PREFATORY STATEMENT

“Free expression is the base of human rights, the root of human nature and the mother
of truth. To kill free speech is to insult human rights, to stifle human nature and to
suppress truth.”

The principle “The law may be harsh but it is still the law”, should not
always be the basis for a person’s conviction especially for a crime that can
be regarded not only as against the fundamental law of the land but more
importantly on basic human rights. The case of Celdran could have been
reversed on the basis of these principles had the Court decided to face the
reality that most of our laws are already encroaching the rights embedded
under the Constitution which covers all citizens regardless of age, sex or
religion. Offending religious rights has now become a barrier for the free
exercise of speech and expression as some particular group may be given a
higher regard than those who are nonmembers however indirectly or
unintentionally.

The United States-based human rights group Human Rights Watch

(HRW) has criticized the decision of the Supreme Court and pointed out that
“some provisions of the RPC like the said article can be misused and utilized
for malicious prosecution”.1

Prior to the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal filed by

Celdran, law makers are also on the same on the same view particularly

former Senator Pia Cayetano who questioned the constitutionality of the law

for being inconsistent with the freedom of speech and expression. 2 In light of

the issue, a bill was proposed to repeal Article 133 on the ground that it is

1
Mark Madrona, ‘HRW ‘alarmed’ by court ruling on Carlos Celdran case’, January 28, 2013,
<http://www.filipinoscribe.com/2013/01/28/hrw-alarmed-by-court-ruling-on-carlos-
celdran-case/> October 27, 2015.
2
Christina Mendez, ‘Pia wants repeal of penal code on ‘offending religious feelings’, The
Philippine star, February 8, 2013,
<http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/02/08/906262/pia-wants-repeal-penal-code-
offending-religious-feelings> October 10, 2015.
already obsolete and it hinders the right to speech and expression. 3 Senate

Bill No. 3402 provides for a retroactive application of the law which would

have been favorable to Celdran had it been approved during the 15h

Congress. However, until today the bill has not been ratified and the law on

blasphemy remains to be tackled in Criminal Law subjects in Law Schools.

While Philippine laws do recognize the church’s influence and power, the State is directed to

disallow any encroachment into the affairs of the church. Verily, the principle of separation of church

and state is based on mutual respect. Generally, the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the

church, much less question its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion and

discriminate against another. On the other hand, the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions

on the State and the rest of its citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follows its beliefs, even if it

sincerely believes that they are good for the country.

3
Id.