Celdran found guilty in ‘Damaso’

[MrTuthaus]

---

Klaro kaayo ang pag ka influence sa mga pari maski sa judicial system nato.
mura na sila ug mga kagaw ba nga naa na sa mga utok sa ubang pilipino.
kagaw sa catholic religion nga nag gamit lng sa ginoo.
Freedom to express one's belief kay gitumban to save their deteriorating image to the public.

dili tanan boss. ayaw i-generalize

[MrTuthaus]

Another case of acting without thinking. The cause is noble, the methods are idiotic.

well said bro!

[chucki3]

basin nagpatagad ni kay modagan unya ni puhon sunod eleksyon.

[tingkagol]

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — 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.

That particular penal code violates Article 3 of the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Consitution:

Article III, Section 4: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech/expression/press as mentioned in that article refers to the international human rights laws, which the Phils has signed on to and ratified:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Yes, I completely agree that offending the church-goers in their place of worship was detestable, offensive, and in poor judgement. However, I would completely disagree that the same act should be punishable by law. It shouldn't be. EVER. That is the very essence of freedom of expression - to be able say anything without fear of being jailed, just as long as what you say does not infringe on other people's rights.

They should have invoked Article III Section 5 of the Bill of Rights instead- which is Freedom of Religion. That is if they can prove that Celdran was prohibiting them from exercising their religion.

...or trespassing.

[lodyl]

That particular penal code violates Article 3 of the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Consitution:


Freedom of speech/expression/press as mentioned in that article refers to the international human rights laws, which the Phils has signed on to and ratified:


Yes, I completely agree that offending the church-goers in their place of worship was detestable, offensive, and in poor judgement. However, I would completely disagree that the same act should be punishable by law. It shouldn't be. EVER. That is the very essence of freedom of expression - to be able say anything without fear of being jailed, just as long as what you say does not infringe on other people's rights.

They should have invoked Article III Section 4 of the Bill of Rights instead- which is Freedom of Religion. That is if they can prove that Celdran was prohibiting them from exercising their religion.

...or trespassing.

Nice one bai Tingkagol... mayta nag sunod pud si Celdran ani nga thread......

[Code Talker]

Let us also consider that our freedom of expression also comes with a responsibility. Such freedom is not limitless. Public policy, order and rule of law will always regulate freedom of expression.

[psyche54]

Nice one bai Tingkagol... mayta nag sunod pud si Celdran ani nga thread......

hehehehe...

Hmm I assume gi-invoke na na sa iyang mga abugado tingali boss oi...

Naa pay Court of Appeals.

Hmm, if his pocket is deep enough, then iya na ipa-apela... Otherwise, papriso na lang siya....

[redemption32]

That particular penal code violates Article 3 of the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Consitution:


Freedom of speech/expression/press as mentioned in that article refers to the international human rights laws, which the Phils has signed on to and ratified:


Yes, I completely agree that offending the church-goers in their place of worship was detestable, offensive, and in poor judgement. However, I would completely disagree that the same act should be punishable by law. It shouldn't be. EVER. That is the very essence of freedom of expression - to be able say anything without fear of being jailed, just as long as what you say does not infringe on other people's rights.

They should have invoked Article III Section 5 of the Bill of Rights instead- which is Freedom of Religion. That is if they can prove that Celdran was prohibiting them from exercising their religion.

...or trespassing.

However, society in general also acknowledges limitations in the Freedom of Expression. Any expression/speech that may follow the "harm principle" and/or the "offense principle" is considered a limitation of the aforementioned right.

Education for Freedom Lesson 4

If we do not criminalize the violations of these limitations, then might as well throw those limitations out the door.

Edited: And oh! Good to see you on the opposite side, for once! hehe.

[tingkagol]

Let us also consider that our freedom of expression also comes with a responsibility. Such freedom is not limitless. Public policy, order and rule of law will always regulate freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression remains a freedom ONLY until it infringes the rights of others. (Incitement to violence, for example.)

Considering other rights are preserved, should we regulate free speech? The straight answer is NO. Letting the judiciary gauge how "responsible" your statements are before it can pass as free speech is even worse (first of all, who calls the shots? and how does one measure "responsible" statements?). In fact, it is in the preservation of free speech that we get to enjoy other rights as well. So, no, it should not be regulated. Whatever you say or how offensive you wish to be is entirely under your discretion.

[redemption32]

Freedom of expression remains a freedom ONLY until it infringes the rights of others. (Incitement to violence, for example.)

Should we regulate free speech? The straight answer is NO. Letting the judiciary gauge how "responsible" your statements are before it can pass as free speech is even worse (first of all, who calls the shots? and how does one measure "responsible" statements?). In fact, it is in the preservation of free speech that we get to enjoy other rights as well. So, no, it should not be regulated. Whatever you say or how offensive you wish to be is entirely under your discretion.

Yes, I agree, but when and where you say it, there should be a limitation. In this case, he stood in the altar,shouted and raised a placard with "Damaso" on it during an Ecumenical Service. Since that's incitement of violence, then ipso facto that's an infringement of the rights of the faithful present.