Arrogant abuse of rights

The hottest topic nowadays is of course the inviolability of the “separation of Church and State” which is one of the underlying principles of our Constitution (Section 6, Article II). This principle came into the limelight once more during the four-day rally of the dissension-racked church, Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) which began last Thursday, August 27, at the Department of Justice (DOJ) Building in Padre Faura Manila. Members of the INC carrying placards calling for “separation of church and state” trooped to the DOJ office when the DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima took cognizance of the criminal charges for harassment, illegal detention, threats and coercion filed by expelled minister Isaias Samson Jr. and his family against several leaders of said church.

In invoking this principle and staging such rally, the INC and its members are in effect pressuring the State or the Government to keep off what they consider as a purely internal affair of their church by not taking cognizance of the criminal complaints filed by its ex-minister against the leaders of its highest Council called Sandiganbayan. Apparently, the INC is using this principle as a means to extricate its leaders from any liability for the said criminal charges which are supposedly mere “disciplinary actions” imposed on one of its erring ministers. Are they correct in doing so? Or is this not an arrogant abuse of right?

It must be pointed out in this regard, that the inviolability of the separation of church and state is more specifically embodied in Article III, Section 5 of our Constitution decreeing that “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 be forever allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

Under this provision therefore, it is quite clear that: (1) “Neither a State or Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another…Neither can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa (Board of Education vs. Everson, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16). Thus this is called the “non establishment clause”; and (2) “Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law.” There must be “freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but in the nature of things, the second cannot be” (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-4).

Thus pursuant to (1) above which is known as the “non establishment clause,” “No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly. For the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces, to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium” (Article VI Section 29 [2] Constitution).

Religious denominations or sects cannot also be registered as political parties (Article IX C Section 2[5]).

The second clause which is also known as the “free exercise clause” means that “Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs” (United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S 78, 86). “The moment, however, belief flows over into action, it becomes subject to government regulation… Whilst legislation for the establishment of religion is forbidden, and its free exercise is permitted, it does not follow that everything which may be so called can be tolerated. Crime is not the less odious, because it is sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion” (Davis vs Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 345). “Whether an act is immoral within the meaning of a statute is not to be determined by the accused’s concept of immorality. Congress has provided the standard. The offense is complete if the accused intended to perform, and did in fact perform the act which the statute condemns” (Cleveland vs. United States 329 U.S. 14, 20).

Obviously the INC is invoking the second or “free exercise” clause of our Constitution (Article III Section 5) in pressuring our government particularly the DOJ to refrain from conducting a preliminary investigation of the charges filed by its expelled minister Samson and his family. However, it is quite clear and undeniable that these charges consisting of harassment, illegal detention, threats and coercion are crimes punishable by our laws especially the Revised Penal Code. So following the established US jurisprudence on the meaning of this clause which is enshrined in our Constitution, the INC is quite wrong in using this free exercise clause. It cannot invoke its freedom to act on its belief because Congress has already determined that those acts constitute crimes punishable by our laws.

On the contrary, it can even be said that by staging the four day rally first at the DOJ complex and then at the traffic- congested thoroughfare like EDSA, causing so much inconvenience to the rest of our countrymen, INC is the one which has violated this principle of inviolability of church and state separation. It has obviously interfered into the role and function of the government to conduct a preliminary investigation of the charges to determine whether there is probable cause to file a criminal complaint in court against those charged with said crimes. Its moves are definitely in derogation of our basic law and constitute arrogant abuse of rights. The government should not have entered into any deal with its leaders regarding the prosecution of these cases, as they are now claiming.

* * *

Email: [email protected]