It's More PUN in the Philippines

Philippines, the Pearl of the Orient Seas, a paradise composed of beautiful 7,107 islands which are all endowed with rich natural resources that other countries are envied of. A country consistently in the top 10 happy countries in Happy Planet Index and top 10 gender balanced countries. 

Philippines, a country ranked 117^th in Human Development Index, 122^nd in Press Freedom, 138^th in Cost of Doing Business, among the top 10 most corrupt countries and poor healthcare.

Above statements characterized the two sides of our country. Why does a tropical country like the Philippines, endowed with all resources a certain country can ever dream of do not perform well in international arena? Anyare? (What have gone wrong?)

Economist have tried so hard for centuries to explain relationships between a country’s geographical, climatic and ecological condition with its economic status. This give rise to the emergence of economic geography, which is the study of distribution, location and spatial organization of economic activities around the world.

One of the most famous, and highly criticized, theory under this new field of study is the concept of “climatic determinism” or sometimes called the “equatorial paradox”. Under this concept, about 70% of the economic development of a country can be predicted from the distance between that country and the equator. In other words, the further from the equator the more developed a country tends to be. Example of most developed countries under this theory are the European countries, the United States, Japan and Australia. While Indonesia, Central Africa, Central America, and Philippines, which is only 13^o 00’ North of the equator are among those poor or developing countries under this concept.

The foregoing elucidation may be lame, but this somehow provide solace to those who have done nothing to this country other than exploitations and scandals. In the words of George Foreman, a country’s greatest asset is the integrity of its people. We may all have the resources in the world but without good and upright people who will utilize these resources in its full capacity, this rich resources will be put to waste. A country without dignified and trusted people then is doomed to fail.

Our ever-dearest Philippines, so beautiful yet so naïve, has frequently been the laughing stock of other countries. The pork-barrel fund, South China Sea conflict, Former President Estrada’s punch lines, Former President Arroyo and Noynoy Aquino’s internet memes, corruption and unconventional behavior of public officials - these are all clear testaments of these puns and bullying.

In terms of international popularity, Philippine corruption competes with the Philippine beaches, crocodiles and pigs in Philippine Congress contend with Lolong’s relatives and Philippine wild pigs, and the Philippines scenic landscapes are overshadowed with the dark ether of evil politicians.

With the above ugly truth, I cannot proudly say that it is more fun in the Philippines, more pun may be.

A Government of Religion

It has been said that if you are good in personal relations and public speaking, and you want to be instantly rich, religion will be your best profession - and surely you will be damn good rich.

The Philippine 1987 Constitution provides for the separation of Church and State and the respect for the inviolable right to religion. However this very thin line separating these two influential powers are sometimes grayed out.

The Court states in Estrada vs. Escritor that our Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests.

As such, unlike the other rights embodied in the Constitution which provides for the strict scrutiny test, the test required to evaluate if there is an infringement to the right to religion is very lenient and more or less similar with the void for vagueness test on infringement of freedom of speech.

Under the compelling state interest test, in order for a certain act to be considered as violation of religious right, it is essential that the government be given an opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing the persons position that his act is not immoral and punishable as it is within scope of free exercise protection. 

All of us do not have the same competence as judges of the Supreme Court. We are not that analytical to rationalize every now and then our every move and the actions of the Church of State, checking if our religious right has been infringe and if there is crossing of boundaries. We just continue allowing ourselves to continue to experience the clash between these two great bodies as regards critical national matters.

We have the Reproductive Health Bill, which until now the Church continually attacks, even though our High Court already promulgated its decision that only portion of the RH Law is unconstitutional. Also, the show of strength of major religious affiliations such as the Iglesia ni Cristo, El Shaddai and Jesus is Lord Movement are displayed prominently to influence the political climate of our country. Lastly, we have the upcoming visit of the Roman Catholic Pope where local government units and prospective electoral candidates are recently leveraging to boost their hype for the upcoming elections.

Religion and State, no matter how we try to separate them, will always have a common ground. These two, though always collide, sometimes complement each other. The era of very intimate relationship between Religion and State has long been gone. At the present time, there are more clashes than compliments. The medieval era of religious dominance may not be any more imminent but still the influence of religion in our daily life is still significant and unavailing. Anyway, we cannot deny the fact that our country has been founded upon by religion.

Freedom of Religion v. Compelling State Interest

The legal principle on separation of church and state was enunciated in Section 6, Article II of the 1987 Constitution which states, “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

This concept was expounded when the clause on free exercise and non-establishment of religion were written under Section 5, Article III of the Bill of Rights, which reads:

“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.”

By reading the above provisions, one can only surmise a strict disjunction between the church and state – the citizen’s exercise of freedom of religion and the state’s declaration of policies towards attainment of its secular goals. One may, therefore, argue that a citizen shall follow the mandate of the laws enforced by the state regardless of that person’s religious beliefs. As such, an act which is illegal should be penalized, albeit its legitimacy from a religious perspective.

 
In Estrada v. Escritor, however, the Court ruled that Escritor, a court interpreter could not be dismissed from the government service for disgraceful and immoral conduct of living in with another married man on the basis of a valid exercise of her freedom of religion.
 
A question may thus be asked, “Does the Court in this case legalize live-in relationships between two married persons in the guise of religious freedom?” The answer is definitely “No”.
 
The Court has explained in its ruling that a balance must be reached between a person’s religious freedom and compelling state interest. Recognizing the religious nature of Filipinos and the elevating influence of religion in society, the Philippine constitution’s religion clauses prescribe not a strict, but a benevolent neutrality.
 
Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interest.
 
Hence, the general rule still prevails that the separation of church and state is inviolable. The people should abide by the laws dictated by the state regardless of his religious beliefs. The only exception thus far is the established doctrine in Estrada v. Escritor on the basis of a valid exercise of the Constitutional right on freedom of religion.

Separation of Church and State

Under the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, the church cannot interfere with the affairs of the state and vice versa. 

Is there really a need to separate the affairs of the church from that of the state ? What are the effects of this separation in our country? What if there is no separation of church and state? Will the leaders of any religion turn a verse from the Bible into a law? Isn't that complicated ? Or not? 

In my own opinion there should be a partial separation between the two. Partial, meaning we should give limitations or rules on how the church may interfere with the state's affairs . Our church should guide the people with their rights. Remember the Death Penalty? Death penalty was abolished because the church interfere with its implementation. The church believes that we are all entitled to live. 

And now, the RH Bill. In this issue, the church should not intrude. For the state's intention in making this bill is to have a free access to methods of contraception , fertitlity control, sexual education and maternal control. The state see this bill as a solution in our growing population. For me, there is nothing wrong about it. The RH Bill gives us the right to make a decision with regards to family planning. What is wrong about that? Why is the church against the RH Bill? Is it because it is against the norm that a man and a woman should procreate? 

See? There are some issues that we need the guidance of the church but at the same time , there are also issues that they should not intrude. Why ? Because there are things that the state and church see differently, diffent belief , different insights. 

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.

Church and State

            It has often been stated that the Philippine Constitution has built an inviolable wall of separation between the Church and the State, so as to ensure that religion and politics do not mix and impede upon each other. Our Constitution in its preamble implored “the aid of the Almighty God.” It accepts the principle of the “free exercise of religion” which means the freedom to believe and the freedom to act based on one’s belief. The Constitution is emphatic in guaranteeing religious liberty which assures that no person or religious organization would be molested, coerced, penalized or discriminated against on account of religious belief. It follows that religious profession and worship are forever allowed, and therefore no law shall be passed that will diminish or destroy religious freedom. Article II, Section 6 “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” Article III, Section5 “ 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.”

            But we can never deny the huge influence of religion in Philippine politics, the independent Christian church, Iglesia ni Cristo, the Catholic Charismatic church El Shaddai and the Jesus is Lord, Born-again church are among the religious groups that spheres political influence that is much revered by those who would like to have a seat in the government, these groups are considered as a major political force since its members have been voting as one block. They have millions of members which consist a huge percentage of the voting population, this could give them 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. Roman Catholic involvement in politics is equally well-known, with the most famous example being Cardinal Jaime Sin calling on Filipinos to go out in 1986 to join military rebels at EDSA at the beginning of the People Power Revolution that ousted the authoritarian President Ferdinand Marcos. Being a Catholic country, Special laws ea RH bill, Divorce, Same Sex Marriage etc. always considers the approval of the church, whether it falls under their morals and beliefs is relevant.

            Religion is a freedom of self. It is something personal, not something that controls a vast majority of population. Established law can adapt overtime to suit the situation. However, divine law cannot be challenged. Therefore separation between church and state must exist

The Clash of the State and the Church

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⁾

(1)   Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2009 Edition, pp. 328

(2)   G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014