The Resolution released last week by the Supreme Court was simple enough: reaffirming both the trial court’s and the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution of criminal guilt, conviction, and imprisonment in Carlos Celdran vs. People of the Philippines. The four-page document didn’t even bother with further explanations, except to point out that: “We agree with the CA in its findings that the acts of petitioner were meant to mock, insult, and ridicule those clergy whose beliefs and principles were diametrically opposed to his own.”
Frankly, it was a good ruling. And a good victory for religious freedom.
As the Court of Appeals pointed out (and affirmed by the Supreme Court): “Primarily, it should be borne in mind that religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty, and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of values. It has been said that the religious clauses of the Constitution are all designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good.”
Of course, there are the usual pseudo-sophisticates: inanely arguing that Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code is “antiquated” for being from the “Spanish-era.” Know what’s equally as old? The US Bill of Rights (from which we patterned our Article III), which came into effect in 1791.
But isn’t Article 133 unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech? Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout “fire” in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.
What Article 133 does is simply acknowledge the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport (there’s the content-based argument for you). That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).
Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.
The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupt proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.
Yet, as correctly declared by the Court of Appeals: “There is a reasonable distinction between those who have a religion and those who do not.”
And indeed religious freedom has a “preferred position in the hierarchy of values.” It is called the First Freedom, not only because it’s the first right mentioned in the first article of the US Bill of Rights (i.e., the First Amendment), but because everything essentially flows from this one right.
In fact, freedom of speech was supposed to help in ensuring the freedom of religion rather than hinder it.
As pointed out by Princeton’s Robert George: “Rights are not abstractions. They protect human goods … [and] religion is another irreducible element of the basic human good. Religion is also important to the human good because it shapes how one pursues other human goods, and people order their lives according to religious judgments about religious truths.”
Religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Ultimately, a people that do not care for religious freedom won’t care much about anything else at all. And while we do need to put up tolerance for sloppy thinking in the public square, none need be given for the bully or hateful.
 
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
jemygatdula@yahoo.com
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
facebook.com/jemy.gatdula
Twitter @jemygatdula