Hundred Years of Meddling

Hundred Years of Meddling

“From the beginning men used God to justify the unjustifiable,”

The quote of Salman Rushdie speaks greatly how Catholicism was brought by the Spaniards to the Philippines. The Spaniards shoved and forced most of the native Filipinos to join and changed their beliefs and if they were not followed a corresponding punishment will be imposed. For hundreds of years the Spaniards successfully influenced the majority of the Filipinos and evident to that Catholicism is the religion of the majority.

The intertwined relationship of Catholicism and the Philippine government is very complex, ever since the clergies have used their powers to influence the government from their significant involvement in people power 1, the denial of some parts of reproductive health law and the censorship of arts. The holy men of Catholicism have continued to influence the rearing of laws in this country and they have successfully rallied to take down affairs which were offensive to their beliefs. The government of the Philippines had been shying away on activities that were unpleasant to the Catholics and other religious group; this flex of their muscles to the government is notable in violation of the constitution which states:

“The Separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

-Art II. Section 6, 1987 Constitution[1]

It is clear in the constitution that there must be a separation of church and state however the Catholic Church continues to exert influence to every laws and matters of this country. Evident to this assumption is the issue of censorship of the arts In the Philippines. Not long ago, an artist installed an art exhibited of various pictures and images of religious, political and pop culture icons. The scandal started from feature images of Jesus with dildos fixed to their collage surfaces, extending visibly outwards. [2]The Catholic Church found it offensive and after hours of the exhibit it was turned down. The censorship was condemned by many artist in the Philippines expressing fear of creative oppression.

Another notable meddling of the Catholic Church with regard to censorship was the pressure on the previous administration to Ban the movie “live show” which shows the lives of young men and women who perform sex onstage, it was vehemently opposed by the late Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and conservative political and religious leaders. [3] Eventually the movie was banned. This shows that a simple meddling of the Catholic Church over a controversy leads the state to change the way it runs its course just to accommodate and tame down the offended feelings of the clergies. 

The Constitution may have provisions over the separation of church and state but it is clear that there is no operation over it. As long as Philippines continues to label itself as a catholic country and even pride itself to be the only catholic country in the Southeast-Asia. The meddling and power play of the Catholic Church over significant social and political issues in the government will continue. It is not to say that the prying of the Catholic Church is not good at all for the country, let us remember it was the catholic church who embraced victims of martial law during the Marcos era but if the government continues to be influenced by any religious group it conveys a message of exclusion and premised on the belief that all persons are not created equal when it asserts that God prefers some. [4]Let the Catholic Church meddle their own internal affairs but not how the government should be run.

[1] Philippine Constitution

[2] http://www.interaksyon.com/article/10524/who-is-mideo-cruz-and-why-are-people-baying-for-his-head

[3] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/40285/artists-protest-censorship

[4] Lee v Weismann

Reproductive Health Law

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW

The Republic Act 10354 entitled An Act Providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health has been enacted last July 23, 2012, I consider this as one of the most controversial law that has been enacted. The church primarily the Roman Catholic strongly opposes its enactment; they believe that the bill is immoral, anti-family and anti-life due to the several provisions which allow the Filipino citizens to how have knowledge on having safe sex. One of their reasons is that “Artificial contraception eliminates the possibility of a pro-creative element," according to Monsignor Cuizon on the other hand, most feminist groups argue that reproductive choice is essential to authentic women's liberation and that this choice includes safe, available, affordable contraception.  When the law was passed it was then brought to the Court to test its constitutionality, it’s test includes the separation of the Church and the State. It was discussed the case of Imbong vs Ochoa, it specifically mentioned the Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution stating that, The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. The cases decided that 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.

This case explains further the limitations of the Church in the affairs of the government. The laws which it chooses to passed. The Church cannot dictate on how the government decide on the matters presented to it and on how it deals with its people as long as it is not unlawful and there are no rights which were violated it should continue executing the laws. In addition to that, I as a woman who is now at the right age to conceive and bear a child, I consider this Law as essential, basic and necessary information that married individuals or even teenagers should know. The knowledge on one specific thing does not necessarily involves its application, we take into consideration our own judgment meaning, even though we know how to do it, that does not mean that we will apply. For me, it is correct that every Filipino Citizen should have an access to this information and poverty should not be a hindrance to acquire it. I am not against the beliefs of the Church, my family and I are Roman Catholics, we believe in the sanctity of life and we have a strong faith in God, however there are cases wherein they have to widen our horizon specially on matters that deals with human beings. We all know that sexual intercourse is done for procreation but considering our generation, where sexual intercourse or mostly pre-marital sex is rampant and it inevitably includes unwanted pregnancy that leads to broken families, our government through is law making powers need to address this issue. We should also consider the numerous lives of those under-aged women whose dies because their bodies cannot endure the process of giving birth. If they have knowledge on how do it safely or that they are aware of consequences of sexual intercourse, I believe that they can be saved. The government has a very important role in our society, they have the responsibility of maintaining peace and order, economic stability and the satisfaction of its citizens, those things for me is a very difficult task and the government needs or cooperation and understanding. They need our broad minds to filter the correct and right issues to be raises and not the capricious one, so that they can spend their time on other important matters.

Church and State: Separate But Intertwined

Vatican City and Philippines are the only countries left in the world which do not grant divorce to its citizens.

Philippines is predominantly Catholic and the religious believes that marriage is sacred and having divorce law will destroy the sanctity of the sacred union between a man and a woman. Nevertheless, the Family Code provides for the annulment, declaration of nullity and legal separation which are granted strictly based on the grounds stipulated thereat.

Gabriela Women’s Party filed HB 1799, An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines way back 2005, they refiled it and HB 1799 has undergone revisions. Gabriela is set to refile it come 16^th Congress.

Divorce-Filipino style, in gist, allows those who have been separated for five years and those legally separated to two years to file for divorce. Thus, granting them the liberty and the capacity to remarry. The Catholic Church expressed their dismay about the want for divorce in the Philippines, nonetheless.

In retrospect, the Catholic Church stubbornly opposed the passing of the RH Bill (now RH Law) for being anti-life, anti-family, and because they do not favor the use of contraceptives. Here, they view divorce as destruction to the foundation of family- the marriage. It is another anti-family bill for them.

But a family and a marriage is already destroyed once the husband starts to inflict physical abuse to his children and his wife, is it not? Or when the other spouse starts to engage in extra-marital affairs, is it not? Perhaps, the only remedy they can resort to is legal separation, but then, there might be no chance for reconciliation.  Maybe, the spouses can invoke psychological incapacity which could be hurtful for both; or worst, they go under-the-table to get it over and done with.

Divorce is a ticket of spouses to marry their way out of a disastrous marriage that consumes them and takes away their liberty to enjoy a happy life. It is a right to liberty and beyond remarrying; it is simply to be free.

The common denominator amongst annulment, declaration of nullity, legal separation and divorce, is they all severe the marital bond. But for legal separation, the spouses are technically still married, however, the essence of marriage cease to exist.

The Constitution provides for the separation of the Church and the State. The twin clauses- establishment and free-exercise clause, intend to promote freedom and religious beliefs and practices, and to deny government the power to influence the same. And both desire to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution; and marriage as the foundation thereof. Nevertheless, both do not seem to share the same point of view as to how to protect and strengthen family and marriage.

In any case, who other than the spouses and their children can protect and strengthen their family but themselves.  Divorce is just another remedy; it is not a prima facie damage to the sacredness of marriage.

Philippines is a secular state and there is definitely freedom of religious beliefs and practices in the Philippines. Islam, a minority religion in the Philippines, allows male Muslims to engage in polygamous marriage and they allow divorce, too. Hence, just because Philippines is predominated by Catholics should not mean that divorce is no longer possible. There is not even a blanket prohibition to it. So, why can a Filipino-Muslim avail of divorce while the Filipino-non-Muslim cannot?

Should Clergymen Enter Politics?

There are Filipino politicians who decry the ‘intervention’ of Church leaders in Philippine politics. They always cite the Constitutional provision on the separation of Church and the State. But majority of politicians tolerate the political activities of some Church leaders, especially during election season. This is understandable since many Filipinos remain obedient to the teachings and instructions of religious leaders.[1]

As is the case in other parts of the world, there are increasingly more evangelical charismatic Christian organizations being established – which in the Philippines, naturally have political connections. Within the Catholic Church, there is El Shaddai, headed by Mike Velarde whose son Rene is a member of congress for the Buhay (“life”) Party List. On the Protestant side, there is Jesus is Lord (JIL) headed by Eddie Villanueva whose son Joel in turn served the maximum three terms as party list congressman and was appointed by the Aquino administration to head the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). “Bro. Eddie” himself has run repeatedly for president, though his vote percentage totals are always in the single digits[2]

The Iglesia Ni Cristo’s sphere of political influence is much revered by those who would like to have seats in the government. The group’s endorsement is also much awaited for during campaign period. According to Inquirer.net, on May 10, 2007, the Iglesia Ni Cristo “has a membership of at least two million — only a fifth of the 10 million required for a senatorial candidate to land in the winning circle of 12, but enough to provide a head start.” This ‘head start’ is an eye candy to politicians, enough even for presidential candidates to court the sect leader. They deem that whoever is given the blessings of the group’s executive minister, his seat in the government is assured.[3]

Thomas Jefferson was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and the third President of the United States (1801–1809)[4] explains that “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faith or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within the religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely necessary in a free society.” [5]

The main purpose of the church leaders is the soul winning, the clergyman sees his primary role as an evangelist, save souls and reach out the lost through witnessing, evangelism, visitations, and crusades.

                Clergyman has the passion for the area of worship, focus on the presence and power of God in worship and revival. He loves to be with the people by fellowshipping, caring and be like a family member in the community. His role of being a teacher and preacher completes his divine task in the church.

                On the other hand, it is not encouraging for the people seeing a clergyman in the middle of social and political issues. Though, he can have the so called “social conscience” like the prophet and reformer in the bible who wants to take the stand, do something for changes of the society. But to be like an activist or act like as liberal and do political process that tends to focus on the injustice of the society, then this will not be good and encouraging as Man of God to influence the community that He is serving.

The leadership of church and state should really be separated to avoid the influence of the Church leader to manipulate the Government just like the Spanish period in the Philippines all the priest are the one who is manipulating the Government. Clergymen should concentrate to serve the Lord with holiness. Unlike, if he is serving in the government he is prone to temptation like corruption, abuse of authority, immorality etc. because in the government or the political world, there is only evil or less evil, even though your intentions are good in running for politics but there will always be temptation

                I definitely in favor that clergymen must stay in his spiritual mission, bringing people closer to God and separate from social and political concern and issues. With these, His spiritual purpose will be achieved as God’s design and plan for him.

---

[1]Global Voice, See http://globalvoicesonline.org/2007/04/29/religion-and-philippine-elections/ 

[2] Weekly Insight and Analysis In Asia, See http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2012/02/29/religion-and-politics-mix-in-the-philippines/ 

[3] Iglesia Ni Cristo Wordpress, See http://iglesianicristo.wordpress.com/what-is-the-reality-behind-bloc-voting-of-inc-of-manalo/

[4] Wikipedia See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

[5] Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

“Too Much Charisma Would not be Helpful: State and Church Charismatic Intervention Relations”

States and laws did not sprout out from nowhere. Even such complex and controlling factor in the society has its origin and root of establishment. One of the theories that explains the construction and establishment of states and governments are said to be guided by the Divine Right Theory or Divine Right of Kings. The theory explains that the leaders and head of states are guided by a supreme being and they are from a divine origin [1]. It also considers the political and religious aspect of the establishment of states. Furthermore, the theory elaborates that a divine intervention is present in the administration of these said leaders. With relation to the theory of the origin of states, laws are formulated, created and implemented. One of the known origins of laws is the Natural Law. Rolando Suarez (2011) defined Natural Law as the force and authority coming from a supreme being [2]. Moreover, it is classified as the most supreme law of all due to its binding doctrine.  Given such origin of the two governing elements of the society, it is undeniably that both the state and the law have their divine sparks.

Asian, western and other roots of civilizations have first established their government or head through the guidance of their said religions. In the Philippines, before the Spaniards came and conquer the country, religion has been a contributing factor in the barangays. High-Priests serve as the right hand or political advisors of the barangay or village chiefs. Religious matters work closely with the mandates of the chiefs. Then came the reign of the Spaniards. The colonizers were successful in creating a central government and spreading the Catholic belief. The government and the church in that time had been using each other to advance their target plans [3]. The government uses the church in order to connect with the people and to organize them, while the church uses the government in providing ordinances and laws that would benefit itself. Both entities acted to enrich their own institutions through the guidance and usage of each other but it proved their close relations [4]. However, such drive had subsided when the Americans came to replace the Spanish regime. The government and its new legislators had suppressed the connection of the church with the state. They acknowledge such external factor to be irrelevant in advancing what is proper and just for the governization of the country. Furthermore, they consider it as an entity that would provide biases and irregularities in the government.

It was the innovation of the Americans that established and created the wall that separates the church and state relations. However, the charisma and control of the church Is still considerably an important factor in the politics, government and nation [5]. Due to some church activities, protests had been successful, people that are not well recognized by the government get recognition, clergymen had entered politics, they had been a game changer in the elections and lastly, they had been a subtle controlling factor in the moral activities and actions of the said leaders of the country.

From candidate endorsements to block voting and to winning positions, a religious movement could put you in power in just the proper cooperation of their members. When a person who is aiming for power started campaigning with blessing of a certain religious movement, that person would surely look saint-like and fresh to the public which would probably help grow supporters. While getting a block vote from a congregation would definitely be a game changer to the level of competence of winning the election. With such combination, a person representing a certain religious movement could win any election. Thus, explaining the outstanding contribution and control that could religion and religious persons bring to the political-arena.

It is clearly stated to the following constitutional provisions that the church or any religious entity should be separated and not be favored by the government and letting clergymen enter politics would diminish the said separation. These provisions support such grounds:

Aricle II, Section 6, 1987 Constitution

“The Separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

Given the history of the actions brought by the church in the government, the constitution clearly states that these two powerful and influencing communities of power should be separated and do not overlap each other in order to avoid biases and interference in their movement.

Article III, Section 5, 1987 Constitution

“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 political rights.”

Explaining the circumstance of separation of the church and state, the state still protects the attendees, practitioners and believers of the church or other religious movements. The state acknowledges the freedom of exercise and enjoyment of religious rights and activities without any hindrance and confinement of their belief.

Article IX, C, Section 2 (5), 1987 Constitution

“Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered as a political party, organization or coalition, by the COMELEC.”

and

Article VI, Section 5 (2), 1987 Constitution

“One-half of the seats allocated to the party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.” It is well acknowledge that the church other religious entities are controlling and influencing factors of the society of the country, to avoid too much interference of it to the field of politics, the state does not allow any church or religious sects to be registered as a political party.

Presenting these parts of the constitution, it clearly implies and explains that the state strongly separates church affairs with the state affairs. With the current activity of clergymen in participating in politics would surely defeat the purpose of the following provisions. Moreover, it will greatly diminish the grounds that separate both. There had been no issues regarding moral advocates entering politics to serve his fellow countrymen, however, the essence of independency of both institutions would surely be put on an unequal ground. One might over power one or it may severe or limit the other.

____________________________________

[1], [2] Suarez, R. (2013). Introduction to Law. Manila: Rex.

[3], [4] Agoncillo, T. (1990). History of the Filipino People. Manila: Garotech.

[5] Zaide, S. (1994). Philippine History and Government. Manila: All Nations Pub. Co.

The Pulpit’s Influence to Governance

The framers of the 1987 Constitution made it clear the stance of the people with regard to the separation of Church and State. Article II Section 6 provides “The Separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” 

The dichotomy of religion and government until now remains to be a topic of debate with the goal of clarifying to what extent the Church’s hands can reach in running the affairs of the state. The church particularly the dominant Catholic Church has its unequivocal position in most of of the pressing issues of the country. Name it - be it about corruption, elections, poverty, agrarian reform, legislation, criminality and judiciary among others. The voice of domineering church leaders is often given an attentive ear not only by the decision makers but also of the media and the people in general.

In every day that national concerns are scrutinized, the people are divided with the subject about church dipping its fingers in certain issues. Let us recall those days of the heated debate about the death penalty, or perhaps the Reproductive Health Care Bill which is now a law. The influence of the church occupies chapters in our history books. For one, I have no idea if EDSA could have succeeded if not of Cardinal Sin calling the people to rally behind Enrile and Ramos. Such call resulted to the ouster of a dictatorial regime.

On the contrary, going against the beliefs of the church is an uphill battle. It is a tough struggle for leaders in government when they need to go against the position of the church, especially those that are not popular, and advance the programs and strategies what they ought most appropriate.  For instance, the late Senator Juan Flavier was castigated by the might of the Catholic leadership as he advocated for the use of contraceptives. The laity even campaigned against his senatorial candidacy. This is among the battles where the church lost is magnificence. 

Retired Bishop Oscar Cruz said, “The Church has no option but to correct what is wrong, to denounce what is vicious, to proclaim what is righteous—even in politics, even among politicians.” The barometer of righteousness is another contentious topic nonetheless. 

During campaign season, political leaders kneel before the hierarchy of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) which literally releases a list of who to vote for, both in the national and local elective positions to their believers. Getting INC’s endorsement is a make or break political weapon. Defeat is imminent even to the most deserving, competent and ethical candidates should they fail to get INC’s backing. After elections, the dominion of the endorsement of this group will evidently be seen based on the names of political appointees placed in positions of power.

The coming of no less than Pope Francis next month will be a spectacular manifestation of the influence of the church. Slanting of policies to satisfy the demands of the church is anticipated. Nonetheless, there are compelling issues of national significance where the influence of the church becomes very essential. The endorsement of church leaders expedites policy-making and institutionalization of corresponding measures. 

We may agree or disagree on these realities. But one thing is undeniable – the might of the pulpit has a significant influence in governance.

A Precursor to EDCA

I was still young when the US Naval Base in Olongapo and US Air Force Base in Clark Pampanga were closed and its administration were transferred to the government of the Philippines. It was an important milestone to Philippine in the international arena. With big pride and conviction, we were able to tell the world that we are independent, we can stand on our own, we are not anymore a colony of Uncle Sam and our sovereignty is absolute and unqualified.

However, six years later, we resume that close military ties with Uncle Sam, the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) was signed, and US militaries again frequently visited our country to take part on various military operations. The VFA also outlined the other different benefits and special treatment of Filipinos visiting the United States. This is not just a regressive move to our direction to minimize Uncle Sam’s tremendous influence on every aspect of Filipino life, but a red flag to the international community that our government, and our country, is not equipped enough to defend its sovereignty.

The VFA’s adverse effect to Filipino social norms may not be quite imminent, but the various crimes, tragedies and discrimination complaints that indirectly implicated US military officers, which until now not any one US military officer has been convicted, clearly signifies that the VFA serves as blankets to the illegality and immorality being done by some US military officers.Now, another military agreement has been signed between the Philippines and United States – the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreemet or the EDCA.

According to the Philippine government’s website, the EDCA is an agreement between the Philippines and the United States which is envisioned to advance the implementation of the Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). In addition to the current Balikatan exercise, joint humanitarian efforts and undertaking disaster relief operations, EDCA is aimed to undertake additional cooperation by way of (1) Construction of facilities and infrastructure upgrades; and (2) Storage and re-positioning of defense and HADR equipment, supplies and material.

Now, only few people are questioning the substance of its provisions. More attention has been given to strike out EDCA for being unconstitutional upon its enactment. Protagonists of this agreement alleged that the President committed an impeachable offense by approving a treaty agreement with a foreign body that indirectly aimed in establishing foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the Philippines. The previously mentioned acts is in violation of Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

The EDCA, how noble may be its purpose, is highly susceptible to abuse. The government may have been induced to enter into this agreement to avail of the US protection against the Chinese government on the disputed islands. But the end, does not justify the means.

In view of the recent events, coolness and nationalism should prevail. How balanced and reciprocal may be the provisions of bilateral agreements, one party should gain more benefit with the other. Constitutionalists, members of the Congress, the Judiciary and the executive department should work hand-in-hand to give our country the most beneficial side without resorting to downgrading Filipino pride and infringing individual rights.