Mideos Art: A Legal Ethics Issue Mideos Art: A Legal Ethics Issue Fr. Ric A.

Marpa (September 14- Patron ha Ponong) Mideos purported art, Politeismo has presently spawned sultry controversies. Some of those who allege to have been unjustly vexed by it already vandalized his work, cursed the officials of the CCP where it was exhibited and even threatened real harm on the artist himself. Upon the other hand, those who claim to be indifferent to it and those who profess to be defenders of artistic freedom or in support of it also disparaged their assorted indictments to people against it or to them they called bigots, dogmatists and hypocrites. An avid Catholic lawyer has already lodged a lawsuit against Mideo Cruz on the basis of several provisions of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. But, not a few from among legal practitioners maintain that the subject opus is within and is thus protected by the Freedom of Speech and Expression Clause enshrined in our 1987 Philippine Constitution. As I write, more and various analyses proliferate throughout the media, legal or ecclesiastical circles, and yes, even down the family table. This is short of saying that the controversy has indeed stricken at a real core of our pinoy conscience which is otherwise too tolerating even patronizing. While awaiting for the supposedly final and decisive enlightenment from our Supreme Court, I believe, as Filipino citizens, everyone is within his democratic right and duty to participate in the discourse that is at hand. My submission might not be as equally momentous as those issued by the periti or literati, still I shall humbly discuss my considered opinion for whomsoever it might prove to be of some worth. On the question of whether Mideos art was art, any answer would largely depend on the taste and verdict of the individual beholder. Those who have not actually seen it, please, they have no right to testify for or against it. Fond of museums myself, I find contemporary art to be usually a liberating agony if not sometimes an excruciating beauty. My recent visit to Ben Cabreras private museum in Baguio is one experience I refer to. On the question of whether Mideo the artist is surely sublime in order to merit him reward, or is he simply sick to excuse him, or sickening to be punished, other people are better judge for it. He or his mother, his friends or his foes can allege it. Though one thing is to allege a fact, another is to prove it. There actually exists a conflict of authority where insanity is interposed as legal issue. Because there is the original presumption of sanity in law holding that every man is possessed of intelligence and freedom of will so that his acts and its consequent responsibilities are imputable to him. As to what quantum of evidence is adequate to prove that a man is insane or is completely deprived of freedom and discernment so that his acts are to be held lacking of motive or intent, this is palpably an onus probandi. But is it possible to assign personal intent, malicious or otherwise to Mideos act? Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court has defined intent to mean no more than knowledge at the time of the act that the consequences said to be intended will ensue. Accordingly, even less than that will satisfy the general principle of civil and criminal liability. A man may have to pay damages, may be sent to prison, at common law be hanged Why so? If there is absolutely no parameter, legal or otherwise, to hold people accountable of any of his free acts, I doubt how citizens could exist responsibly in his society. Also at issue are some fundamental freedoms protected by our 1987 Philippine Constitution. The defenders of Mideo or his art precisely anchor their case on the specific provision of our Bills of Rights (Sec.4 , Art III) enshrined in our 1987 Philippine Constitution that says: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press Our Supreme Court has consistently held that this law prohibits prior restraint and subsequent punishment to any speech or expression exercised within such freedom. Alongside this free speech provision is also the equally fundamental and equally protected freedom of religion provision in the same Bill of Rights (Sec. 5, Art. III) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution,

thus: No law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Against this background, our government is supposed to take neutral if not benevolent stance towards religious institutions. And nowhere in the same Constitution is a sanction to extirpate religious beliefs, faith manifestations or references from the life of our nation. Where in fact it has provided for a separation of Church and State, it is precisely to exclude any tendency towards an absolutist regiment or undue usurpation on the part of both institutions. So, at least, here are two actual controversies. First, if free speech is the rule, could there not be any exception? Apparently there is, said our Supreme Court, our Constitution excludes from its protective mantle but only those speech proven to be libelous or obscene. But with our present-day community standards, can one earnestly, freely and publicly advocate terrorism or child pornography? Just how far the notion of protected speech can be stretched? In the instant case, what appear to be involved are sensitive issues not only of law but equally of fact. Second, in the case of Mideos art, far from being neutral and indifferent, its author admittedly meant to critique if not scorn against what is supposedly sincere religious expressions for others as in fact according to him expressions of utter chauvinism, narrow-mindedness, bigotry or fanaticism. He then intentionally effected such premise through his artwork, whereby he is now accused to have caused moral injury to some sectors of society, particularly Christian believers. At issue is not only some dangerous tendency but actual injury. The provisions or prohibitions of our Philippine Constitution, like in any other foreign constitutions, are far from self-defining. For naturally they are our collective aspirations, moral ideologies or historical philosophies as a people and nation. Our laws are neither an end in themselves, ultimately they are to embody, in fact, enact our ethos as a sovereign people. That is why the State is possessed of the illimitable police power to secure the common good we individually and commonly aspire. Precisely there is our judicial system or the Supreme Court which we consider to be an accepted arbiter to determine where the right of the people actually lies. It is then expected to dictate what is truly right and rightly true. How does Mideos art become a legal ethics issue? All the foregoing considered, the issue for the Supreme Court is not so much to determine what is legally permissible, by dryly if not lazily applying the dead letter of our laws. What is incumbent upon the highest tribunal is to actually determine what legal permission or prohibition is ethically responsible and defensible by no less than ourselves as sovereign people. For in those matters which relate to Mideo, no doubt, he is sovereign of himself and that he may do as he pleases. But in matters that refer to other Filipinos, I believe, he is under obligation to render what is also their due and nothing less.