"May Kulo"

I have just finished reading a news article about the resignation of a CCP executive amidst "furor" over an art exhibit. The said exhibit "Kulo" incited controversy for being "sacrilegious" and "blasphemous". I don't want to delve into the details of the controversy since it's one of the many talked-about issues in the national scene these days. 

I can only see the relevance of the said controversy since it brings into play two clashing interests or rights. The first one is the right of artists to showcase works of arts, which is protected under the freedom of expression provisions of the Philippine constitution. Section 4, Article III states: 

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.

On the other hand, these so-called religious groups believe that this "sacrilegious" and "blasphemous" exhibition is a violation of their religious freedom. I still have to come into terms with that. I tried to look for religious freedom in the constitution and luckily, I found it next to the freedom of expression provisions. Section 5, Article III: 


No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Looking at the above stated provisions on religious freedom, I come up with the following summation:

1. The state does not recognize any organized religion or denomination;

2. The state recognizes individual freedom of conscience, that is freedom of and from religion;

3. The state recognizes individual freedom to worship; the exercise of one's religious belief or lack thereof;

4. Lastly, no religious test for the exercise of civil and political; religion shall not be a precondition for the exercise of such rights;

CLOSURE OF KULO EXHIBIT HAS NO BASIS

The banning of the said exhibition was unwarranted and a blatant attack on freedom of expression. It amounts to censorship of a work of art if perpetrated by the government itself. The argument that the said exhibit violates religious freedom does not hold any water at all. It may offend the sensibilities of some people but those who might be offended by it are free to boycott it, which is in itself an exercise of one's freedom. A very classic adage about rights states: "your right ends when the rights of others begin." In this particular context, the exhibitors, by expressing their works of arts, has not impaired anybody else's religious freedom. 

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION; NOT ABSOLUTE

It is true that there is no absolute freedom of expression. This freedom is regulated by the state by enacting laws that protect individuals against excesses. One of such laws is the defamation law. According to an article, Defining Defamation, there are legitimate purposes for defamation laws of which mainly is to:

"...to protect the reputations of individuals – or of entities with the right to sue and be

sued – against injury, including by tending to lower the esteem in which they are held within

the community, by exposing them to public ridicule or hatred, or by causing them to be

shunned or avoided."

However, it also sets some exceptions, one of which is stated in the following paragraph:

"Defamation laws cannot be justified if their purpose or effect is to protect individuals
against harm to a reputation which they do not have or do not merit, or to protect the
‘reputations’ of entities other than those which have the right to sue and to be sued. In
particular, defamation laws cannot be justified if their purpose or effect is to:

....(ii) protect the ‘reputation’ of objects, such as State or religious symbols, flags or national
insignia."

(to be continued)