MANILA, Philippines - Visual artist Mideo Cruz, whose recent
work exhibited at the
Cultural Center of thePhilippines has caused outrage among religious groups and sparked new debates on freedom of expression, failed to show up yesterday at the Senate hearing on the controversy.
Cruz’s contribution to the “Kulo” exhibit, which he called “Politeismo,” garnered widespread condemnation, mostly from the Roman Catholic community, including two senators who demanded the resignation of CCP board members and threatened to cut the institution’s budget for allowing the exhibit.
Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada and Senate Majority leader Vicente Sotto III led in castigating the CCP for reportedly offending the religious sensibilities of Catholics by allowing the “blasphemous” work of Cruz to be displayed in a state-run institution.
Estrada initially called for the issuance of a subpoena against Cruz but this was abandoned after Senatecommittee on education, arts and culture chairman Edgardo Angara decided to end the hearing saying a case has already been filed against the board members of the CCP and Cruz before the Office of the Ombudsman.
CCP chairwoman Emily Abrera noted that Cruz rarely goes out now because of the tremendous hate campaign against him as a result of his art.
Estrada insisted he still wanted three of the board members to resign, namely Abrera, Flor Angel Rosario-Braid and Carolyn Espiritu.
It was revealed during yesterday’s hearing that a majority of the members of the CCP board objected to the work of Cruz and wanted it pulled out.
CCP President Raul Sunico admitted that he was initially offended by some of the pieces of Cruz and supported the closure of the exhibit.
He said that the decision to close the entire Kulo exhibit was supported by most of the board members and that a memorandum was issued for this purpose as early as July 14 but this was not implemented right away as Abrera prevailed upon them to give the artists involved a chance to give their side in a forum organized by the CCP held last Aug. 5.
Cruz was just one of the 32 artists from the University of Santo Tomas whose works were featured at the CCP as part of Kulo.
There were also some concerns that closing the exhibit might cause some legal problems because it was covered by a contract.
Abrera noted that the CCP board does not conduct a pre-screening of the works for exhibition and that it is the head of the visual arts department that evaluates and approves exhibits.
The head of the department at the time was Karen Ocampo Flores who eventually resigned at the height of the furor over the exhibit.
While admitting that some of the images she saw in Cruz’s Politeismo were shocking, Abrera explained that she had to view the entire collection and try to understand what the artist was trying to say with his work.
Abrera has been criticized for defying calls for her resignation.
“There is no defiance in what I said. When I said no, I meant it in all modesty and all humility and I recognize my responsibility in this case and my continuing responsibility to see that changes occur in terms of where we are coming from,” Abrera said.
She said that the hearing was an “education moment” for everyone including members of the CCP board.
“On our end, I would like to assure the public and all concerned that the policies are undergoing review. We have also, ourselves, learned from this experience and we recognize that times are changing, information, the transfer of information, the nature of the transfer is also changing and those are things that we would like to take into our new perspective and that is part of what we do,” Abrera said.
Legal aspect
While the controversy over Cruz’s work has centered on the religious aspect, constitutional experts noted that its legal aspect should also be addressed, particularly the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.Raul Pangalangan, former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, pointed out that there were two Supreme Court decisions on the issue of religiously offensive speech.
In both cases, Pangalangan noted that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the party accused of making offensive speech.
“What is at stake here is a different kind of violation of freedom of speech. In this case what we are dealing with is censorship, prior restraint. From the discussion this morning, my own sense, and this is my own opinion, is that the art piece in question is speech and therefore entitled to the protection of the freedom of speech clause,” he said.
UP College of Law professor Florin Hilbay agreed that Cruz should have exercised his freedom of speech more responsibly but emphasized that this right is guaranteed under the Constitution.
“Whether Mideo Cruz can express himself the way he did is a constitutional non-issue. As a matter of constitutional law, the right of Cruz to express himself through Politeismo is recognized by the Constitution that gives him freedom of expression and requires Philippine society to separate church and State,” Hilbay said.
“The responsible exercise of that right is a matter of opinion, ideology, faith and even temperament. Even if only because Mideo’s expression allows us the opportunity to reconsider our fundamental belief, which sadly a lot of people are unable to appreciate, we should protect his expression,” he added.
But critics of Cruz’s work such as the UST administration, represented by vice rector Fr. Pablo Tiong O.P. and the Catholic BishopsConference of the Philippines, represented by its vice president Archbishop Jose Palma, argued that the freedom of expression is not absolute.
Tiong said that the exhibit was not sanctioned by the UST and that the institution considers the work of Cruz offensive to Catholics and the Catholic religion.
Palma said that moral criteria must always be applied on the subject of art.
He said that the Church condemns the artistic portrayal of the image of Jesus Christ as immoral but does not condemn the artist himself.
National artist for literature F. Sionil Jose, for his part, argued that Cruz’s work was not art.
“All art is propaganda but not all propaganda is art,” he said.
Angara said that it was enough for him to hear that the CCP is undertaking some reforms as a result of the controversy and that yesterday’s hearing would be the last because the legal process should be allowed to take its due course.
Trash
For Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, Cruz committed a “sin” against God because of his blasphemous exhibitIn a circular titled “’Prayer of Reparation’ for the Sin of Sacrilege and Blasphemy” issued yesterday, Cardinal Rosales declared Aug. 26, a Friday, a “Day of Penance” at the Archdiocese of Manila wherein Masses would be offered for the forgiveness of sins.
Aside from requiring Mass celebrants to wear purple vestments, “we also encourage everyone to perform an act of penance or sacrifice on this day, such as fasting or other forms of mortification, as an expression of remorse for the sins committed against God’s majesty.”
The “Day of Penance” is one of the highlights of the week-long “Prayer of Reparation” from Aug. 21 to Aug. 28.
“In the past weeks we have witnessed the uproar created by the exhibit of art works by the Cultural Center of the Philippines purportedly on modern art mixed media installations on contemporary themes. Many agree that the work over-reached the boundaries of freedom of expression. Most say it is offensive and a great affront to Catholics and Christians, and to all people who value decency. To them the work is ‘trash.’ And we agree,” Cardinal Rosales said. - Evelyn Macairan
A TV Patrol Bacground Music
:
sources:
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/photos/kulo-exhibit-at-ccp-1312943074-slideshow/
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=63&articleId=717574
