Church and State separation

The wall separating the Church and State appears to be in constant motion, either narrowing or widening the yards of the two "good" neighbors. Its exact location has not been permanently fixed and definitely established simply because different persons have varying points of view as to where it has been put up. Or some just cannot see where the wall stands in the country’s landscape due to a vision blurred by narrow-mindedness. Thus even an innocent and solicitous admonition from the Roman Catholic Cardinal Jaime Sin encouraging, for the country’s sake, qualified Filipinos including President GMA to run for President in 2004, has been viewed as a breach of that wall which obviously has been pushed back to restrict the sphere of the Church influence.

The doctrine of separation of Church and State however operates more as a restriction on the powers of the State or the government than on the Church. When the Constitution says that the "separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable"(Section 6,Art. II), it basically and principally means that "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as provided in Section 5, Article III of the "Bill of Rights". The incorporation of this doctrine in the Bill of Rights is the best argument supporting the view that it is more of a limitation on State or governmental power. For the main role of the Bill of Rights is precisely to define the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual and to impose limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing those rights.

Section 5 of the Bill of Rights has two essential parts according to noted constitutionalist, writer and dean of the Ateneo Law School, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.; the non-establishment of religion clause and the free exercise of religion clause.

The non-establishment clause prohibits the State from setting up a church, passing laws which aid one religion, or all religions, or prefer one religion over another, and from participating openly or directly in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa (Board of Education vs. Everson 330 U.S. 1,15-16). According to Fr. Bernas again, this clause seeks to foster the growth of religious sect as a social force by the voluntary support of its members based on the belief that "both spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without the benefit of official patronage". This principle is known as voluntarism which can be achieved only if the political process is insulated from religion, and religion from politics. Thus, our Constitution also prohibits the registration of religious sects and denominations as political parties(Sec 2[5] Art. IX-C) and excludes the religious sector in the allocation of party-list representatives for the lower house( Section 5[2] Art.VI).

The free exercise of religion on the other hand embraces the absolute freedom to believe and the limited freedom to act on ones belief. This means that the law cannot restrict the freedom of conscience and the freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose. Primarily therefore this clause protects the inviolability of human conscience which the non-establishment clause likewise protects. Hence the second sentence of Art III section 5 provides further that "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 the moment "belief flows into action" it becomes subject to government regulation especially if it is destructive to society or constitutes an offense which the statute condemns. Thus, for example "crime (polygamy) is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion" (Davis vs. Beason 133 U.S. 333, 345). Or the death of a boy in a prayer healing session of a particular cult does not exempt members involved from criminal liability simply because of their religious belief (People of the Philippines vs. Caranca G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001).

But behind any viewpoint on the Church-State separation is the unalterable truth that every human activity is necessarily connected to man’s ultimate end reaching far above his worldly physical existence and encompassing his spiritual relationship with his Creator, the Supreme Being. The State itself recognizes this truth in the very preamble of our charter that seeks the intervention of the "Almighty God" in order to build a just and humane society...and secure for ourselves and our posterity a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love equality and peace" So even purely temporal matters that disrupt man’s relation with God and harm the common good as they transgress the natural law or divine precepts, are within the ambit of Church concerns. The wall of separation should not be built along this perimeter as to render the Church liable for breach of Church-State separation. After all, that wall serves to limit the power of the State more than the Church.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]