Separation of Church and State: Undying Dispute

Gone are the days where people, side by side, are discussing vehemently and advocating rigorously about their stand on the separation of the church and the state. It was the RH law that ignited the candent feud between the adverse parties. The church, headed by Archbishop Luis Antionio Tagle voted and campaigned for the struck-down of the RH law in full swing. The topic on the RH law is like an epidemic that spread uncontrollably. It let most, if not all, the Filipino people to stop whatever they are doing just to hear the verdict of the court about its constitutionality.

Tracing back, R.A 10354 otherwise known as reproductive health (RH) started as House Bill 8110 then became House Bill 4110 which was filled by Representative Bennaflor Angara. This house bill will never be a law if not for the stern effort of Iloilo Rep Janette Garin, Akbayan representative Risa Hontiveros and Albay representative Edcel Lagman.  

If RH law according to Akbayan rep. Hontiveros is a tool against ignorance, one that causes death and exposes our youth to various risks then why did it receive a strong opposition from the church? The church stand is that RH law is anti-life.

Is not it mystifying that even in the adoption of Malolos Constitution it already guaranteed the separation of the church and the state and was since then passed until the present constitution? To wit: Article II, section 6, of the 1987 Constitution provides for the separation of the church and the state but the same principle is embedded under the non-establishment clause under article III.  I can deduce from that fact then that this separation has been there since time immemorial.

Yet is the state really free from the intervention of the church? I believe that the inaction of the congress for more than 10 years is a prima facie evidence to assume the answer to that question. The church dictates what the people should believe and it’s evident during the celebration of the mass where the priest homily consists of their stand regarding RH law. This mass tends to clout the decision of the people so where then is the separation guaranteed by the constitution? Using God’s name to stimulate the conscience of the people should not be the case. It is important to note that in Austria v. NLRC, the NLRC dismissed the pastor because he could not account for the church tithes and offerings collected by his wife. Aggrieved with the NLRC’s decision the pastor challenged the court’s jurisdiction claiming that the matter is an ecclesiastical affair so NLRC should not meddle. The court then ruled that the matter involve in the case is the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee so it is a pure labor case.

This case implies that even the church does not want the state to meddle with their affairs. Both the state and the church have only one goal and that is for the betterment of human’s life. Their ways might be different in achieving that goal but what is material is the fulfillment of such aspiration. To do so, the church should not meddle, directly or indirectly, with the affairs of the state while the state should accord respect and support to the Godly activities of the church.