I’ve been searching for any article about the separation of church and state here in the Philippines and up until now I still haven’t find any. Hmmmmm…maybe I’m just not looking too hard. Well there is that
Wikipedia article and that
blog site that tried to explain it in a Roman Catholic point of view, other than that…none whatsoever.
Is it because the concept of separation of church and state is really in the sticks when Philippine experience is concern? The Roman Catholic Church have always been involved in Philippine politics for over 400 years, and it already become an established force in Philippine political issues especially in the last days of the Marcos era…a heartfelt thanks to the late Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila.
The subject of Church and State separation in the Philippines is really quite a difficult topic, even for Filipino atheists. A lot of comments from Filipino non-believers in internet forums always accuse the church…in particular, the Roman Catholics, from violating this principle. But what is this principle anyway?
According to Wikipedia, “Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.
The United State of America is said to be the inventor and the one that pioneered the principle of separation of church and state. It started in the time of the American Revolution. People in pluralistic land had become tired with church-state unions that efforts to separate religion and government paralleled the military efforts to expel the British. Key landmarks in the struggle were James Madison’s 1785
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Assessments and Thomas Jefferson’s Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, the bill that prohibits a person to compel to finance any form of religious organization. This became a law in Virginia in 1785.
Two years after the passage of the Jefferson’s bill, the present U.S. Constitution was drafted in Philadelphia. The First U.S. Congress in 1789 added the Bill of Rights and on it, Article I of the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
A decade later, in a well-through-out-letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association, President Thomas Jefferson declared that the First Amendment erected “a wall of separation between church and state.”
In that letter, President Jefferson wrote,
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Some Christians interprets Jefferson’s letter is about protecting the church from the affairs of the state, but in reality…it’s a give and take relationship. The “wall” was erected to make the state religiously neutral.
In the
Reynolds’s case in 1878 for example, the U.S. Supreme Court defended marriage as between a man and a woman and denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory.
The clearest expression of the separation of church and state principle is found in the United State Supreme Court ruling in
Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
The “establishment of religion” cause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor a federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain or disbelieve in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious belief or disbeliefs, nor church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institution, whatever they may be called. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the cause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and state.” (Everson vs. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1.)
To summarize Jefferson’s metaphor, the separation of church and state is about:
• The state should not officially establish a religion.
• The state should not officially fund religious activities.
• The state should not fund religious activities.
• The state should not fund non-religious activities sponsored by religious organizations.
• The state should not prescribe, proscribe, or amend religious beliefs.
• The state should not attempt to endorse or criticize any religious belief or practice.
• The state should not interfere in religious hierarchies, nor interfere in issues strictly related to membership.
• No state action should have the primary effect of engaging in religious practice. Any such appearance of a state religious practice must be unintentional and coincidental.
• No state action should have the primary effect of restricting religious practice. Any such appearance of interference in religious practice must be unintentional and coincidental.
• The state should not express any religious beliefs, or in any publication, speech, or other implement of state power such as currency, sworn testimony, oath of fealty to the state, or endorsements of national pride. The state should not imply any derivation of authority from any religious authority, nor should it express temporal supremacy in relation to religious belief or practice.
• Political leaders should not express religious preferences in the course of their duties
• No church should prescribe, proscribe, or amend civil or common law.
• The church should not interfere in civil political processes or relations between the state and other nations.
• No church should actively endorse any political figure, and should confine itself to moral, ethical, and religious teaching.
• No church should actively endorse any civil institution by providing religious services or religious expressions at that institution, nor favor one civil institution over another.
Yet Christian fundamentalism began to deduce this “wall” as taking God and Jesus out of schools, government and the American life.
Dark clouds began to appear in the 1970’s…Religious fundamentalism and political ultra conservatism became closely allied in U.S. politics. Christian fundamentalist leaders like the late Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson allied themselves with Roman Catholic bishops and ultraconservative political group and campaigned unceasingly to discredit the separation principle, to insist that “moral majorities” have the right to impose their values on everyone by law. Until the early 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court has distanced itself from Jefferson's original meaning "...in behalf of the rights of [religious] conscience." Often the U.S. Supreme Court suggest separation of church and state conveys hostility to religion In
Wallace v. Jaffree for example, Reagan-appointed Chief Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. He also concluded:
The “wall of separation between church and state” is a metaphor base on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
Justice Scalia has criticized separation of church and state as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.
Here in the Philippines, the separation of church and state is duly recognized. Well…that is what is written in the Philippine Constitution… in theory at least.
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares:
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II, Section 6), and, 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. (Article III, Section 5).
Well…as I have said earlier, this section of the Philippine Constitution is really misunderstood by both Filipino believers and non-believers alike.
According to this principle, the separation of church and state is implied from the constitutional prohibitions that
“no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion (Art. III, Sec. 5.) and that no public money or property shall be ever be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion.” (Art. IV, Sec. 29 [2}.)
That means the church cannot interfere in purely political matters or temporal aspects of man’s life and the State…What! Really? I don’t think so…
You see, it may be a written law of the land, but this is really not quite simple to be put in action. The Church is too shortsighted to see the dividing line between what “political matters” is and what “a temporal aspect of man’s life” is.
For example, during the time when the study of Rizal’s life was included in the school’s curriculum, the Roman Catholic Church demanded to use the expurgate version’s of Rizal’s books in Catholic schools. Well…that’s their right…yet the education board allowed it. The Roman Catholic Church is at constant war with the Philippine government’s Family Planning program. The Catholic Church lobbies the government for the use of the natural method of birth control against the use of artificial contraception.
I recall that certain Catholic “sister” of a certain Roman Catholic–sponsored Pro-Life group. Permeate with the fervor of her lost cause and religious fanaticism, she not only publicly condemned a United Nation program of free tetanus inoculations for women of child-bearing age, but actually prevented it from continuing by court action. So what are her grounds? Her demented paranoia! She thinks that the vaccines contained an abortifacient and that it was a western plot to depopulate the Philippines. Talk about being psycho!
The truth of the matter is the separation of church and state is being violated in the Philippines subtlety and no one seems to notice.
Government TV stations urge the televiewers to pray “the 3o’Clock Habit every 3 o’ Clock. In the afternoon, Philippine Supreme Court justices can avow with straight faces that some of their decisions were divinely inspired just as the case of Ex-President Estrada’s impeachment decision, public-school children pray at the beginning and end of each class day, professors of state universities can send their students to Opus Dei rallies and Roman Catholic idols and graven images adorn every government office. On election season, priests can tell worshippers who to vote, after the Sunday mass, while still inside the church. Even the Philippine Supreme Court is not spared. There is a large statue of man who supposes to be Moses, holding the “The Ten Commandments” in front of the Supreme Court Building located in Taft Ave, Manila. There is also a large metal statue of “The Virgin Mary” to commemorate the EDSA I Revolution. Fundamentalist Christian churches can produce a TV show that expresses their political view, after some prayers and halleluiahs. The Muslim community has a privilege in their own Shira Law to take care in the issue of criminal and civil offences. Also religious holidays here in the Philippines are made public legal holidays…and I think this now included Islamic holidays.
Wow! And no Filipino non-believer seems to give a damn about it!
Even the Preamble of the Philippine Constitution starts with the words: “we, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God…” What do you expect; Roman Catholic religious and clergy like Sr. Christine Tan, R.G.S., a nun, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a priest, and Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani became part of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and left their mark on the promulgation of the charter and its numerous provisions on the Church and state.
And take note Philippine non-believer, The Philippine Constitution says nothing about prohibiting the church from expressing its views or stand on public issues. So Fr. Robert Reyes can still run and bang the gates and door of every motel in Metro Manila every Valentines Day. The Constitution is also silent on the issue of church leaders and priest running in public office, a good excuse for Brother Eddie Villanueva of the JIL Church to run for president in the last presidential race of 2004. It is by the virtue of the Church’s own
Code of Canon Laws and tradition that prohibits the clergy from any involvement in partisan politics. Canon 287, § 2 contains a negatively formulated juridical norm for the clerics and therefore precise and strong in its prohibition. It states:
“They are not to have active part to political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.” Like canon 285, § 3, which prohibits the clergy from holding public office, this restriction on political activity is based on the distinctive role of the clergy and the laity.
So why this unholy partnership between the Church and the Philippine government? The answer…Power!
There is no single politician in the Philippines who will discredit the church, especially in Election Day. Is it because he fears God? Nope! It’s because of the voting power of the adherents. There is even a church here in the Philippines that practice block voting. If you’re candidacy is endorse by their religious leader, chances are all his flock will vote for you without even thinking. That is a lot of votes!
As long as politicians will ask the help of the church for votes, the church will always use this leverage to ask favors. Example, a church can ask the winning candidate for positions in the government…and we’re not talking about spiritual positions…nope! Positions like national defense, the media and law-making office are the best choice.
But the church doesn’t always win. In my elementary days, it is compulsory to attend Roman Catholic doctrines being taught in public school. This is disguise as religion class. I think today this was already abolished…but sad to say, optional religious instructions in public elementary and high schools is by constitutional mandate allowed (Art. XIV, Sec. 3{3}.)
So Church and State is like oil and water…but who says that oil and water never mixed? There is always an emulsion.
John the Atheist
Oh by the way...According to
Manny,...the principle of separation is employed whenever the
Catholic Church, or any other religion, speaks out and steps on a few toes.
This is an example of erecting a straw-man. No one is saying that religious organizations can't or shouldn't speak out. What the principle of separation of church and state is saying is that religious dogma shouldn't be the basis for laws. To do so without a secular purpose also means that the religion whose dogma is being turned into law is the recipient of special treatment above those religions whose dogma is contrary. Public policy should be able to stand on its own secular feet and not be propped up by religious dogma. (I would like to thank
rnrstar of the Secular Web for this statement.)
