Carlos Celdran’s crime against the ‘Damasos’

Commentary
By Perry Diaz  

Last December 14, 2012, Carlos Celdran, a popular Manila tour guide, was convicted by Branch 4 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila of the crime of “Offending the Religious Feelings” under Article 133 of the Penal Code.  Celdran’s conviction was for disrupting an ecumenical service at the Manila Cathedral in September 2010 in protest of the Catholic Church’s opposition to the Reproductive Health bill.

Judge Juan Bermejo sentenced Celdran to two months to one-year imprisonment.  Celdran indicated that he would appeal the court decision before a higher court.

Just exactly what is “Offending the Religious Feelings”? Article 133 of the penal Code states: “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.”

During his protest, Celdran held a white placard with the word “Damaso” and showed it to the congregants.  The question is: Was his action “notoriously offensive”?

While it might be offensive to the Catholic clergy, it wasn’t necessarily offensive to the lay people attending the ecumenical service.  After all, “Damaso” — which referred to the powerful friar Padre Damaso in Dr. Jose Rizal’s fictional novel, “Noli Me Tangere” – was nothing more than a reminder of our colonial past.  So what’s wrong with Celdran’s action?

Well, “Padre Damaso” was the symbol of the “frailocracy” that kept the indios – as the native Filipinos were then called — in their proper place in the colonial pecking order.  And when Rizal created the “Padre Damaso” character in his novel, the Spaniards branded him a traitor and executed him.  The rest was history.

But to this day, “Damaso” remained the symbol of colonialism in the Philippines.  But that does mean that when someone utters the word “Damaso” or displays a placard with “Damaso” written on it, it constitutes a “notoriously offensive” act?

While, Celdran might have irritated the bishops and priests at the ecumenical service, Celdran’s act was political expression of his disdain of the Catholic Church’s political stance against the Reproductive Health bill.  In other words, if the Catholic Church had chosen to get involved in the political debate on the Reproductive Health bill, then it should expect reaction from those who supported the bill.  And Celdran happened to manifest his expression of support for the bill by resurrecting “Damaso” right inside the sacred temple of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church might have won a battle against Celdran, but it did not vanquish Celdran.  Celdran won the minds of Filipinos who believe that Reproductive Health’s time has come.