We are living in a heterogeneous
society where people’s beliefs and ideologies create a border line between the
two clusters. One of the classic example is the government and the church. The
1987 Constitution has preserved the old law including the principle that “The
separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” An additional sentence to
read, “The State, however, welcomes the cooperation of the church and religious
bodies to promote the well-being of its citizens,” was rejected on the argument
that, even if salutary on its face, the language could be taken as an unnecessary
if not dangerous invitation to excessive entanglement of church with state and vice versa. (1) This value rooted from the arrival of the
constitutional system of the United States in the Philippines when the denial
to the Catholic church under the Spanish dominion happened. However, the framers
of the Constitution strongly believed that there should be a hedge so that the
State will not encroach to the religious affairs of the church and the church
to the political activities of the government.
One point to ponder is the divorce bill
in the Philippines. This is introduced by the Gabriela Women’s Party but I
think it will be impossible to be accepted in our country. Not just because of
the Catholic church opposing it but due to the fact that Filipinos are
religious in nature and that marriage is consecrated. Marriage is a permanent union
of a man and a woman that should not be ruined. Although there is annulment and
legal separation provided in our Civil Code, the total demolishment of marriage
is discouraged. And also because of the close-knit relationship of Filipino
families and if there will be divorce, many believe that this will be an avenue
in wrecking the family which is respected and protected by the Constitution.
The RH Law in which the State and the
Church totally clashed. The anti-RH law noted that while it attempts to address
religious sentiments by making provisions for a conscientious objector, the constitution
guarantee is nonetheless violated because the law also imposes upon the conscientious
objector the duty to refer the patient seeking reproductive health services to
another medical practitioner who would be able to provide for the patient’s
needs. For them, this amounts to requiring the conscientious objector to
cooperate with the very thing he refuses to do without violating his/her religious
beliefs. While, the pro-RH Law stated that the assailed law only seeks to
guarantee informed choice, which is an assurance that no one will be compelled
to violate his religion against his free will. The conflict in this
controversial law is very transparent where the anti-RH are mostly from the
Catholic Church and religious people and the pro-RH are in the government.
Verily, the principle of separation of
Church and State is based on mutual respect. Generally, the State cannot meddle
in the internal affairs of the church, much less question its faith and dogmas
or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion and discriminate against
another. On the other hand, the church cannot impose its beliefs and
convictions on the State and the rest of the citizenry. It cannot demand that
the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they are good
for the country. (2)
No comments:
Post a Comment