First I presented the facts surrounding the Carlos Celdran ‘Damaso’ circus in my previous article. Evidently, facts alone don’t resonate loudly enough in Filipinos’ ears nor get processed effectively within their limited intellectual faculties. So I shall state my opinion about said facts a bit more explicitly here.
Consistency is the mother of credibility.
Carlos Celdran is entitled to express an opinion under that doctrine of “freedom of speech” his supporters keep invoking. But his right to do so is forum-dependent as commentor “jcc” pointed out…
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
The case of Celdran must not be framed under the free-speech clause because in order to exercise it, you must have your own forum to vent your speech. You can use the public plaza for that. If you want to use a school auditorium, you must ask permission from the school first. If you want to use the pulpit or the church premises, you must ask the permission of the church first. Inside church premises, your speech that is anti-church cannot be tolerated. You were demanding an untramelled speech inside the premises that does not welcome it.
Put it in another scenario, Congress. Protesters there are allowed their free speech outside the premises. You cannot get inside the session hall and deliver your speech unless you are a member of congress itself.
The provision of the constitution is clear. “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech.” It is an invocation directed against State actors. The Church is not an agency of the State. It is an independent group operating outside the framework of what the constitution considers state actor.
In short, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Though in that amusing metaphor and in this case of the Church versus Celdran, limits to said freedom are implied, there is no threat to “freedom of speech” that is proportionate to the loud whining we currently hear from the chattering classes today. True to the emo spirit, some of Celdran’s defenders point out how the “Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines too reserve the right to freedom of speech. They are after all, Filipinos themselves and have the right to speak.” But of course. The difference between our modern-day Damasos and Celdran is that our 21st Century Damasos exercise that right within their own premises (their Churches, their vassal private schools, and their colonial properties), and via their own channels (their own blogs, websites, radio stations, and television programs).
Celdran stepped into the Manila Cathedral and flashed a “Damaso” placard. Nice statement — one I happen to agree with. In fact I recall finding myself nodding my head a bit in bemusement back in 2010 when it broke the news. Indeed, as one Tweetizen asserted, Celdran’s Damaso stunt did a lot to raise the profile of the pro-RH Bill activist voice. I agree with that too.
But that does not change the simple fact that a law was violated in a clearly pre-meditated act. Some of us choose to express our views within the domain of what the Law allows. Celdran chose to do the same outside of it. He once accused moi of troll-like behaviour. Fair enough perhaps. I express myself in ways that annoy people and am as proud of that as any shock-jock is. Celdran did the same when he dressed as Jose Rizal and flashed “Damaso” in the Manila Cathedral in 2010 — proof that troll-like behaviour is not necessarily confined to online activity. The difference between witty trolls like moi and plain emo real-life trolls like Celdran is that witty guys like me do my trolling without violating other peoples’ property rights and impinging on people’s entitlement to practice their religion without unwarranted interruption. My audience comes to me. Celdran’s audience gets their door kicked down.
Whatever service that happened to be transpiring in the Manila Cathedral at the time (whether it was a Holy Mass or some sort of “ecumenical service” ek ek) is not relevant.
The only thing relevant is where the stunt was exhibited.
Celdran is a martyr indeed. He will go to jail to serve the cause for legal artificial contraception in the Philippines. He should do his time with his chin up, because he chose to risk being sentenced to that punishment by knowingly violating the law and then apologising for doing so. When you apologise for an offense, said apology implies a willingness to suffer the consequences associated with said offense. Celdran has two choices: (1) march into prison with dignity or (2) be dragged into the slammer costumed and kicking and screaming like all the other social media attention-junkies out there.
I suggest he goes for Option 1. That way he does a bit of justice to the smug look he flashes while posing in those handcuffs in the numerous publicity photos he’s been tweeting out since 2010.
Freedom of speech is not dead, nor will it die in the aftermath of Celdran’s imprisonment. It will thrive for as long as idiotic stunts are played by emo activists for witty people like moi to write about intelligently. The armchair on which I sit is quite comfy indeed. That’s what being at the top of the ideas food chain is all about.
benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.
Hear, hear.
Brace yourselves, the butthurt celdran fans are coming.
To be honest, i was really facepalming at what celdran did. Serves him right to get jailed for a stupid stunt like that.
Personally, it boggles the mind what precedent would have been set if this was condoned by the courts. Who is allowed to disrupt what process and where. I bet the same people who think Celdran should escape unscathed thought Kanye West was a boor for interupting Taylor Swift’s speech in some awards show a few years ago. I hope I am getting those interchangable celebrities correct. I think Mr.Celdran was protesting at the time (2010) the Church’s proposed civil disobedience. John Wooded told one of his players maybe Bill Walton, he was entitled to express his views as long as he was accountable to the consequences.
Flawlessly written. That help me understood more why Celdran deserves jail time.
Agree, agree. Celdran is not the victim here, rather the recipient of a prison term for his Damaso performance. You reap what you sow.
Amen, benigs.
No, Carlos Celdran, freedom of speech is not under threat…
whiny, emo, pa-victim “activism” is.
By this argument, Celdran would have been guilty of trespass. “Offending religious feelings” is to vague a law to be valid. That law does not even specify where the offense can be commited. If a religion were to say that cows are sacred, every person in the philippines who eats beef would have committed the crime of “offending religious feelings”
Read Art 133 of RPC. Then, comment.
IF I were Celdran, I’d go for incarceration with pride of having been martyred by the Catholic Church. The church near my home is equipped with loudspeakers, blasting the neighborhood with homilies irrespective of who agrees or disagrees. No one gives a rat’s ass because that’s an inviolable freedom of expression. Disagree at the cellular level with Benigno.
what about chapter 10 article 332 revise penal code that says you only have civil and not criminal liability if you steal from family or relatives? are you gonna defend that too because its “law” some laws should not be followed that includes the one supposedly broken by damaso
Sadly, that’s not what’s being discussed here.
@sendonggirl
“Some laws should not be followed.” Classy.
@Bryan Sevilla
Chapter 10 Article 332 of the RPC is not being discussed here because that’s not the law Celdran broke.
Bottom line is, you break the law, you suffer the consequences of breaking it. If you don’t agree with the law, “you either go with Congress repealing it or the Supreme Court striking it down as unconstitutional.” as Mirror Force said. But, as long as the law is in effect, you break it, you pay for it.
We’ve been telling him/her that ever since that nick appeared in the site, but sadly all he/she does is ignore the premise entirely.
@sendonggirl:
I am very, very tempted to ask you something, and thus I will do so lest my heart bursts from holding it in…
Bobo ka ba?
Try reading Justice Luis B. Reyes’s book on the Revised Penal Code, specifically the second volume, pages 894 to 896. Try reading criminal law cases online. Do all that before pulling off something like this — not only will it broaden your mental horizons, it will also prevent you from looking like a total idiot.
Anyways, in the spirit of gratuitousness, I’ll just explain it all to you…
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides that only civil liability will attach as regards the crimes of theft, estafa or malicious mischief when committed by the following:
(1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;
(2) The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
(3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
Art. 332 does not apply to strangers participating in the commission of the above-mentioned crimes commenced by the above-mentioned people (i.e. they will be criminally liable).
Why is there such a provision?
By way of commentary, Justice Reyes says this: it’s because “[t]he law recognizes the *presumed* co-ownership of the property between the offender and the offended party.”
By way of jurisprudence, then-Justice Corona wrote in the case of ‘Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong vs. People of the Philippines and William Sato’ (GR 181409, Feb. 11, 2010): “Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief and considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by the offender against certain family members as a private matter and therefore subject only to civil liability.”
Hope that explains things to you… but then again, I doubt you’d understand all that. After all, I bet you angrily browsed through the RPC, searching for an “unfair” law you’d be able to flail on our faces.
You attempted to look smart. You failed.
I agree with your whole point, benign0- the right to exercise a right ends where another’s right begins. from a purely academic viewpoint however, i think there’s a parallel (albeit tenuous) between this case to the argument in favor of decriminalization of libel, so i was expecting a defense along the lines of unconstitutionality of the particular penal provision he violated. imho, our laws are still in a quandary between the feudalistic laws of our forefathers and the pull towards modernization and contemporary thought.
cheers. 🙂
Very good topic sir Benign0. We should be always accountable on all of our actions. nice to be back here in these forum.. 🙂
The problem with the Damaso stunt was that it was an INSULT. Barging into a church and unfurling that banner was an insult. Protesters are not just protesting anymore; they are insulting, mocking people in as pronounced a way as they can find (a protest is very different from an insult). Why the focus on insulting? Do they think it will bring better attention to their cause? I think not.
In my upbringing, habitual insulting means a lack of civility and credibility on the part of insulter. It means that the person can’t think of anything else sensible or helpful that they result to insults.
In other words, it’s an ad hominem.
Now, laws on free speech allow you to make an ad hominem. But they never say that ad hominems make you credible.
And I also recall that people who love to throw insults are thought to be only trying to project themselves to get attention. Indicative of an inferiority complex. In other words, such people may need professional help.
Benign0
Here’s the copy of the Celdran decision penned by “Pairing Judge†Juan O. Bermejo, Jr.:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/122655771/Facebook-com-OscarFranklinTan-Decision-convicting-Carlos-Celdran-2013
Note that there were four prosecution witnesses: Teresita Azuring, Marcelina Cacal, Angelito Cacal and Fr. Oscar Alunday, SVD; and two for the defense: Ria Regina S. Limjap and Atty. Christian Monsod.
And take note too of the testimony of one of the witnesses appearing in page 06 that I am quoting below:
“Mr. Cornejo, Vice President of GMA-7, stood and grabbed accused [Celdran] from the center and he followed him from behind. Accused even tried to go back as he was being pacificed, and was again shouting “Any gusto ninyo, magsisigaw pa ba? Witness then replied “Huwag na po, huway no po. Kung may gusto kang sabihin, let’s do it outside.†Then the military came and helped him brought accused outside of the cathedral.â€
thank you sir, this is much appreciated
There you go. Arrogance documented in black and white on an official court paper!
Christian Monsod as defense? Hmmmm…
Christian Monsod was not offended by the act of Carlos Celdran. It disturbed me but not surprised.
The use of “DAMASO” is an effective tool to educate the people, not only Catholics, about the abuses of power of the Spanish friars with Spanish civil authorities. This abuse of power is embedded in the hierarchical structure of the Church and aggravated by the unhealthy culture of clericalism.
What I do not like about the use of “DAMASO” by certain individuals, like members of the Filipino Freethinkers, whom Carlos Cedran is a member, is to name every bishop and priest as DAMASO. Like fanatic crusaders against the Church, they cannot see that there are bishops and priests who are not abusive of power. Like what you said above, their protest becomes a hate campaign filled with insults, mocking, and other forms of defamation.
That observation was spot-on.
Using “Damaso” as something to refer to the entire clergy with is a disservice to people like Fr. Reuter (âœ), Fr. Orbos, and Archbishops Tagle, Cruz and Rosales, to name a few…
… it’s like how people tend to dismiss all politicians and policemen as corrupt and misguided. We, as civilized people, must always remember that there will always be good people out there. That’s how progress begins, after all — by believing, so to speak, that in the middle of all the mud, there are still diamonds. 😀
Tweetizen? Really?
This is well thought out and succinctly articulates what I have in mind–that Celdran’s jail time has nothing to do with belittling freedom of speech. Thank you very much!
“Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.” – Albert Einstein
Section Four. — Crimes against religious worship
Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.chanrobles virtual law library
Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm#.UQZi5_K4G70
“Wherefore, premises considered, accused Carlos Celdran is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending the Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two months and 21 days as minimum to one year, one month and 11 days…†the MeTC Branch 4 said in its ruling.”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/348415/rh-advocate-carlos-celdran-guilty-of-offending-church
You reap what you saw Mr. Celdran! and dont use the issue of freedom of speech.. the law clearly state that you violated article # 133 of the revised penal code.
I hope you learn your lesson this time.
A colleague from my Facebook network posted this status update message a while ago:
“I find the likes of Pope Alexander VI, his son Cesare Borgia and Machiavelli amusing not because I approve their vile actions but because they are such magnificent manipulative bastards and their refuge on sheer badass audacity is worthy of notability. Same goes for Celdran. His actions may be objectionable in the eyes of law, but sometimes you need to be crazy enough to upset the status quo and drive home a point.”
I don’t even know how to react to that, wahaha.
You don’t know how to react to that? Scour any country in the world that has this archaic religious law which sends someone to prison for exercising his freedom of speech in the church. Only in the Philippines, and what Celdran did was constructive enough for the passage of the bill. Many more supporters came out in the open to pressure politicians not to cower before the Church. Sure, Aquino used pork barrel to lure legislators to pass it, but it was easier to do because it was a popular bill to pass. The popularity of the bill became clear when Celdran was incarcerated for his act of defiance against the church; many people joined the protest actions. The rule of law is of course good, but archaic religious laws should not be made to rule. I am sure, Celdran was not even aware this law existed, this is the 21st century in democratic Philippines, how could anyone expressing a strong opinion in church be ever sent to jail!!! Listen to Human Rights Watch with the UN, why this law is atrocious!
So meaning being rude is actually freedom of speech? WOW
Technically? Yes.
We’re free to be rude, but not free of its consequences. Which are there for a reason. Fair enough.
Truly ethical (and smart) people don’t decide to not commit a crime on the basis of how severe the punishment is. Regardless of one’s knowledge of the law, one would’ve intuitively known that barging into a Catholic church and waving a placard with the word “Damaso” written on it is simply wrong and disrespectful.
So arguing that Celdran may have been unaware that Article 133 existed is like arguing that someone who grabbed lunch money off a scrawny kid in the schoolyard not knowing said scrawny kid had a big stick within reach did not deserve a whack in the head.
(1) Article 3 of the Civil Code provides: “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”
(2) To slay a law, you either go with Congress repealing it or the Supreme Court striking it down as unconstitutional. Why not lobby for the repeal of Art. 133, or file a petition before the Supreme Court, instead of whining here?
(3) In Art. 133, note that it isn’t the “offensive act” per se which is punished, but the fact that it is done in a certain venue — in said article’s case, in a place of religious worship or during a religious ceremony. Let’s analogize it with wiggling your todger, shall we? Surely, you can wiggle your todger in the comfort of your own home — with impunity! — but the moment you try to do that in front of a neighbor’s house… yep, you’re no longer acting within your rights. Also, that’s just f***ed up, man. 😀
Not even Carlos Celdran is above the law. Who does he think he is – Noynoy “exempt me” Aquino????
Man up, Mr. Celdran!
I would argue not that Celdran didn’t deserve punishment, but that the punishment is too severe for such a broadly defined law (that might even contradict Section 4 and 5 of the Constitution, whatever this article says)
I’m frankly disappointed. The article’s implication is that this punishment DOES befit the crime, without touching on the need to revise such a stupid law. A hefty fine would have been sufficient. One year jailtime? Seriously? Are we the Asian Russia now?
Arrogance is not a trait only allegedly ’emo’ activists possess. I would suggest armchair witticists have the same problems, and in spades. I’ve read many of this site’s posts regarding Carlos Celdran. Your bias is showing.
Oh, here is a like-minded comrade, thanks, I am completely with you on this one. I support Celdran’s cause against the Church!
Thank you! Unfortunately, we are not ‘hipster’ enough to bash someone for becoming mainstream like others that come to mind.
That’s the Laws Erin and Celdran have to face it..
He has the right to express his views against the leaders of the Church but please wag naman sa loob ng Church and during a ceremony..
Marami namang venues to express his views like sa luneta, plaza, tv station and radio. bakit sa loob pa ng simbahan and during a ceremony??
I’m not saying it wasn’t wrong for him to express his views in a church.
I’m saying it’s wrong for him to be jailed for it. A point benign0 has glossed over in light of his gleeful schadenfraude-ing.
Well that’s the decision of the Court based on evidence and laws.. respect po natin yun..
Anyway let’s see nalang the opinion of the higher court.
People have suffered worse for doing simpler things.
Celdran should just suck it up and serve his jail time. It’s not like he’s being killed or anything, it’s a maximum sentence of ONE YEAR.
I wouldn’t kennel my dog in any one of those prisons.
John: And that is MY point. Laws should be changed. Particularly a law that targets only those with religious affiliations when laws should be for everyone regardless of denomination.
Midwayhaven: name me one incident where people have suffered worse for doing simpler things? Criticized someone and jailed for libel? yes. Does that make either law and their punishments acceptable? No.
Just because you’re not being affected by this particular law doesn’t mean you should look away and not protest if you feel it’s a bad law.
See benign0’s post below (January 29, 2013 at 10:57 pm)
Who can stop anybody from saying he/she is affected?
A lip service.
@midway Responded. I actually prefer ChinoF’s more logical arguments over his, imho.
@trosp You’re not even making sense anymore.
Erin, Art 133 of the RPC is clear on the nature of penalty: “arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed†for the offender.
If you find it severe and unreasonable, then ask your congressman to take a look at it and make the necessary process to amend or repeal the law. If you want to decriminalize it, then we have democratic processes to follow. Go to your congressman and convince him/her to sponsor a bill.
If you want a discussion here (relative to the decriminalization, or amendment or repeal of the law), I think, you must go beyond the persons of Celdran or Benign0, and open up the discussion table on “religious freedom”.
What is your understanding of “religious feeling”? If you think that the penalty is “too severe”, why? Is offending “religious feeling” a light offense that should not merit a crime? Why? What makes it a light offense?
In this way, there are areas for discussion. Bracket your “love” for Celdran or “hate” for Benign0. Widen your horizon.
Just an FYI. It wasn’t a mass or ceremony. It was a gathering. It’s all over the news now.
Even so. Article 133 provides that the “offensive act” be done in a place of worship *or* during a religious ceremony. Note the “or”.
@Erin: Well it’s the Law. As stated in Article 133 of the RPC, “arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed” for anyone found guilty of this offense. You argue severity of penalty with a judge within that stipulated range. Beyond that range it is an issue you lobby for in Congress to amend the law (or repeal it). So the degree to to which you plead does-the-punishment-befit-the-crime will determine which branch of government you will need to put in the paperwork.
So, in short, perhaps we are the Asian Russia now. Or maybe we aren’t. Whichever assertion you subscribe to will not change the Law as it stands. There are procedures through which you need to slog through to change that simple reality. It’s called democratic governance. Institutions and process protect people from arbitrary or summary rule by individuals. You want the democracy? You got it — along with all that red tape.
Indeed, I agree. Whether one is an emo activist or an intelligent witticist, arrogance is there in spades. Arrogance — and audacity in doses double that — is what catapulted GRP to the top of the food chain (and Celdran in jail). You don’t get to where we are (whether in jail or at the top) by being a wus.
So we are supposed to say the law cannot be changed in this aspect and should be abided by, but we are allowed to demand a changing of the law when it comes to the ones that say, criminalizes libel? So we really shouldn’t have put that TRO on the Cybercrime Prevention Act, since it technically was already passed and signed into law?
So by your own admission, should the Cybercrime law pass as it is, people who’d been accused of cyberlibel should serve out their unjust prison sentences simply because your only concern is the law as it currently stands, and not what it should be?
And even if you posit that procedures must be followed – my point that the law in itself is unfair should not be given any kind of consideration at all?
Bullshit. You argue based on your dislike for Celdran. I say this because you presume so much throughout your article. This site has posited in this and other articles that he is an arrogant showoff who would do anything and everything to grab attention for himself. I would be so presumptuous to suggest that had this been anyone but him, looking into the outdated law would have figured into your discussion at the very least.
I personally dislike what Celdran did too. It smacked of KSP – one attitude I consider a dysfunction of the country. Exactly, I think all Celdran wants is attention. Maybe to feed the ego, that is what most “activists” want these days. I have that impression of Celdran. But if he has a “platform” – something he really wants to achieve, and draw attention to – I still wonder what it is, even if he got attention.
See, you’re basing Celdran’s character on an opinion without much facts. If you have a cause, how can you call attention to yourself without being thought of as KSP? May I add that other people consider AP, GRP, and FF writers KSP and attention seekers for being so obviously anti-mainstream, too?
So to speak vitriol of him without concrete proof and make it sound like this is the truth in this article, is not an example of good journalism – or even an opinion column – no matter how well-intentioned you are. It’s what got my goat about this article and compelled me to respond, where previously I’d been content to read.
Good journalism? We’re not journalists here, we’re just putting forth our personal opinions. Blogging is not journalism. Same as probably what Celdran is doing – but we have our own space here, we don’t need to barge into anyone else’s property to make a point.
So you’re saying it’s okay to lie (or stretch the truth) just because this is your own personal page?
Lie? What are we lying about? I see everything I put here as my honest opinion. Even Benign0’s, I guess. What lie?
@Erin: Hmmm… I’m beginning to get the feeling that you think I dislike Carlos Celdran… 😀
Hold on, though. Where exactly did I say that we have no right to demand a change in the law in this instance? Read my comment again. I showed you two tiers within each exists a ranges of latitude over which the law may be adjusted to suit.
There are procedures to invoke that power to vary the manner with which the law might be applied. I think commentor
17sphynx17 already spelt out that concept to you earlier. If you weren’t too busy stomping your feet in pseudo-indignation here you’d probably have understood a bit of all that by now.
As to my alleged portraying of Celdran as a showoff, well, there is ample evidence to support that. Then again you’ve demonstrated enough of your deficited observation faculties here to attract a bit of an assumption that you’ve failed to notice that either. That’s fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion and selectiveness as I am mine.
The difference between the two of us, of course, is that whining is the only option available to you to express said opinion. 😛
antiquated art. 133? maybe its for that reason that it should stay. it is like wine that aged… and had aged gracefully.
the cybercrime law is new… it is being tested for its purity in the court corridors. if it could stay half the time article 133 has been in the statute book, then maybe it is a good law…
but expect it to be voided for being vague and overbroad…
manresa’s civil law comments are still relevant today and they were being cited by future scholars. manresa was a colonial scholar.
erin, this should have been posted here, not below:
antiquated art. 133? maybe its for that reason that it should stay. it is like wine that aged… and had aged gracefully.
the cybercrime law is new… it is being tested for its purity in the court corridors. if it could stay half the time article 133 has been in the statute book, then maybe it is a good law…
but expect it to be voided for being vague and overbroad…
manresa’s civil law comments are still relevant today and they were being cited by future scholars. manresa was a colonial scholar.
Erin, you wrote: “This site has posited in this and other articles that [Celdran] is an arrogant showoff who would do anything and everything to grab attention for himself.”
I think there’s a truth in the assessment of Benign0 about Celdran’s arrogance in his stunt at the Manila Cathedral. It was a premeditated act, but Celdran miscalculated the severity of the penalty of the possible offense he was about to commit. He wanted his stunt to be documented on camera by his companion for his Facebook. He was overwhelmed by the “grand effect” of his planned stunt that he did not consider the “religious feelings” of the religious people who celebrate a solemn religious activity inside the cathedral. He had no respect for other people. He encroached the rights of other people to practice their religion without fear of unlawful intrusion and disruption by the state agents or unfriendly fanatic cult members or antagonistic individuals. Such absence of respect to other people, religious or not, is a mockery of freedom of expression. It is plain and simple, arrogance.
When part of your site’s mission / creed is to “develop insightful ideas” and to communicate / disseminate them to the public, one would assume calling this “a personal site” is understating things, don’t you think?
People coming here would still expect some ounce of truth to your statements. At least three articles here centered around calling Celdran a Damaso circus or a attention whore without proof he actually has an ulterior motive beyond what he claims. Really? You at least had actual concrete evidence to mention when it came to Noynoy’s administrative gaffes.
Calling it freedom of speech might not grant you immunity from being charged with offending religious feelings, but neither will calling this a personal site won’t give writers here immunity from being called out on articles based on nothing more than speculation.
Oh, I’m sorry. Which part of you calling him “emo activist” and “emo troll” and “social attention whore junkie” was where I was supposed to believe you liked Celdran?
Read my response to sphynxs comment. His point isn’t the point I was trying to make. So really, my alleged ‘pseudo-indignation’ has no merit, is in fact non-existent. Or is this what you consider ‘evidence’ against me, too?
You know what? Not a fan of him, either. You assume I am. But I can compartmentalize and concede that if Noynoy, who I dislike, can do something sensible like oppose the RH, I will still applaud him for that action. Same with Celdran. Potentially a year’s jailtime is too severe. The ‘proof’ you so arrogantly laud is an opinion. You don’t seem to understand that proof requires objective evidence. Selectiveness? Really? Please offer me unmistakable objective proof that Celdran is a whoremonkey so I can see where I’m being selective. Did he sign a confession? Admitted it to a witness? Boasted about it online where it could be screencapped for posterity?
Or is name-calling just something you do on impulse? Because I have read FF and GRP articles, and you have whined in more things you’ve written than I could ever do. The only reason you’re not bitching in THIS article is because you’re so busy patting yourself on the back waxing about how right you are, and gloating about how someone else should be the martyr no matter how stupid the law, while you sit back and hide behind a pseudonym and wank about whatever because you are SUCH a special snowflake.
Off-tangent? Maybe. But if you accuse me of whining and fail to see that you do the same thing more times than I have, then hey. Pot, meet kettle.
@Erin: So shall I take that as confirmation that you DO think I dislike Celdran? 😀
To clarify, whining is when you post a comment containing nothing more than foot-stomping over how you perceive a brilliant writer like me to be engaging in “name-calling”, representing opinion as “proof”, “bitching”, “patting myself on the back”, wanking behind a pseudonym, gloating, and being such a “special snowflake”.
That pretty much exempts my brilliant work from the category of “whining” that you have defined in the above comment of yours which serves as a fine specimen of the sort of whining that you whine about.
Kettle, meet uling.
You obviously don’t know what whining really is so please watch this:
@domo
Nice use of rarity whining.
Here’s my reaction:
uy domo and jonny this explains a lot about your tendencies in the comments section. you’re fans of cartoons pala hehe kumusta na ang thundercats hehehe
and your point is?? You can’t even think of a good argument but point out irrelevant things.
TROLL HARDER
On this angle, campaigning for the revision of the Penal Code, which is long overdue, should be the focus. Too bad our lawmakers are too busy conducting another circus to do this important task.
And I would have hoped that would at least have gotten a mention in the article. Which was my point.
That is best tackled in another article, as it seems to branch into another topic.
I’ll be waiting for that article, then. And I hope Article 133 gets more than just a mention, if I am to believe you.
I’m afraid I’ll not be doing that. But I’m sure some groups are pushing for the revision of the Penal Code. They just need to be found and made more visible.
So what happened to this review of the Penal Code by the Dept. of Justice?
Ah here, still going on: DOJ committee completes first phase of penal code revision
I agree with you, Erin. Your 2nd paragraph drives the point of my disappointment too.
If Celdran made a scene by destroying church materials or hurt anyone in the gathering, then he really deserves to be jailed. But this one he did? A community service or fine will suffice.
Your ignorance reeks.
I recommend reading Atty. Rene Gorospe’s two-volume series on Constitutional Law.
I finally read what to make of Celdran…for some time I was nowhere at what to make sense of the decision to jail him…thanks for the intelligent picture you drove the point with. I like him and his stunts – for what they serve, but not for what they break…
tweetizens…love this!
You don’t punish a stunt anywhere it happens, not least because no national security was ever threatened here, with imprisonment, plain and simple!
If the stunt insults you personally would you not cry foul?
Not for jailtime, unless you’re Gestapo.
@Erin
You’re telling us that in gestapo time, one can be still be hauled in court and be leglly sentenced?
Seriously, you’re comfortable with your comparison?
Even the Gestapo have legal courts and legal laws. Whether or not YOU would view them as being legal though, would be another story.
@Erin
Not unless you’re an idiot –
“In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves.”
Come back again if you can refute that.
Correction –
Not unless you’re an idiot shout be Not unless if you’re an idiot.
Didn’t you just say, Gestapo LAW? In that this is a law that states the Gestapo be free from the courts of law?
Refuted.
@Erin
Your comment –
“Even the Gestapo have legal courts and legal laws. Whether or not YOU would view them as being legal though, would be another story.”
And my response is –
“In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves.â€
So where is your “even the Gestapo have legal courts” thing?
Try harder kid.
Oh, sweet George Carlin.
Please read over what you said again. You said Gestapo has no legal laws to follow, and then went on to mention the 1936 Gestapo LAW. A law in place that allows them not to follow other laws is STILL a law.
erin,
mr. celdran was processed.. the law that was applied to him was clear-cut. the prosecution presented 4 witnesses who said that they were offended by the acts of mr. celdran.
the law says that if you violate art. 133 you can be imprisoned… if you were the judge, would you just impose a fine and not imprisonment as decreed by the law?
@Erin
Ok, let’s revisit our argument –
You: “Not for jailtime, unless you’re Gestapo.”
Me: “You’re telling us that in gestapo time, one can be still be hauled in court and be legally sentenced?
Seriously, you’re comfortable with your comparison?’
You: “Even the Gestapo have legal courts and legal laws. Whether or not YOU would view them as being legal though, would be another story.
Me: “In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves.â€
You: “Didn’t you just say, Gestapo LAW? In that this is a law that states the Gestapo be free from the courts of law?”
(Actually, Ive cited it from a source. Try wiki.)
Me: “Your comment –
“Even the Gestapo have legal courts and legal laws. Whether or not YOU would view them as being legal though, would be another story.â€
And my response is –
“In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves.â€
So where is your “even the Gestapo have legal courts†thing?
What I’m refuting is your statement that “even the Gestapo have legal courtsâ€. thing.
And now you’re telling us that “You said Gestapo has no legal laws to follow, and then went on to mention the 1936 Gestapo LAW. A law in place that allows them not to follow other laws is STILL a law.”
So what happens to your “even the Gestapo have LEGAL courts and LEGAL laws.
It seems it is now a “STILL A LAW”.
You do know that if the Gestapo legally is a law unto themselves, any of their decisions equates to a decision made by any of their legal courts, right?
If the Gestapo is a law unto themselves, then they become judge, jury and executioners, and any decision they make is the same as one being made by their courts of law. And it is legal.
To summarize? The Gestapo legal courts are the Gestapo themselves.
I seriously didn’t believe you needed to be spoonfed every bit of information in order to draw out the logical conclusion.
So Erin, come back here again when you feel you can refute my argument.
I like your “still a law” thing. He he he…
@Erin
Now, it’s a different thing. It’s not anymore a “still a law thing”.
It is now –
“If the Gestapo is a law unto themselves, then they become judge, jury and executioners, and any decision they make is the same as one being made by their courts of law. And it is legal.”
Can you comprehend this one –
“In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves.â€
And you’re telling us that –
“ANY DECISION THEY MAKE IS THE SAME AS ONE BEING MADE BY THEIR COURTS OF LAW. AND IT IS LEGAL.”
That is how your mind works.
He he he…
BTW, the funny thing, along the way of our argument, have you read anything that comes from my opinion?
You see, I’m not yet arguing with you. I’m just shall we say, testing the ground.
Take your medication now, old man. Not my fault you don’t have the mental faculties to process what I’d already answered, and as sorry as I am for your plight, I have no obligation to help you understand what you already refuse to see.
@Erin
Ineng, I’ve anticipated that kind of reply from you. You’re in an indefensible position. That’s why I put the order of my comments in such a way that in can’t be misinterpreted other than if one plays dumb.
Grow up kid.
Either you’re just dumb or you have a level of comprehension that sucks.
You can’t even pinpoint what is incoherent in my comment.
ROFL…
Eloquently put. In the end it was a choice, and that choice had corresponding consequences. I would like to see him try this in a mosque.
Hehehe in a Mosque? No jail term will commence before his tongue is trimmed first…
Why compare the penal code law with an obviously crazy law? People are more frightened to speak up about that Muslim law because of the extremists Muslims (and sometimes not-so-extremist) crying out for real blood, but that doesn’t stop it from being wrong.
very well said! hear, hear!
@Erin
This is pretty simple. The church had legal basis to file a case against him and use that as their means for legal remedy.
Celdran is also free to pursue his legal remedies should he choose to or simply accept the fact that he was legally in the wrong on this one.
Quite frankly, he did it inside the church. People tend to blow it up as a right of expression or religious oppression but it is not no matter how spinsters want to play the story.
And as it turns out based on court proceedings, he was given the choice to do it outside yet he chose to really make a scene/impact and even brought a camera with him to further his agenda/propaganda.
He wanted to do it, he planned it and he did it. There is more than enough intent here. And I say he just face the music because I don’t think that whatever he explores will lead him anywhere but the jailhouse. He is just prolonging it.
And it doesn’t just state 1 year prison sentence, it states it as a maximum, the minimum being just under 3 months. Hey, he might get out early for good behavior.
And just because he didn’t know he violated a provision of a law doesn’t make it less illegal.
cheers!
And like I have already mentioned many times in other comments, I do not say that Celdran SHOULDN’T be punished, that the church shouldn’t be free to pursue a legal course of action should they wish to.
My only point of contention was whether this ‘crime’ was grounds for up to a year’s worth of jailtime, and whether the focus should be on amending this law. I question the sentencing, not the case.
@Erin
So the sentencing is unconstitutional?
If you bring in the Constitution to the table, I would say Sections 4 and 5 still contradict the Penal Code, so yes. You can argue that Celdran’s stance was political in nature, not religious because all he protested during that mass was for the church to keep out of government affairs.
@Erin
So your counter-comment answers my question –
“So the sentencing is unconstitutional?”
Political in nature or whatever, that is another topic.
Put it another way, is the sentencing illegal?
If I agree that the sentencing is unconstitutional, shouldn’t it also follow that I agree the sentencing is illegal?
Please do name me anything considered unconstitutional that would nonetheless still be upheld as legal.
Comprehension. Please.
@Erin
Comprehension?
As you’ve commented –
“Please do name me anything considered unconstitutional that would nonetheless still be upheld as legal.
Comprehension. Please.”
He he he. My statement is not a declarative thing.
Comprehend it kid.
Responding with a non-answer / refusing to give me an example, means you can’t think up anything else to say, can you? Your last post didn’t even make sense to an English speaker. Senility isn’t a defense, you know.
Do you even know what a declarative statement is? Because it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
@Erin
“Responding with a non-answer / refusing to give me an example, means you can’t think up anything else to say, can you? Your last post didn’t even make sense to an English speaker. Senility isn’t a defense, you know.”
Oh, all the while I thought I was the one asking you the questions. So you’re telling me, you’re answering my question with a question and now your claiming that I’m answering with a non-answer.
And I’m senile he he he… And your intelligent? If that will be the case, there is now a new definition of intelligent.
BTW, I’m commenting not to please the English speaker that you’re mentioning. I write to express. Not to impress.
“Do you even know what a declarative statement is? Because it doesn’t mean what you think it means”
And I’m sure you can’t comprehend that one even it was your comment.
What a laugh…
Legally, he won’t probably get jail time since the penalty is covered by the probation law. Any person convicted of a crime for a period of 6 years or less can apply for probation. Meaning, community service may be for a year or two. No jail time.
O yun naman pala eh. 🙂
If that’s the law, then so be it; that sounds reasonable to me. There really was no need for people to say that the law was “crazy” in the first place. 🙂
so you are pro sharia law. anything that is law must be obeyed congrats
You’re putting words into my mouth, which by the way is a flaw of out-of-context logic you seem to find pleasure in when judging people’s words. Congrats.
Where the hell did you get that statement about his being pro sharia law? From your ass?
well because your simplistic argument is anything that is law must be obeyed. sharia law is law also dont forget kids!
Do you even know the meaning of the phrase “out of context”, sendonggirl? Read the thread starting with jing onda and tell us where anything to do with sharia law fits is.
Just because you’re a simpleton doesn’t mean other’s arguments are simplistic like you think.
You’re not very smart, are you?
Hey sendongslut. I have four words for you: Dura lex. Sed lex. You love to jaywalk are you jon-asshole’s wife?
(I have a comment awaiting moderation about the limitations of shari’ah law in the country, complete with jurisprudence; I hope it pushes through.)
sendonggirl, you might be forgetting that current Philippine shari’ah law is limited only to CIVIL situations (marriage, property relations, etc.). All criminal cases within the known Philippine shari’ah districts are NOT within shari’ah law to be disputed upon, and thus must still require the intervention of recognized secular Philippine courts.
http://www.chanrobles.com/presidentialdecreeno1083.htm#.UQfOiYaebDc
http://law.upd.edu.ph/plj/images/files/PLJ%20volume%2052/PLJ%20Volume%2052%20number%204%20-02-%20Cesar%20Adib%20Majul%20-%20The%20General%20Nature%20of%20Islamic%20Law%20and%20its%20Application%20in%20the%20Philippines%20p.%20374-394.pdf
I did my homework, and I encourage you to do the same so you don’t appear like the mouthpiece of a judgmental mob.
@Midway
My bad. This is the post that you’re referring to –
“@Erin
Ineng, I’ve anticipated that kind of reply from you. You’re in an indefensible position. That’s why I put the order of my comments in such a way that in can’t be misinterpreted other than if one plays dumb.
Grow up kid.
Either you’re just dumb or you have a level of comprehension that sucks.
You can’t even pinpoint what is incoherent in my comment.
ROFL…”
The only two people in this discussion who mentioned “crazy” was that guy who posted his friends’s FB update, and me, who said that the MUSLIM LAW was ‘crazy’.
If you’re going to accuse other people of putting words in your mouth, might I suggest you not do the same to others, as well? “Quotations” imply a direct quotation. Don’t use it if you don’t know how.
See Trosp (January 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm).
@midway
So as everybody is calibrated, is this my comment that you’re referring to –
“If they have the “The Three Stooges†in the TV, we have these two as “The Two Stooges†of the GRP.
Very entertaining.
I just hope nobody calls them their morning punching bags.”
Actually, one must not wonder if this Erin’s IP address is the same as one of the dishonest commenters here.
Wink – you know who is this dishonest commenter I’m referring to.
That sounds good anyway. I believe some more recent laws can supersede the provision of the Revised Penal Code. But still, it’s better if the Penal Code were totally replaced.
If he can opt for community service, he can give free tour guide!
benigs,
Once again, pinabilib mo ulit ako…
The law is hard but it’s the law. The Revised Penal Code has not been amended since the American period. Apparently, the reason is that whoever is in power can use it to their advantage or they were just too lazy to update it. To this generation, what he did is considered light. I think community service, public apology, or a fine may be more acceptable. One person’s comfort zone is another’s panic zone. In times past, saying P.I. to another person was sufficient ground for slander. Today, people just say it as an expression with no real intention to insult another person’s mother. Carlos Celdran isn’t exactly the ideal exemplar for free speech. The mainstream is not exactly eager to identify with him.
And this is exactly why people shouldn’t be antagonistic of the law as is written. After all, as benign0 did say, if the people want the law changed there is a fixed process that they should follow for such to happen. Changing the law through “street democracy” is old and tired; Filipinos have done it twice and it’s taken the Philippines almost nowhere.
I guess by your reasoning the Cybercrime Prevention Act should push through without all the “street democracy” that went on in its wake.
The wheels of justice grind slowly in the Phil. system, but to hell with those who get caught along the way to the legal process, eh?
The Cybercrime Prevention Act’s libel clause is based on the Penal Code. That’s what most critics of the law are worried about. It’s a stupid law, like the 1987 Constitution. But for the moment that it is effective, we should follow it. If you would promote “civil disobedience,” it is a bad idea at this point, because it would only show how uncivilized and inconsistent you would be if you did it. Pushing for the Revised Penal Code’s (and the Labor, Family and other codes’) further revision should be called for.
Isn’t what most of what I’ve been saying here part of what “calling for further revision” is?
Where in anything I ever mentioned here that I say that I am calling for civil disobedience, or that I agree with what Celdran did (but not his punishment)?
That’s good to know. But I’ll stay in agreement with Benign0. Let Celdran go through the process, see where it goes. He can appeal anyway, and he might get a lighter sentence, as Jing Orda above says.
Yes. I have noticed that as long as people or their loved ones aren’t the guinea pigs in question, they can agree to almost anything.
15 petitions against Cybercrime Prevention Act doesn’t sound like “street democracy”. Well, netizens made “noise” on FB , twitter, etc. But at the end of the day, 15 petitions were filed before the SC issued a TRO.
You mean no one EVER complained about it online and wrote meaningful articles / blog posts, tried to start petitions about it online and signed them, managed street rallies to protest the law, etc.?
They’re just ‘making noise’? You think ‘street’ democracy must literally mean ‘on the street’?
Does freedom of speech end when Celdran is in jail? Surely not. Media people can still go to him and he can still speak out. He can write letters, probably.
I think the real issue here is opposition to the Catholic Church. I’ll repeat, if you don’t like the Catholic Church, leave it, join another faith. I hear many are doing that, and it probably sounds good.
He can imitate Rizal’s jail time in Fort Santiago. It will surely stir the issue more and bring PR headache for the CBCP.
That’s what I think, too. That’s Benign0’s point, I believe. If Celdran goes in willingly, that’s positive PR. What’s the saying…. “if you’re not willing to be jailed for what you believe in, you don’t believe in it at all.”
He can write his own “Adios Patria Adorada” thing lol!
You know, the funny thing is some people are saying “follow the law,” or “I wish there was more enforcement in the Philippines.”
But now a law is being enforced accordingly, here in Celdran’s case. And yet there are people, perhaps the same as those who said the above, who don’t want it enforced? Is it because of the personality involved? Preferential treatment? Consistency problem, I think. But I think this question won’t be fully answered.
The writer of this article must have been paid very well by the Church. Carlos going to jail will only empower the CBCP, we will be faced with a force to reckon with which is bigger, badder and more arrogant Damaso’s. Were back to the dark Damaso days. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition!
“The writer of this article must have been paid very well by the Church.”
I don’t think so. Have you read his previous articles, especially those dealing with RH Bill?
@Stalin
You don’t even have any facts to support your allegation!
Aw, the feel good advocates again.
I don’t need facts as the whole article says it all.
Facts and perception are not the same, StalinJ.
“I don’t need facts…”
because you don’t have any, and you’re passing off your perception as fact.
Too emo.
Oh what’s the matter commietard? Your emo is showing full force?
What can we do. There are really people who are fact-challenged. They think that an opinion is the same as fact.
Regardless but aren’t we talking about this article? Stick to the topic.
Well who should stick to the topic?
Must be a good fiction writer, this one.
A good writer for the Church. yes
Fact is YOU don’t get it. You should stop your stupidity because EMO people don’t what facts are.
TROLL. 😛
Said the commietard who uses emotions first than rational thinking.
I was referring to you. Nice baseless allegations you’re making.
“The writer of this article must have been paid very well by the Church.”
Tits or your nose is getting longer. Pinoy nga naman ang hilig magbintang.
What are the negative implications if Celdran is convicted? It’s already world news. Yan ang hirap sa mga Pinoy ang daming mga pasikot.
Ang hirap sa Pinoy paligoy-ligoy. It started by you who accused the author is writing for the Catholic Church. Sorry, but your so-called ‘facts’ are nothing more than half-truths. It seems you hate critical analysis, isn’t it?
Stick to the topic? It’s all a ploy to hide your stupidity. The author himself is discussing IDEAS while you are discussing PEOPLE. And the latter represents small minds.
Si Benign0 writing for the Church?!? That is the funniest thing I’ve ever read! Hahaha! You need to read more articles from Benign0 especially the ones that criticises the Church. He’s got dozens of them.
Anyway, if you guys are really advocates of Freedom of Speech and other civil liberties, you would also defend other people’s right to practice and defend their religion.
Here’s a quote for Freedom of speech advocates:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
– Voltaire
This article looks like he is writing for the church.
Negative implications?
For the thinking Filipino, none.
For the whiny, emo, pa-victim “activist” Pinoys, like you and Celdran, you guys actually have to think before you open your mouths.
Stalin wrote: “This article looks like he is writing for the church.”
It’s your perception.
The rational thing to do is to examine your perception whether it is supported by facts.
You claimed: “The writer of this article must have been paid very well by the Church”.
What made you think that the writer was “paid very well by the Church”?
It is your obligation to support your claim with facts.
Again commietard, tits or your nose is getting more longer because it already did. Btw does the article of benign0 like this seems being paid by the church for you?
http://getrealphilippines.com/2012/05/anti-virus-software-is-the-hi-tech-equivalent-catholic-dogma
Don’t tell me magpalusot ka pa ng something like nagkukunwari lang sya.
If you’re going to make insinuations like that, better learn how to back it up with evidence. Otherwise, it’s bordering on libel.
Oh wait, you emo activists don’t care, as long as you get to say what you want to, wherever you want to!
Aren’t we all subjected to libel? Anywho stick to the topic; negative implications if Celdran is convicted and the Church becoming more arrogant.
Says the troll who says “The writer of this article must have been paid very well by the Church”
Hypocrite. <_<
Celdran’s conviction won’t do anything, the Church will stay as it is, and emo activists will continue to gain nothing because they learn nothing.
Anywho. Since no one in this blog is sticking to the topic. BAYO! As penalty a fine and community service would have sufficed. Celdran could maybe help clean up the garbage of MM or he can help the Church in community service. Implementing an outdated archaic law will have negative implications. At least we now know that a change in constitution is necessary. My opinions on the article; it does favour the church. Jailing Celdran will only make the Church more powerful and arrogant. TATA
I agree.
I disagree.
If they have the “The Three Stooges” in the TV, we have these two as “The Two Stooges” of the GRP.
Very entertaining.
I just hope nobody calls them their morning punching bags.
It’s just YOUR opinion. Nothing else. Not fact.
What’s your point? Just like Ilda said, this article favoring the church is the funniest thing that she ever read. And that, sir, is FACT! XD
What a copout! Don’t let the door hit you on your way out! 😉
Hay nako wala pa sagot. My dear madame Ilda so if someone raises a placard in congress calling them crocodiles and shouts stop stealing our money. Will he go to jail? Will the tongress-men WANT to send him to jail? If someone throws a shoe or eggs at a politician during his speech. Will he go to jail? Will el-politico want to send him to jail? Maybe yes as the law says so. Maybe no as it may have negative implications on tongress and el-politico, as they would have demonstrated their RAW power to the public just like the simbahang katoliko. We can agree with Voltaire but can we agree with the people? Division division division division.
@StalinJ
You can answer that question yourself with the following questions: Is there a law prohibiting baseless allegations?
I personally prefer to be specific, which is something most Filipinos are incapable of. For example, are you going to accuse all members of congress as magnanakaw or just a few of them? If just a few, then it would be unfair to call all of them “crocodiles”, right? Do you have proof that they stole public funds? You need to be ready to prove your allegations just in case they ask you.
Is there a law against protesting without permission inside congress? Check it out first before you bring your placard. 😉
As to Carlos, unfortunately, his complainant found a law to press charges against him, Art 133.
If you prefer not implementing an archaic law, then don’t call for the law to be more enforced, such as when a robber hits your house but no one wants to catch him. You can’t be selective about what law to imply. Jailing Celdran making the church more powerful… they were powerful in the 1930s when Art. 133 was included in the law. You are after all just guessing.
“…can’t be selective about what law to implement.”
“Jailing Celdran will only make the Church more powerful and arrogant”.
What does not kill Celdran, makes him stronger.
“Jailing Celdran will only make the Church more powerful and arrogant”.
Wrong.
What does not kill Celdran, makes him stronger.
Facepalmed yet again on the bandwagon advocates of “free speech” ek ek. Include also stupid posters such as sendongshit, and there you go. It took me more time to read all your comments than the time spent in reading the article itself lol.
But for one, benigno’s point is that, “Ilugar sa tamang lugar, sa tamang oras at sa tamang pagkakataon ang iyong hinaing”. That point, is basically what he is trying to say to all people who don’t even know reading comprehension. There is no fault at Celdran’s advocacy, in fact some peeps here in GRP, including benigno, supports RH Bill too. But to ignite popularity through that daring stunt is just sick. Abnormal people with no sense of proper etiquette of expression will do that.
The Church sucks, yes. Including its bent belief of the PH future and such. But the way Celdran expressed his advocacy suck more.
Too much was said but it is as simple as, the law was violated, and the violator must be punished according to the law. If you doubt the wisdom of the law, go to Congress. The courts cannot change what the law provides. they just interpret and apply and rule on constitutionality if someone questions it. If the law says Celdran’s crime is punishable by a year of jail time then he should be jailed for a year. Second of all, this guy already said this is the price he has to pay for a “better” Philippines. Let him pay for it, after all the RH Bill is now a law and like the guy said it was all worth it for him. He sounds like he’s tough. But wait a minute, didn’t the reports say he is going to appeal the court’s decision? So which is which? Now tell me if this guy even makes sense at all with his willingness to go to jail juxtaposed his intention to avoid being jailed by appealing the court’s decision.
why is the church exempted in reporting pedophiles to authorities?
Good question, they are also exempted from ivory smuggling.
Why are your posts irrelevant to the topic discussed in the article?
it is germane because the topic is strict application of laws. bishops routinely transfer pedophile priests to other places instead of reporting them to police. capisce?
Are you sure they’re exempted? Baseless allegation unless you can put forward a concrete example.
benigno you should go to malaysia and prosecute anal sex cases since youre so anal about following all laws
That is irrelevant. More like childish whining . KSP effect.
anal sex is illegal in malaysia
So? What’s the point of your argument in this article when all you can say are spamming?
The thing is, the Malaysians aren’t whining about it.
Typical of a troll,always changing the subject whenever they’re getting beaten at their own game.
slow day in the office for MCG staff. Practicing avoidance behavior on the “keynote speaker” discrepancy.
Looks like the MCG/Noytards are running out of bullets and brain power for their useless troll attacks here.
the topic is strict application of all laws for the reason that its the law. don’t fault us if you cant comprehend
so says the troll who still keeps missing the point.
TROLL HARDER
Oh what’s the matter jon-assholes’s wife? Being desperately hostile now? It’s proof that you are already being dominated. Give it up if you’ll just talk donkey shit.
@sendong
Do you really know what anal sex is?
Let’s start first with a background story.
I was in Singapore working and you know that once in a while, it’s unavoidable to have some good time with the female escorts.
So I have one with me and she’s an “outcast” Muslim according to her. When we were in bed, explicitly, she told me – “NO LIPS TO LIPS KISSING. You’ve taken liquor and that is against our religion to taste liquor.”
And she’s very aggressive in giving me a head!
And insistent in asking if I want an anal!
Having gone to that, I asked a Muslim friend and this he told me –
“Muslim wives are submissive to husbands. It’s a part of the ritual to please the husband whatever it takes. Fellatio, sodomy, etc.
The wives, when their daughters are maturing, will be teaching these to them in preparation for a married life.”
Sodomy, if you’re seeing them in triple X seems to be an ordinary performance. Very neat.
It’s because they’ve undergone some extensive precleaning process.
I’ve seen a documentary when it’s done without the precleaning.
Very messy!
And how this anal sex is being argued in Malaysia –
“In 2007, Singapore modified their sodomy laws, expressed in Section 377a of the island-state’s Penal Code, to exclude heterosexuals who perform consensual oral and anal sex. On 2 July 2009, India repealed its own Section 377.”
How about a man to man anal?
The only answer I could get from my friend is the word “trophy”.
I really laugh when people say “the Inquisition is back,” or “Damaso is still around.” That’s really baseless for me, since all indications are that Catholic Church power is dwindling around the world. That’s why they’re holding on to as much as they can here in the Philippines. But I think power dwindling here will start soon, or has already started.
So the “Damaso” people, you guys worry too much.
Agree, Chino. The RH bill ended up getting passed after all was said and done. It was unthinkable just a few years ago when the mere mention of the bill would soon be dropped and forgotten by media. More people have moved on with the times while the church remains where they are…WAY behind. The next battle for the divorce bill should serve as a good measuring stick for that dwindling power. I don’t see any reason to fear the Church. Maingay lang sila. As Chino states, they’re just holding on to whatever power they have left. I also want to believe it’s dwindling. It’s about time.
Ny initial reaction to the Celdran thing was something like, “What? He’s going to jail just for that?”. But then, Benig’s article above gave me some clarity on the issue. Since Celdran is appealing the decision aside from a willingness to pay the price for his actions if needed, I’d say he’s looking good by holding his head up high.
@Homer
Let’s detour for a while from the topic.
According to you –
“More people have moved on with the times while the church remains where they are…WAY behind.”
(Pardon my long counter-comment.)
“In this present age the standard of right and wrong is determined by individual and national situations and conditions. It is not absolute. The determining factor of the standard of right and wrong in this present age is feelings and traditions. Whatever makes you feel good is the right thing to do. Whatever does not make you feel good is the wrong thing to do.”
(The freedom to enjoy life and happiness.)
That is the costs-benefits morality principle or moral absolutism which is being embraced by the modern society at present. To them, the concept of sin is primitively biblical.
They can always quantify the expected tangible benefits against the metaphysical costs.
They can even justify the sins of morally depraved criminals as driven to their bad acts by the injustices and of society.
The faithful Catholics are being ridiculed for their belief in moral absolutism which is according to them are antiquated dogma. They label them as blind followers, politically incorrect crowd, etc.
Moral Relativism and Absolutism according to Wiki (here I am again with this thing…)
“The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.â€
Faithful Catholics adhere to moral absolutism.
Correction –
That is the costs-benefits morality principle or moral absolutism should read That is the costs-benefits morality principle or MORAL RELATIVISM.
There was blatant violation of a law in Carlos Celdran’s case that can’t be disputed. Unfortunately, In the case of pedophile priests, the only thing that they have on them is the testimony of victims. They weren’t caught in the act doing so. Had that been the case, prosecution would have been easier. In our laws, we are presumed innocent unless found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Celdran was guilty of what he did but didn’t realize that the penalty was more than he imagined. The Revised Penal Code is to blame for this. There are transgressions that have to be paid even if the aggrieved party doesn’t press charges anymore. If the law is followed, he may get the minimum jail term for what he did simply because the plaintiff is not pressing charges. A lawyer committing adultery will surely be disbarred for doing so if the spouse files charges against her/him. If the spouse doesn’t file charges, he may only a get some suspension.
Benign0
Here is the “Statement of the Archdiocese of Manila on Conviction of Mr. Carlos Celdranâ€
http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=10282
“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.â€
Released for the Archdiocese of Manila by Archdiocesan Office of Communications
agree…
Now there’s a petition to ask for clemency from P. Noy. I thought Celdran’s protest was the point. Now he wants clemency? I thought P. Noy was the cause of all evil when he was an Arroyo lackey? I’m inclined to believe that this is a man with no conviction.
Suck it up. Be a man. Do the time and be better for it. After all, you haven’t shown remorse for anything and clemency demands that there first be remorse.
There is no reason to jail a person for something he said.
Monk, let me get this straight. By your logic based entirely on what you said February 1, 2013 at 5:35 pm
let me paint this picture. Edwin Lacierda has this scheduled press conference where he will hypothetically weave tales of science fiction. In the middle of that I barge in and start declaring the starting lineup for the Baltimore Ravens. I should not be jailed since I am just saying something? It’s not the fact he said something, it’s where and when he said something. Go ahead, hold up a billboard saying “Damaso” in Ayala Triangle at 3 AM , I doubt there will be an arrest. Sorry a 10 year old will not require this explanation.
Any law that violates the constitution is unconstitutional and should be nullified.
But then again the 1987 Constitution, by my standards, is unconstitutional.
What to do, what to do…
we have the right of speech, true indeed and we celebrate it much. As any right, it is regulated, that is why we laws against the abuse of it such as oral defamation, libel, etc. We have rights, we too should be responsible for what we say or speak and for its consequences…
no, wrong. differentiate between philosophical secularism and political secularism. after the President Duterte issued the proclamation that made January the national bible month, to be celebrated annually, that is an imposition that made Bible Distribution a “secular” activity, not a religious one. Perhaps, the commotion that happened in 2010 inside the church was merely between Manila Cathedral parishioners and Carlos, and so the police, and other government enforcement agencies needed not meddle. It is not only you Catholics who live here in this country, there are other religionists. If Carlos case will lose, it is going to become a precedent for other cases or incidents that happens between members of other religions. It is constitutional , state is prohibited to meddle in religious affairs, and vice-versa. The Bible distribution at which
Carlos intruded was a secular activity which happened to be done inside the Manila Cathedral. He should just apologize for opposing the Bible distribution.