I have rummaged through the decision of Judge Juan Bermejo, the magistrate in
this case. By the way, I’ve known him for some time. We had a long and good
conversation then when he visited the law office of Justice Bellosillo in Roxas
Boulevard, Manila. I was still then an associate of the good Justice. I may say
that Judge Bermejo is a relative because he married a “Vista”. He is also close
to my Tita Cely Calupig and often visited her house at Kalayaan, Global City.
There was nothing really to prove much when it comes to what Celdran did
because it was photographed and covered by the media when it happened in
September, 2010. It also became a headliner for several national newspapers
wherein the views of Carlos Celdran were well-taken and conveyed by reporters
to the people. The case then only boils down to the question of whether what he
did was a criminal or not.
Let me reproduce to you the provisions of Article 133 of the Revised Penal
Code:
On the other hand, Article 133 has been dissected and formed to comprise two
(2) elements:
The first element can be said to have been easily satisfied with, because Celdran
raised the placard “DAMASO” and uttered the words “Don’t meddle with
politics!” inside the Manila Cathedral.
The second element however is vital since it determines whether the overt act he
committed was criminal or not. The witnesses presented, who are “faithfuls” of
the Catholic Church testified that what Carlos Celdran did had offended them.
With the term “faithfuls” we mean bona fide Catholics and NOT followers of
other religions or sects.
Judge Bermejo citing the case of People vs. Baes, G.R. No. L-46000, May 25,
1939, correctly justified that witnesses presented should be faithfuls of the
Catholic Church –
Whether or of the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the
feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible
that certain acts may offend the feelings of those who profess a certain religion,
while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith.
To elucidate, the prosecution presented four witnesses, three of which are lay
persons and the fourth is a priest. All of them testified that they were offended
when Celdran raised the placard and shouted those words. Celdran, on the other
hand, presented only two witnesses to defend his case. The two witnesses
testified the contrary.
What really mattered here most, according to the judge,was how the four
witnesses delivered their testimonies as against how the witnesses of the defense
delivered theirs. The Judge observed that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses were straightforward, natural, spontaneous, and credible. It means that
the witnesses’ declarations that they were offended as Catholics are true. The
testimonies of the four faithfuls outweigh in greater length the testimonies of the
defense’s two.
I won’t go farther into the decision of the court. It is, as of this moment,
considered lawful (until reversed, if reversed by a higher court in the future) and
just. What I hate is the current media mileage given to CELDRAN. Worse, most
people in the so-called intellectual and liberal corners of Manila wanted Article
133 of the RPC repealed, or they termed it “revisited”.
These people are trying to bring in their American style freedom of expression
and force it to the Filipino culture. Celdran always boasted that he was molded
in New York, and he brought with him this free-wheeling right of expression to
the country. Yes, we were under the Americans for what? Fifty years? And we
think we are whites.
The best example of our own true culture is our Penal Code. Look at the
provisions there that clip our most espoused freedom of expression. The Penal
Code is the true sentiment of the people. It tells us who we are as Filipinos. We
cannot just bring in a foreign idea because it is COOL and integrate it into our
system.
Celdran committed a criminal act and he must be punished. At the end of the
day, it will always come to the conclusion that the “law is harsh, but it is the
law” [Dura lex sed lex.] So, why make so much fuss about his predicament?
Celdran was barking at the wrong tree. He should have lobbied in Congress for
the bill to be passed, and not malign another person or institution because it has
the opposing view. He has gone too far with his cause.