{"id":176971,"date":"2018-08-15T22:17:30","date_gmt":"2018-08-16T02:17:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=176971"},"modified":"2018-08-15T22:17:30","modified_gmt":"2018-08-16T02:17:30","slug":"carlos-celdran-asks-sc-reverse-ruling-damaso-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/08\/15\/carlos-celdran-asks-sc-reverse-ruling-damaso-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Carlos Celdran asks SC to reverse ruling on ‘Damaso’ act"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
In a 33-page motion for reconsideration, Celdran asked the SC for his acquittal and reiterated his plea to have Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) that penalizes the offense, declared unconstitutional. (Photo: CARLOSCELDRAN\/Facebook)<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0— Cultural activist Carlos Celdran on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse its ruling that affirmed his conviction for “offending religious feelings” for barging inside the Manila Cathedral and denouncing the Catholic Church’s opposition to the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill in 2010.<\/p>\n

In a 33-page motion for reconsideration, Celdran asked the SC for his acquittal and reiterated his plea to have Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) that penalizes the offense, declared unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

He further argued that Article 133 violates the due process and equal protection clauses in the Constitution.<\/p>\n

\u201c(B)oth the petition for review and the (OSG) manifestation in lieu of comment argue that Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code is unconstitutional. It is surprising that the 21 March 2018 (SC) resolution did not make any mention of the constitutional issues raised in the petition and in the Solicitor General\u2019s manifestation in lieu of comment,\u201d his motion read.<\/p>\n

He also asked to refer the case to SC en banc and set it for oral arguments.<\/p>\n

In a resolution dated March 21, the High Court’s First Division denied Celdran\u2019s plea seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling, which upheld the decision of the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Branch 4 and the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 32 convicting him for \u201coffending religious feelings\u201d over his stunt.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe agree with the CA in finding that the acts of petitioner were meant to mock, insult, and ridicule those clergy whose beliefs and principled were diametrically opposed to his own,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n

The SC said Celdran failed to present evidence to show that the trial courts and the appellate court committed error in its assailed decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe petitioner failed to sufficiently show any reversible error in the uniform findings of the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, so we resolve to deny the instant petition,\u201d part of the SC ruling read.<\/p>\n

Celdran has asked the SC to reverse the 2015 ruling of the appellate court, which affirmed the Manila MTC and RTC\u2019s decision convicting him of offending religious feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.<\/p>\n

He has argued that his display of the words \u201cFather Damaso\u201d in his banner inside the cathedral is a political speech and was his way of conveying to the priests inside that he strongly disagreed with their stand on the RH Law.<\/p>\n

In affirming the lower courts’ decision, the CA dismissed Celdran\u2019s arguments, noting that the said provision of the Revised Penal Code shields religion from criticism.<\/p>\n

Celdran then brought the case to the SC.<\/p>\n

The Manila MTC Branch 4 handed down its decision on Jan. 28, 2013 while the Manila RTC Branch 32 issued its ruling on Aug. 12, 2013; and the CA on Dec. 12, 2014 and Aug. 14, 2015.<\/p>\n

Celdran was sentenced to serve an indeterminate prison term of two months and 21 days as minimum, to one year, one month, and 11 days as maximum.<\/p>\n

The High Court pointed out that in a petition for review on certiorari, which was the pleading filed by Celdran in October 2015, questions of fact are no longer revisited, and the \u201cfindings of fact made by the trial courts are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court (SC), especially when the MTC, the RTC and the CA have similar findings.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case stemmed from Celdran’s “Padre Damaso” stunt inside the Manila Cathedral Church on Sept. 20, 2010 during an ecumenical service attended by Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, the Papal Nuncio, former Philippine Ambassador to Rome Henrietta de Villa, and leaders of different Christian denominations.<\/p>\n

Celdran wore a black suit and bore a placard that read, “Damaso”, to protest the position taken by the Church against the then Reproductive Health Bill, which has been passed into law.<\/p>\n

In 2016, then Solicitor General Florin Hilbay asked the SC to acquit Celdran of the crime, saying that the case under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code is \u201cunconstitutional\u201d and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Celdran is indeed guilty of the offense for which he was charged.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0— Cultural activist Carlos Celdran on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse its ruling that affirmed his conviction …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":176974,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-christopher-lloyd-caliwan","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176971\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/176974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}