Tour guide Celdran disrupts mass,protests church involvement in politics/RH Bill

[ab_initio]

A nice discussion on the "clash of rights" involving Celdran and the RCC/CBCP

From: Interaksyon.com

If I may add, the freedom of expression and any provisions articulated in the Bill of Rights may only be invoked against the State. That is why we cannot jail those protesters burning the effigy of the President when the complaint is solely rooted from the person's exercise of the said freedom. The church is not a state, so Celdran cannot just say, "well, I was just exercising my freedom of expression". The Church has a separate personality distinct from the State.

People should know that the Bill of Rights are proscriptions against the State's exercise of its vast powers. This is the reason why, Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code is provided. You cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against a private entity. I hope people would stop saying, he should be acquitted because of the sacred freedom of expression.

[niky]

I think the big thing is whether this should be considered a criminal act or merely a civil liability.

For certain, there are damages, and as the protest occurred on private property, the Archdiocese does have the right to defend itself... but is such an act rightfully considered a criminal one?

And, in like vein, if a non-Muslim woman were to enter a mosque wearing shorts with their head bare... would it also merit the same punishment? Considering that this is also "notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful"?

It would have been better served to invoke libel in Celdran's case (though I don't agree with the implementation of that law, either), because any law that acts to protect "religious feelings" is a slippery slope between here and Sharia Law. (I don't agree with the laws as applied to censorship, either)

[ab_initio]

I think the big thing is whether this should be considered a criminal act or merely a civil liability.

For certain, there are damages, and as the protest occurred on private property, the Archdiocese does have the right to defend itself... but is such an act rightfully considered a criminal one?

And, in like vein, if a non-Muslim woman were to enter a mosque wearing shorts with their head bare... would it also merit the same punishment? Considering that this is also "notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful"?

It would have been better served to invoke libel in Celdran's case (though I don't agree with the implementation of that law, either), because any law that acts to protect "religious feelings" is a slippery slope between here and Sharia Law. (I don't agree with the laws as applied to censorship, either)

It is criminal because the Revised Penal Code say so. In every criminal case, impliedly instituted with it is the civil aspect of the complained act.

If it offends the feelings of the Muslim then they can rightfully invoke the RPC, assuming that there is no Sharia provision similar to that of Art. 133. The RPC provision can be invoked by any other and all denominations.

There is nothing libelous in Celdran's showing DAMASO, because there is no identifiable personality whose image may be damaged by the word Damaso. Even if it were libelous, still the freedom of expression cannot be invoked against a non-government entity. The Bill of Rights is designed to set a limitation on the State's exercise of its powers.

[niky]

It is criminal because the Revised Penal Code say so. In every criminal case, impliedly instituted with it is the civil aspect of the complained act.

If it offends the feelings of the Muslim then they can rightfully invoke the RPC, assuming that there is no Sharia provision similar to that of Art. 133. The RPC provision can be invoked by any other and all denominations.

There is nothing libelous in Celdran's showing DAMASO, because there is no identifiable personality whose image may be damaged by the word Damaso. Even if it were libelous, still the freedom of expression cannot be invoked against a non-government entity. The Bill of Rights is designed to set a limitation on the State's exercise of its powers.

Yun nga. It's something the SC has to clear up if it could actually lead to a similar situation as with dress codes and Sharia Law. It's a very nebulous term, and you can often find a denomination that will find any display or behaviour scandalous or heretical if you look hard enough.

[shadow]

Simple Lang yan, he had balls to pulled the stunt, he should use same set of balls to accept consequences, huwag siya ,ag whine ngayon na Akala mo inaapi siya, looking for public sympathy...

Laki ng kita tuloy ng walking tour niya bec of this exposure...

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[s10pao]

Simple Lang yan, he had balls to pulled the stunt, he should use same set of balls to accept consequences, huwag siya ,ag whine ngayon na Akala mo inaapi siya, looking for public sympathy...

Laki ng kita tuloy ng walking tour niya bec of this exposure...

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

+1..................

[lowslowbenz]

^ Fire away OB!

[chua_riwap]

isuot din nya yung outfit ni rizal sa city jail...........

[CoDer]

Saka pwede ba tigilan nyo ng mga bakla yun kaka blog, tweet, fb at kung anu-ano pa. Nagkarun lang ng internet lumakas ng bayag niyo na di nyo magawa sa tunay na buhay. Im calling all straight men. Be vigilant, when the time comes that these generates start twisting our principles and standards, is the time for annihilation na lang ulit Hitler style.

Wala na ako makita kungdi kabaklaan sa TV, nun isang beses may basketball tournament sa TV all stars yun naglalabanan sa princess ba yun, eh laging nagkakaagawan ng bola both sides, eh pano ba naman yun guard isang kamay sa bola isang kamay nag-aayos ng buhok, tapos pag nagkadikitan na sa court, yun bola lumalabas n lng mag-isa tpos sila dikit-dikit pa din. Nakakahiya kayo tsk tsk

Oy bakla baka nakalimutan mo isa si yebs (yebo) sa mga labs na labs mo dito.