• Philippine Top Blogs
    Politics & Government - Top Blogs Philippines
    (Politics and government category)
  • Most Read Posts

  • Topics by Category

  • Archives

  • Calendar

    January 2013
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec   Feb »
  • Disclaimer

    While this blog observes proper attribution, it is also encouraged that original owner of photos, graphics, and other pieces of information published without attribution herein should inform or call the attention of the executive editor of the Philippine Review for immediate rectification. Concerns may be e-mailed to:


    or posted directly as comment.

    For other concerns, send an SMS or call at: (+63) 9054418132.

    Views expressed and presented on this blog were solely from the writer’s opinion, unless otherwise expressed therein.

    COMMENTS are moderated. This blog reserves its full discretion and responsibility to drop comments irresponsible and inimical to the general moral and intellectual health to both the readers and the blog itself.

    Reproduction, re-blog, or re-post of contents from this blog, in part or in whole is allowed, PROVIDED, proper attribution shall be observed.

    Protected by Copyscape Originality Checker

    Blog Directory Top Blog Sites
    Blog Promotion, Promote Your Blog
    Submit Blog, Blog Directory Submission

    Blogs Blog Tools Promote Blog

Over Carlos Celdran case: Was the right to freedom of speech misinterpreted?


Photo from: Free Carlos Celdran Facebook page

The lower court ruled against activist Carlos Celdran guilty of “offending religious feelings” after he disturbed an ecumenical service at the Manila Cathedral in September 2010 when RH Bill was a hit.

During the ecumenical service, Celdran stood before several bishops and other religious crowd, dressed as if the national hero, Jose Rizal, and held up a placard with “Damaso” written on it. He furthermore, shouted, ‘You bishops, stop involving yourself in politics…’ and so on and so forth.

The consequence of Celdran’s action has become celebrated, and now that the court decided against him, the decision would become a landmark case of the right to freedom of speech under attack. But the question is: Was the right to freedom of speech misinterpreted by Celdran? Or was it under threat after the court ruled against him?

There may have been two simple issues involved over Carlos Celdran case:

  1. Is the right to freedom of speech absolute?
  2. When does the right to freedom of speech become unconstitutional?

Suppressing the right to freedom of speech endangers the Constitution. It is the primary aim of the Constitution to safeguard that all men are equal under the law, and thus all principles and values in it deserve equality and just interpretation by considering all involving values, rights, and principles be carefully weighed against conflict interests. The Constitution never promotes inequality and injustice. Ergo, the right to freedom of speech, just like any other rights when it becomes injustice or when it endangers other rights, should not always be treated as such letting it to prevail over any conflicting values and principles enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute.

The Constitution protects the right to a peaceful assembly to address the government for redress of grievances. The right to freedom of speech is obviously involved in this process or action. It is an unwavering pursuit of the Constitution to discourage violence at all cost. Moreover, it is the mandate of the Constitution to protect the rights of citizens from abuse.  Nobody has been granted of an absolute right, especially the right to freedom of speech, or else the Constitution would disregard the due process.


Over Celdran case, he may not have become violent to himself as he thought of himself against others, but the action he took might be disruptive to the peaceful assembly, putting the rights of others in danger. Celdran may have exercised his right to freedom of speech, but he may have neglected the rights of others, basically. The right to freedom of speech is everybody’s right to use it responsibly and reasonably.  When other constitutional values and principles under conflict with the right to freedom of speech, be it conspicuously provoking violence, and since it is the mandate of the Constitution to safeguard justice and equality; then the right to freedom of speech has no option rather than to pay for the consequence. Ergo, this right in this light ca be considered injustice and therefore, be considered unconstitutional.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 543 other followers

%d bloggers like this: