CommentaryIn defense of free expression
By Luis V. Teodoro and Melanie Y. Pinlac
Published in PJR Reports, July-August 2011
THE TEMPEST over artist Mideo Cruz’ art installation underscored one of the ironies of Philippine society. There are no laws explicitly partial to religious groups, but journalists, artists, and writers can still be sanctioned when their work is labeled blasphemous, obscene, and/or immoral.
The latest incident involved an installation by Cruz which contained icons and symbols familiar to Catholics and other Christians.
The Catholic political party Ang Kapatiran (The Alliace for the Common Good) has accused Cruz and the CCP Board of violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)—the local version of the blasphemy laws Muslim and Christian fundamentalists in other countries have put in place—and has filed charges to that effect.
Article 201 is a provision of the RPC on “Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows”. It imposes the penalty of prision mayor (six to 12 years’ imprisonment) or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both on:
“(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
“(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;
“(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are proscribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
“(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals.”
Defining “obscenity”
But what is immoral, obscene and/or indecent? Since, as Constitutional law expert Joaquin Bernas, S.J., said in his Aug. 22 Philippine Daily Inquirer column, only expressions which are “libelous” and “obscene” are “not protected by the Constitution, ” defining what is immoral, obscene, etc. is crucial.
Bernas explained how the courts “determine whether a particular work is obscene”: “‘(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.’”
The key legal issue is whether a particular work meets the above standards. But Bernas noted that even bad art is still protected by the Constitution. “Since art, even ugly art, is a form of expression, it can be made punishable only when it presents a clear and present danger of an evil which the state has the right to prevent,” Bernas said.
Protected speech
Other legal experts like law professors Florin Hilbay and Raul Pangalanan said Cruz did not violate any law. Manila Bulletin last Aug. 7 quoted Hilbay as saying that “the right of Cruz to express himself through ‘Poleteismo’ is recognized by the Constitution. It was not as if the CCP exerted extra effort to offend the feelings of subscribers to the Catholic faith.”
“(Cruz’) work, shocking as it may be, will fall within that (protection of speech) clause,” Pangalangan said.
But the Constitutional protection of expression and opinion has not stopped government officials from threatening to use the powers of the state against the artist and CCP. The conservative Senator Vicente Sotto III threatened to cut the budget of CCP if it refused to take down the exhibit, and this and other threats resulted in the exhibit’s being taken down on Aug. 9 for “security reasons”.
Some members of the House of Representatives also called for the resignation of the CCP Board. Palawan 1st Dist. Rep. Antonio Alvares filed Aug. 11 “A Resolution Demanding the Resignation of (CCP) officials for Allowing Blasphemous Display Masquerading as Art and Inciting Public Outrage” (House Resolution No. 01601). It is still pending.
President Benigno Aquino III joined the senators and representatives who said they were offended by the exhibit by calling on CCP officials to discuss the “Kulo” exhibit. There were no reports on what happened during his meeting with the CCP board, but what he said immediately after the closing of the exhibit was alarming enough. Aquino told the media that he was “pleased with the CCP Board’s decision to close the exhibit”, adding that “there is no freedom that is absolute” though “he (Aquino) is not after censorship”.
Aquino and company may not be after censorship, but threats of budget cuts, possible criminal liability for disturbing “public order” for exhibiting artwork arbitrarily tagged as “blasphemous” and “offensive” do constitute censorship and create a chilling effect not only on artistic freedom but on free expression as well.
Censorship of whatever kind and no matter how piously disguised limits citizens’ choices only to those ideas the powerful approve of. It also divests anyone who might use unpopular ways to express his or her opinions, or who hold opinions different from those of the majority, of their rights.
[…] Rocket Blogs Christian Tech- read more: CommentaryIn defense of free expression Destiny Image Films endeavors to tell inspirational stories that will touch and change lives. We […]
Hello sir,
Thanks for spending time writing this.
It surprised me that your commentary does not mention “responsibility” as a necessary twin to all freedoms. I believe artists should also be responsible not to harm people.
The CCP, as a public forum, should express the high ideals of the Filipino people, who in their Constitution’s Preamble have identified themselves as God-loving. Thus, what is apparently blasphemous (or at least disrespectful of religious beliefs) does not have a place in such public space.
You know this better than I do: like the media’s, artists’ freedom is also not absolute; it is kept ‘human’ by being responsible, respecting human dignity and the natural law.
Thanks for your time.
[…] Icerocket blogs- read full christian families article: CommentaryIn defense of free expression […]
POORLY WRITTEN. CIRCULAR ARGUMENTATION. PURE CRAP