Offending secular feelings

Carlos Celdran is in hot water. No, scratch that. Soon, Carlos Celdran will have no hot water. For the outspoken provocateur/activist has just been convicted by the Supreme Court of an antiquated crime called "offending religious feelings," as a consequence of which he will land in a jail cell, presumably with no access to water heating.

Poor Carlos. Eight years of fighting in court for a stunt pulled inside a church, protesting on behalf of women for rights to reproductive health, and this is what he gets.

No matter that church authorities have "forgiven" him. No matter that constitutional scholars have defended him. No matter that the former solicitor general has even filed a pleading seeking to exonerate him. The Supreme Court has spoken. Guilty as charged!

As aptly observed by UP law professor Gigo Alampay, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity here. Instead of strictly sticking to the text of the law, it could have struck it down for violating the Constitution. After all, we are supposed to have both freedom of speech and separation of church and state. So the court could have very well concluded that this ancient punishment for scandalizing Catholic priests has no place in today's modern society.

Certainly, if the government can stomach its officials creating video content that showcases the most vulgar and low-brow of its members, the government can look benignly, even fondly, on citizens seeking to express political statements to fight for civil and political rights, no matter how outlandish the concept. Or how outré the idea. Or unusual the venue.

I certainly thought Celdran's stunt was brilliantly conceived. Who could doubt that it created maximum impact on print and social media? And scholars, artists and idealists? It certainly resonates up to this date.

On the other hand, I was unnecessarily offended when I saw the federalism video. Really? We are trying to promote an understanding of federal government, a hifalutin concept, and we pay government officials to associate it with breasts and vaginas, matched with a pep squad tune and a gameshowy dance?

Do we see nothing wrong with that? Nothing that deserves consequences? A jail sentence? A firing? Even a reprimand from superiors? Do we question the use of government resources and time? (I hear crickets...)

But despite all my taste meters being badly disturbed, even insulted, and my shock factors going off the scale, I don't have any recourse to any provision in the Revised Penal Code to prosecute those purveyors of bad taste! But, and this is what's unfair, priests get to complain if their feelings are offended. How come I can't have the same remedies? So, that must be unequal protection of the law.

Come August 15, Celdran will file a motion for reconsideration with the high court. Hopefully, either a repealing law will have been passed by Congress (since an optimistic bill has been languishing there for a few years already) or the composition of the high court will have changed. Or maybe, their convictions will have changed, and they aren't in the mood to convict no more. Or maybe, Celdran will magically proffer new arguments to convince the justices otherwise.

Such wild imagination I have. Almost as wild as thinking that one day, a reality TV star with bad orange hair would be the president of a western democracy.