Carlos Celdran appeals case, wants oral arguments

MANILA, Philippines — Cultural activist and tour guide Carlos Celdran urged the Supreme Court to overturn its division’s resolution that upheld his guilty conviction and to hold an oral argument on his case.

Celdran, on Wednesday, filed a 36-page motion for reconsideration to set aside the SC’s First Division ruling dated March 21 that upheld the guilty verdict against Celdran over the 2010 “Damaso”—a reference to the villainous friar from Jose Rizal’s novel, “Noli Me Tangere”—protest at the Manila Cathedral.

The Manila Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 4 found Celdran guilty of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code or “Offending the religious feelings.”

Celdran elevated his case to the regional trial court and Court of Appeals, but he failed to get a favourable ruling.

‘Article 133 is unconstitutional’

In appealing his case, Celdran stressed that the main point of his plea before the court is the declaration of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code as unconstitutional.

“What is involved in this case are fundamental constitutional rights of citizens, not only in the current times, but for generations to come. By raising a constitutional question, the Petitioner assails the ruling of the Court of Appeals because it is not in accordance with law and the Constitution, no less, and because it violates rights guaranteed under the Constitution,” he said.

Celdran said that provision of the RPC “restricts and regulates speech not only according to its content but also according to its viewpoint.”

He pointed out that the lower courts convicted him only over the word “Damaso” which is a literary allusion.

“It is clear, therefore, that the lower courts would send Petitioner Celdran to prison on the basis of a word, speech or expression. Certainly, this criminal prosecution raises a free speech issue,” he added.

“The word embodies an ‘expressive element’ that is beyond the reach of the criminal law,” Celdran also said.

“Article 133 of the RPC is an archaic provision that is anathema to a constitutional, and secular, democracy. It infringes on the freedom of expression as a prior restraint that inhibits individuals from speaking their minds,” he stressed.

‘OSG took my stand’

Celdran pointed out that even the OSG, the government’s chief legal counsel, has echoed his plea to strike down Article 133 as unconstitutional.

In May 2016, the OSG filed a manifestation that raised arguments similar to Celdran’s.

“Mr. Celdran’s display of the word ‘Damaso’ was made in the context of the debate over the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill then pending in Congress. Even the RTC made such a finding, and emphasized that Mr. Celdran shouted ‘Don’t meddle in politics’ while he was being brought out...This only shows that Mr. Celdran’s act is a political speech, as it was both intended and received as a contribution to public deliberation about the issue,” the pleading, penned by then-Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, read.

Celdran, in his appeal, told the SC: “The [OSG] essentially supports the arguments of the Petition. Hence, both the Petition for Review and the Manifestation in Lieu of Comment argue that Article 133 of the RPC is unconstitutional.”

Celdran also asked that the SC, in a full court session, tackle his petition in an open court.

An oral argument on the case, he stressed, will create “a venue for the further elucidation of the constitutional issues involved in this case.”

Fr. Roy Bellen, who heads the Archdiocese of Manila’s office of communications, said they are leaving it up to the government to deal with the SC ruling. He reiterated that the archdiocese long ago desisted from pursuing the case.