CASE DIGEST : Carlos Celdran y Pamintuan v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 220127, March 21, 2018

Facts

On September 30, 2010, during the celebration of the May They Be One Campaign, the Feast of St. Jerome, and the launching of the Handwritten Bible at the Manila Cathedral, Carlos Celdran entered the Cathedral while an ecumenical religious service and Holy Mass were in progress. Carrying a placard bearing the word "DAMASO"—a reference to the anti-clerical priest in José Rizal's Noli Me Tangere—he shouted and protested against the Catholic Church's opposition to the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. His actions disrupted the religious ceremony and offended many of the faithful present. He was immediately restrained by church security and later charged with Offending Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which penalizes acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful committed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony.

The Metropolitan Trial Court found Celdran guilty, which was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and later by the Court of Appeals. Before the Supreme Court, Celdran argued that his act constituted protected political speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. He further challenged the constitutionality of Article 133 of the RPC, claiming that it was vague, overbroad, and an unconstitutional restriction on free speech because it punished expression based solely on its offensiveness to religious believers.

Issue

Whether Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, penalizing Offending Religious Feelings, violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, and consequently, whether Celdran may be held criminally liable for his protest inside the Manila Cathedral.

Held

Yes, Celdran was properly convicted. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and ruled that it is a valid exercise of the State's police power. The Court explained that the law does not punish a person's religious or political beliefs or opinions, but rather penalizes the manner, place, and circumstances under which an act is committed—specifically, acts that are notoriously offensive to the faithful when committed in a place devoted to religious worship or during a religious ceremony. The law protects the free exercise of religion guaranteed under Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution, while harmonizing it with the constitutional right to free speech under Article III, Section 4. Thus, freedom of expression is not absolute and may be reasonably regulated when it infringes upon the constitutional rights of others.

The Court found that Celdran intentionally disrupted an ongoing religious service by displaying the "DAMASO" placard and shouting inside the Manila Cathedral, conduct that was clearly notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of those participating in the ceremony. His protest could have been expressed in another forum without intruding upon a place and occasion specifically protected by Article 133 of the RPC. Accordingly, the Court affirmed his conviction, holding that the statute is neither vague nor overbroad because it punishes only a narrowly defined class of acts committed under specific circumstances and does not suppress legitimate political or religious expression in general.