      to de uno á diez dias y multa de 15 á 125 pesetas:

      IP Los que perturbaren cualquier acto de ca
      rácter religioso de un modo no previsto en la Sec-
      ción tercera, cap. 2.°, tít. 2,^ del libro 2.^ de este
      Código.

      2.^ Los que con la exhibición de estampas 6
      grabados, ó con otra clase de actos, ofendieren la
      moral y las buenas costumbres sin cometer delito.

      “Translation of the Penal Code in force in the Philippines Islands”

      Art. 571. The following shall be punished with the penalty of arrest of from one to ten days, and a fine of from 15 to 125 pesetas:

      1. Those who shall disturb any act of a religious character in any manner not foreseen in Section. II, Chapter II, of Book II of this code.

      2. Those who, by exhibiting prints or engravings, or by means of other acts, shall offend against good morals and customs without committing a crime.

      —–
      Where:

      Book II. — Crimes and their penalties.
      Chapter II. Crimes committed on the occasion of the exercise of the individual rights guaranteed by the constitution
      Section II. Crimes committed by public officials

      • HISTORY of Art. 133 (with hyperlinks)…

        The case of Balcorta (25 Phil. 273 [19131) reveals that an Aglipayan, who, uninvited, entered a private house, where services of the Methodist Episcopal Church were g conducted by 10 to 20 persons and who then threatened the assemblage with a club, thereby interrupting the divine service, was found guilty under Article 571 of the old Penal Code (similar to Art. 133, Revised Penal Code).

        – Pamil v. Teleron, G.R. No. L-34854 November 20, 1978
        http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/pamil-vs-teleron/

        Pamil v. Teleron holds some jurisprudence on Art. 133.

        This is Art. 571 of the Codigo Penal which is similar to Art. 133:

        “Código penal vigente en las Islas Filipinas y Ley Provisional dictanto …”

        Art. 571. Serán castigados con la pena de arres-
        to de uno á diez dias y multa de 15 á 125 pesetas:

        IP Los que perturbaren cualquier acto de ca
        rácter religioso de un modo no previsto en la Sec-
        ción tercera, cap. 2.°, tít. 2,^ del libro 2.^ de este
        Código.

        2.^ Los que con la exhibición de estampas 6
        grabados, ó con otra clase de actos, ofendieren la
        moral y las buenas costumbres sin cometer delito.

        http://archive.org/stream/cdigopenalvigen00suprgoog/cdigopenalvigen00suprgoog_djvu.txt

        “Translation of the Penal Code in force in the Philippines Islands”

        Art. 571. The following shall be punished with the penalty of arrest of from one to ten days, and a fine of from 15 to 125 pesetas:

        1. Those who shall disturb any act of a religious character in any manner not foreseen in Section. II, Chapter II, of Book II of this code.

        2. Those who, by exhibiting prints or engravings, or by means of other acts, shall offend against good morals and customs without committing a crime.

        —–
        Where:

        Book II. — Crimes and their penalties.
        Chapter II. Crimes committed on the occasion of the exercise of the individual rights guaranteed by the constitution
        Section II. Crimes committed by public officials

        http://archive.org/stream/translationpena00spaigoog/translationpena00spaigoog_djvu.txt

  15. Now that this newly resurrected law on offending religious feelings has been given life by our secular courts, let’s start counting ways it can be used and abused:

    Can Catholics now sue non-Catholics who routinely assail their veneration of the Virgin Mary and recognition of the Pope in Rome as their Holy Father?

    Can members of the Iglesia ni Cristo sue people who serve or eat dinuguan (blood stew) in their presence?

    Can TV viewers sue networks for airing religious programs with pastors who preach against the beliefs of other sects or religions?

    With this antiquated law, just about every Juan and Petra can go to court and sue anyone who will go against their religious beliefs. Surely our courts do not want us to go back to the dark ages when suspected witches and sorcerers were burned at the stake for going against popular belief. Managing religious sensibilities is best left to the individual conscience. After all, social responsibility is not something that can be legislated.

    • @den,…serving and eating dinuguan in the presence of an I.C. Member……. very big NO, but if you do the consuming inside their church YES, especially if it can be proven that you have notoriously offended even one member of his religious feelings ,that falls under Art. 133 of RPC…

      Assailing others belief like veneration of the virgin Mary so as the recognition of the holy father,……NO……. But if you go inside their church while having their mass or no mass at all,….YES ….same qualification you fall under Art. 133

      @den,.. It defends on how you do it….

      Social responsibility can be legislated as a regulation/restriction of our FREEDOMs Guaranted by the Constitution especially if a legislation’s objective will ENHANCE the WELFARE and INTEREST of the SOCIETY……. If it endangered ” salus populi ” THEN “salus populi est suprema lex ”

      Like the passing of RH BILL….to slow down birth rate does slowing down poverty while accelerating programs of the government that ENHANCE the WELFARE of the Filipino people.

      Like the CYBERCRIME LAW,……to regulate/stop the usage of computer in unlawful/illegal advertising , obscenity and etc…

      Art. 133 is not yet amended nor decriminalized SO: ” ignorantia legis neminem excusat ” further ” dura lex sed lex ” although our lawyers said that ” cessante ratione legis , cesat ipsa lex ” but ” optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statum ” and the most,……………. “SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX “

      • ” ignorantia legis neminem excusat ” further ” dura lex sed lex ”

        ” cessante ratione legis , cesat ipsa lex ” but ” optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statum ”

        “SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX “

        @victin, saan mo naman nahagilap iyang mga latin? o dili kaya aramaic ba ang mga iyan?

        eh abaay, puro ata mga wrong spelling?! ab ehh angapalatok kadi?

        :smile:

        • Ha ha sir kabayan @Mel ,…Mayroon naman tayong Constitution noong 5th year sa Engineering , and then I ask my son who took up mascom.., basta PAPA iyan ang isulat ko daw , mas maiksi daw ang explaination ang problema ni Celdran pag LATIN ang isulat he he , di isinulat ko.

          Where kana kabayan , still in Canada ba?

        • Saka sir ang Latin pala ay may pagka panggalatok he he,.. Nag kakaintindihan sila lalo na sa HUWETING and HUWETING TURFs he he.

        • ha, ha, ha…

          nasa ilalim, nadayo ka dito. pero hindi nakapag eyeball.

          next time, hopefully.

          btw, i appreciate your running comments all over the place.kahit hindi ako naka-ka ride on.

          sometimes, i wonder when your dots will end (……).
          paki limit mo na lang sa isa o sa tatlo (ellipsis) kung nade-delay ang pitik sa keyboard. :smile:

          good luck sa anak mong nurse.

    • Thank you for the very warm welcome, @baycas. Although the appelation “Great” makes me wonder if you are referring to me or some other Den. =:)

      @Victin Luz, that’s a lot of latin for me to chew in one eating. But yes, you are right that some legislation are meant to temper all-encompassing freedoms guaranteed to men in a free world. And yes, the welfare of men (or to be exact, the greater number of men) is supreme. Sadly in some cases such as the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, our fallible legislators stray from the spirit and intent of the law , often mixing them with ill-intentioned and parochial provisions.

      Been away for so long, need a lot of catching up to do. Nice to see everyone again.

      • @happy come back @DEN,… Nice to see u too again…let us SWAY and begin to select our MAGIC 12 for the SENATE……there were plenty savings still thereat and 1.6m pesos each might be given to us he he joke lang po.

        • @DEN,… pansin ko mga rin, why Filipinos very PAROCHIAL ? We always want and define our boundaries .. Paki DEN expound mga. parochial and dynasty.

        • @Victin Luz, magandang topic nga ang mga senatorial candidates, especially yung mga bunga ng political dynasties. May nagsasabi na there is such a thing as benevolent dynasties. Eh parang narining ko na yun dati – as in benevolent dictatorship ni Apo. And look where it has brought us? I am not even referring to the plunder of our treasury. Kanila na yun, hindi nila madadala sa hukay ang yamang ninanakaw nila kahit pa refrigerated at above ground ang hukay nila.

          I am more concerned about the damage it caused to our national psyche. Parang ok lang ang lahat. Pag niloko tayo o ninakawan, ok lang, move on na lang. Pag may nandaya sa halalan, hayaan na lang tutal naman may susunod pang halalan. Pag may patayan, patawarin na lang at di na naman maibabalik ang buhay. Walang guistong makialam o gumawa ng pagbabago kasi feeling nila wala rin naman magiging pagbabago sa buhay nila.

          Ang ganitong baluktot na paniniwala ang inaabuso ng mga political dynasties. Sanay ang mga karaniwang tao na may patron, may nangangalaga sa kanila. Nung unang panahon, ang kabuhayan ng bayan ay iniaasa sa pintakasi or Patron Saints. Kapag mahina ani, nagtatampo ang patron kaya kailangan suyuin. Kapag maganda ang ani, gawa ng patron kaya kailangan magpasalamat. Ang mga patron nuong unang panahon napalitan lang ng mga pulitiko ngayon.

          I agree with you. Kailangan nating busisiin ang mga kandidato. Hindi ako naniniwala na sa 90 milyong Pinoy sa Pilipinas ay walang ibang qualified for public office. Malas lang natin, napakaliit ng hanay na pagpipilian natin sa darating na eleksyon. Nakalulungkot isipin na isinuko na natin ang ating kinabukasan sa iilang pamilyang ginawa ng family business ang public office at tayong mga mamamayan ay waring mga aliping saguiguilid at namamahay na lamang.

          Hay buhay!

        • Tama ka @den,… Ang salitang ” HAYAAN MUNA SILA ” kahit kitang kita natin mali ang ginawa ay ” HAYAAN MUNA ” ,,, lubog ang Filipino dito, the culprit’s had acquired a stronger ” support ” to do more and bigger MISTAKEs , CORRUPTIONs or CRIMEs..

          Another [email protected] ” WAG KANG MAKIALAM , MANAHIMIK KA DYAN , NATULUNGAN TAYO NYAN o KAMAG ANAK PA NATIN IYAN ” ehh you are the LONE witness’s to a CRIME, he he patay na ,Bayan KO, ABSWELTO si JUAN.