Separation of Church and State: Absolute Rule or Not?

In the Philippines, the church is a pre-dominant interest group. It wields great influence in society and politics. Although our Constitution provides separation between church and state, its interference with the state is still apparent. The oppossition made by the church with regard to the enactment of Reproduction Health (RH) Bill, the block voting of Iglesia ni Cristo in favor of some candidates during elections, and the running for some public positions of religious leaders are some of the instances that shows the breach of separation between church and state.

Is the separation provided by the Constitution absolute?

Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that:

"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."

Based on the above provision, we can conclude that the Constitution specifies two main point governing the relation between the state and religion. First, there should be an estalishment provision which prohibits the establishment of religion. In other words, all religions should be equal in the eyes of the law. Second, religious freedom is guaranteed and protected. The principle of religious freedom is protected by preventing oppression by the government.

The Supreme Court ruling in 2003 and 2006 in the case of Estrada vs Escritor established the Doctrine of Benevolent Nuetrality. Under this doctrine, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the government's favoritism in one religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance.

Therefore, Article II, Section 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which declares that the separation and state shall be inviolable is not an absolute rule. One exemption of this is the ruling in Estada vs. Escritor. Maybe that's the reason why the law-makers decided to put the said provision under Article II of the Constitution which is not self-executing. It cannot be enforced immediately without the aid of legislation intended to make it operative.