Dianne Bernadeth S.

Cos-agon
1-D
06 February 2015

Separation of
Church and State
THE POPE'S VISIT: IS IT A VIOLATION OF THE RULE?
The church and the state are two distinct and independent institutions most respected and
highly regarded. Of the few known religions in the Philippines, the Roman Catholic Church has
dominated the figure of which it has got some 85% of the total population. This research is up to
point out some misinterpretations and vague declarations other good people have coined from
the clause stated above. Whatever religion we belong, the 'church' here pertains to the general
religious group and not just to one particular group. This paper shall enlighten everyone of the
great participation and influence the church got to the affairs of the government and vice versa
and find out if there really is violation committed along the inviolability of each institution.

INTRODUCTION
In the olden days, the Filipinos are known of their indigenous rituals composed of
chanted prayers, songs and offering presents to appease the Gods. The people has established
their community and their way of living according to their strength, intelligence and wealth and
has acknowledged the presence of God in their midst. Leadership had been entwined with
godliness as they believed of the existence of supernatural abilities that aid in them in their
command.
Then came the emergence of Islam from Indonesia. The close contacts with the traders
of such belief had strengthened the existence of Islam in the South that when the Spaniards came
and imposed Catholicism, Islam had remained strong in only a secluded part of the nation. The
coming of the Spaniards has established settlements and political unity so as to have full control
of the colonized country. Spain was able to exert power and convert the majority of the people
to practice Christianity while the Muslims remained in the regions of Mindanao and Sulu. The
christened Filipinos remained in communities accentuating their lives with religious activities
and all other traditional religious ceremonies.
Though the Spanish were able to maintain the Islamic region, they were never able to
dominate them, which is the cause of religious strife between the Christians and Muslims today.
The Spanish colonization of the Philippines established Catholicism as the religion of the
majority and emphasized its importance through political power. Even when American forces
gained control and imposed Protestant denominations of Christianity, the influence of
Catholicism outlasted the American occupation.

Though American religion was not very influential, American political methods were
successful in that they created a constitution for the Philippines in 1935. Article Three of this
Constitution denoted the Bill of Rights and included the people's rights to religion. Art. III, Sec.
1.7 No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, and 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.
Article Six further established standards of government spending in regards to supporting
any religious establishments:
Art. VI, Sec. 23.3 No public money, or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or
used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution or system of religion, for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher,
ministers, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such except when such priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage or
leprosarium.
These legal provisions were adapted even in the present 1987 Constitution. They
establish freedom of religion without required worship or commitment of any kind. They also
establish separation of church and state by forbidding any admittance of religious affiliation
when initiated into political employment. This mimics the Constitution of the United States in
the attempt to create a democratic nation.
The phrase had been interpreted differently in many separate instances. It has triggered
many wise men to come up with the most appropriate interpretations with the most qualified
substantiation. The relationship of the 2 institutions has become extremely controversial and has
ignited debates all over the globe. In an article by Atty. Ma. Conception Noche, she established
the notion that the Church and the State, as they are, are distinct societies with different purposes
for beingone, for the spiritual ends of man, the other, for the earthly and material well-being of
man. Each serves different needs for the same human being who is a member of both societies at
the same time. Both, however, aim at achieving the common good of the human community.
Further, she notes that those who believe in strict separation are hard put to explain why
there are prayers in court and the legislatures, oaths that end so help me God, legal holidays to
observe religious practices, etc., as well as other constitutional arrangements regarding Church
and State relations.
To point out further, the Philippine 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 ones 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.
Similarly, on another article written by U.P. Professor Florin Hilbays Paper that was
published in a broadsheet on June 7, 2012, he stressed that what the Constitution says on the
Page 2 of 5

principle of separation is, One, the State cannot establish a national religion, and Two, the State
cannot interfere in the free exercise of religious belief of its citizens.
To simplistically interpret this principle to mean that religion is abhorrence to good
governance is to fail to understand that the function of the State is to serve the well-being of its
citizens. Man is made up of body and soul, and the Constitution acknowledges this spiritual
orientation of man when it mandates that the State should not violate the religious belief of its
citizens. This is so because religious belief is essentially part of a citizens perception of his well
being.

IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE

STATE WITH THE POPE'S VISIT?
The unending participation of the CBCP in the affairs of the supposedly government
from one activity to the other drives people to angrily invoke Article II Section 6 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. But as tempers
cool down and rationality takes over, one begins to wonder if the CBCP or any other religious
group is indeed violating this rule.
In an article by one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, Dean Emiritus of Ateneo
Law School and amicus curiae Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.. He he says:
It is sometimes thought by some that separation of church and state means that
church people should not get involved in the hurly-burly of public and political
life. In other words, they should confine themselves to the sacristy. But to
understand the subject properly one must begin with what the Constitution says.
The constitutional command says: No law shall be passed respecting an
establishment of religion
There is no religion established by the government. Is there? And on other parts of the article
he wrote:
That is the separation part of the constitutional command. The other part is the
free exercise clause. Both are embodied in one sentence which says: No law
shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.
the negative command of the Constitution is addressed not to bishops or priests
but to the state and those who exercise state authority. As to bishops and priests,
the pertinent part of the constitutional command is the guarantee of the free
exercise of religion.
It does therefore make sense. The command was for the State, not the Church, and it is
the former that seems to be violating this command by giving weight to what the latter dictates,
as can be seen from the following statement of Fr. Bernas:
Page 3 of 5

The fundamental meaning of the clause is the prohibition imposed on the state not
to establish any religion as the official state religion.
Of course, the state hasnt really declared Roman Catholicism as the official state religion
just the official consultant on issues and policies that affect all Filipinos, Catholics and nonCatholics alike. Fr. Bernas explains:
The constitutional command, however, is more than just the prohibition of a state
religion. That is the minimal meaning. Jurisprudence has expanded it to mean
that the state may not pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefer one religion over another.
So it seems that we freethinkers have been barking up the wrong tree all along. While
weve been making noise about the Churchs meddling, it is actually the State we should be
blaming. (Besides, it is the Churchs moral obligation to meddle and try to impose its dogma.)
But the State is highly influenced by the Church, and we cant touch the Church since it
is merely exercising freedom of religion. The picture says it all. While there seems to be a wall
of separation between Church and State, God is straddling that wall.
Now, on the question, was there really a violation of the said clause with the visitation of
the Pope? I can't see any violation with that since the coming of the pope paved way for a more
apparent moral transformation of the people and has strengthened the belief they keep. If the
church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church as the Pope is of that denomination did violate
the mandate of the Consitution, then how would we call the INCs in their support to the RH Bill?
In an article by Carlos A. Palad, he said that while defending the RH Bill, Rep. Janette Garin said
that the opinion and support of the Iglesia ni Cristo is important for the Bill. It is clear that these
people, the proponents, do not really care about the so-called principle of Separation of Church
and State. What they simply want is to terrorize the Catholic Church and make it comply with
their beliefs. To this end, they will support a church that does what they themselves will consider
as meddling if that church supports them. Thus, they praise the INC, with its legendary animus
against Catholicism and its reliable support for artificial contraception.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Philippines has had a long lasting democracy that is directly related to
the fact it assures its people freedom to worship and practice religion. While Section 6, Art. II of
the 1987 Constitution provides that " The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable",
since it is found under the declaration of State Principles and Policies, it is not a self-executing
provision. It simply serves as a guide for the lawmakers on the laws they create, and it does not
amount to enforceable rights.
Indeed, there is a separation of church and state but each Filipino, as guaranteed under
Sections 5 and 8 of Art III, has the right to freely exercise his freedom of religion and of
association. It's the government's duty that these rights are not violated and ensure that Filipinos
will exercise them peacefully and orderly. During the papal visit, the government did not favor
Page 4 of 5

or did not protect any religion. It merely protected the Filipinos who are exercising those rights.
Spending for the protection of a person who happens to be a Roman Catholic does not
necessarily connote that the expenses were made for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church.
The expenses made for the preparation for the papal visit is not enough to say that the
government has violated the separation rule since numbers denote that 8 out of 10 Filipinos are
Roman Catholics. The government is justified in spending for the preparations so as to ensure
that no one will be harmed since a mishandling of a very large crowd would mean chaos.
It is clear that while the papal visit may be said to be inseparably linked with an event of
a religious character, the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the Roman Catholic Church,
was not the aim and purpose of the government. As held in Gregorio Aglipay vs Juan Ruiz,
G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937, the government should not be embarrassed in its activities
simply because of incidental results, more or less religious in character. The main purpose of the
government is to protect those who are exercising their freedom of religion and of association, a
purpose which should not be frustrated by incidental results not contemplated.

Page 5 of 5