The Role of the Church in Politics: A Legal Approach
With the Philippine Elections nearing, several members of the clergy have once again become vocal in politics, particularly on certain issues and on certain candidates. And as expected, many Filipinos once again start to criticize these moves, invoking the so-called “Separation of Church and State”. Little did they know that this Constitutional doctrine is what makes the Church vocal. The Church requires its members to be vocal regarding politics, especially when morality and intrinsically evil acts are being dealt with, and this is allowed by Philippine Law.
“Hoc ius personae humanae ad libertatem religiosam in iuridica societatis ordinatione ita est agnoscendum, ut ius civile evadat” (Dignitatis Humanae 2)
1. Separation of Church and State
The doctrine on the Separation of Church and State can be found in Article 2 Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, stating: “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” This principle is expounded in Article 3 Section 5:
“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.”
The first part of this provision (“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion….”) is the “Establishment Clause” while the second part (“The free exercise…of religious profession and worship…shall forever be allowed.”) is called the “Free Exercise Clause”.
The Establishment Clause prevents the State from favoring one religion over another or from creating a state religion.
Under the Free Exercise Clause, a person’s religious beliefs and expressions are protected, no matter how bizarre or unusual, unless there comes a grave danger associated with it.
This provision was just roughly copied from the religion provision in previous Philippine Constitutions, which were also roughly copied from that of the Tydings-McDuffie Law of 1934 and Jones Law of 1916, which were also copied from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is fitting then that part of the history of the United States be examined briefly.
After the Protestant Reformation, a large part of Europe was practicing the Erastian Church-State Relation. In this type of relation, there was a strong cooperation between the Church and State in order to advance the interests of the state. Erastianism assumed state superiority while recognizing the role of religion as an “engine” to promote the state’s interest. In Catholic Europe, the monarchs used the Christian unity with the Pope and the bishops to advance their political plans (like the Crusades that happened centuries before, which were actually politically motivated). The Church agreed to vest on this role in exchange for certain benefits (like the Evangelization of the Americas and the Philippines). Monarchs then had something to say with the appointment of bishops and the assignment of priests. In Protestant Europe, especially in England, the monarch was the leader of both the Government and the Church. The monarch’s proclamations regulated ecclesiastical offices, and Catholic priests were put to death for treason. With Erastianism, the state favored one religion, while other religions were either condemned or permitted to exist but with lesser freedom.
The desire to escape from religious persecution in Europe, especially in England, and the desire to practice religion without state control made people flee to the New World. These immigrants gave birth to the American colonies, and later on, to the American states that we know. When the United States Constitution was drafted, one of the common ideas was that of the liberty of religion. This idea led to the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791, which contained the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and reached Philippine shores in 1900.
To sum up the points above, the doctrine of Separation of Church and State exists not to stop the Church from exercising her beliefs (including the duty to speak in moral issues), but for the Church to gain the liberty to do so, even if it goes contrary to the interests of the State.
Philippine jurisprudence also shows how the state upheld this freedom to religion. The Supreme Court in American Bible Society v. City of Manila (1957) cited Tanada and Fernando’s book entitled “Constitution of the Philippines”. They wrote:
“The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.”
In 1993, the Supreme Court in Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent ruled in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to salute the Philippine flag because of their religious beliefs. According to the Court, “the sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent.”
In 2003 came the landmark ruling of Estrada v. Escritor where the Court declared that the State is “not hostile nor indifferent to religion”. This accommodation is called “Benevolent neutrality”.
“Benevolent neutrality recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino people and the elevating influence of religion in society; at the same time, it acknowledges that government must pursue its secular goals. In pursuing these goals, however, government might adopt laws or actions of general applicability which inadvertently burden religious exercise. Benevolent neutrality gives room for accommodation of these religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. It allows these breaches in the wall of separation to uphold religious liberty, which after all is the integral purpose of the religion clauses.” (Estrada v. Escritor, 2003)
On the other hand, jurisprudence regarding the Establishment clause proved the non-hostile approach of the State to the Church. Although the government cannot favor a religion over another (unlike Erastianism), the government may pass laws or do actions “with a legitimate secular purpose…even if it incidentally aids a particular religion.” (Estrada v. Escritor, 2003). For example, in Aglipay v. Ruiz (1937), the issuance of commemorative stamps for the Thirty-Third International Eucharistic Congress was challenged by the Aglipayan Church who claimed that such action violated the Establishment clause. In Garces v. Estenzo (1981), the Government’s purchase and display of an image of San Vicente Ferrer for a barrio fiesta was questioned on the same ground. In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled that these actions were not violations of the Establishment clause.
“Not every governmental activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property.” (Garces v. Estenzo, 1981).
This doctrine also justifies the declaration of Sunday as a holiday, the declaration of Holy Week, Christmas, and other religious feasts as a holiday, and the government’s involvement in papal visits.
Given these facts, the State recognizes that there is no high wall between the State and the Church. The Church may freely practice her teachings, including speaking, or acting, when public policies involve morality and the good of souls. Such actions are protected under the freedom of religion, which has a high place in the hierarchy of rights. Therefore, any attempts to silence the Church violate the principle of Separation of Church and State. As declared in our jurisprudence, the expressions of the Church may only be restricted in the presence of compelling state interest, and this restriction should be made only to the smallest extent.
2. Common Interests of the Church and State
In the first part, we have dealt with the freedom of all religions. In this part, we specifically deal with the Catholic Church and establish specific grounds where the Church may participate in civil society.
The moral teachings of the Catholic Church are based on the Natural Law, which is summarized by the line “do good and avoid evil”. The natural law is the law that is “written and engraved in the soul of each and every man,” (CCC 1954) as a consequence of his creation as a rational creature. Thus, the natural law is specific to human beings.
“The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. I)
Since the natural law is present in the heart of every human being, it is universal and absolute. The principal precepts of natural law are expressed in the Ten Commandments.
In the modern-day, the natural law may have been dismissed by people as something “old-fashioned”. But to the contrary, former Chief Justice Renato Puno wrote in a separate opinion in Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2003):
“In sum, natural law and natural rights are not relic theories for academic discussion, but have had considerable application and influence…In controversies involving the Bill of Rights, the natural law standards of “reasonableness” and “fairness” or “justified on balance” are used…Undeniably, natural law and natural rights theories have carved their niche in the legal and political arena.”
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2003) involved a case of an unreasonable search and seizure that happened on March 3, 1986. When the seizure happened, there was no Bill of Rights, nor Constitution, since the 1973 Constitution was ousted in February 25, 1986 through the EDSA Revolution, and the succeeding Constitution — the Freedom Constitution — was only promulgated in March 25, 1986. Mr. Puno, in his separate opinion, claimed that although there was no Bill of Rights, the natural law continued to exist.
He also mentioned specific cases wherein the Court has invoked the natural law. In People v. Agbot (1981), the Court said:
“…the offense of taking one’s life being forbidden by natural law and therefore within the instinctive knowledge and feeling of any human being not deprived of reason.”
In People v. Asas (1940), the Court recognized that forced confession is prohibited by natural law as it said: “…aversion of man against forced self-affliction is a matter of Natural Law.”
In addition, the very essence of the government and the constitution, at least for the Philippines, is to uphold the natural law and to protect the natural rights of individuals. Citing once again Mr. Puno’s opinion where he discussed the origin and the raison d’être of civil government:
“First, natural law being an unwritten code of moral conduct, it might sometimes be ignored if the personal interests of certain individuals are involved. Second, without any written laws, and without any established judges or magistrates, persons may be judges in their own cases and self-love might make them partial to their side…These circumstances make it necessary to establish and enter a civil society by mutual agreement among the people in the state of nature.”
In the 1987 Constitution, provisions are included to protect one’s life, protect the society from danger, protect the family, and others. These constitutional provisions are nothing but corollaries of the natural law.
For example, Article 2 Section 12 states that the State should protect “the life of the unborn from conception.” This provision liberates Filipino society from pro-abortion or pro-choice movements.
Article 3 Section 1 also upholds the right to life:
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
Meanwhile, the Constitutional fathers dedicated an entire article for the protection of marriage and the family. Thanks to these provisions, moves to legalize divorce and same-sex “marriage” may meet constitutional barriers along the way, unless one chooses to publicly violate the Constitution, God forbid!
“Article 15 Section 1: The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
“Article 15 Section 2: Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”
The first part of Article 2 Section 12 also recognizes the “sanctity” of the family and demands the State to strengthen it as a “basic autonomous social institution.”
Since both the State and the Catholic Church agree on the existence of a law that is intrinsic to man, and both institutions aim to uphold this law, the Church has an obligation to speak, especially when the State imposes policies that run contrary to the natural and moral law. Thus, it is not unreasonable for the Church to oppose extra-judicial killings, death penalty, contraception, abortion, divorce, and same-sex “marriage”.
Let it not be ignored that the laws of the state are binding to man only if they conform to the natural law.
3. Recent Church Involvements
Throughout Philippine history, the Catholic Church has made various involvements in political issues. Unarguably the most notable was the EDSA Revolution of 1986, which ousted President Ferdinand Marcos and ended two decades of dictatorship and human rights violations. Their Eminences, Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, and Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, Archbishop of Cebu, were the pillars of this historic, non-violent revolution. The involvement of the Church in this event was proper since the Church can never tolerate any intrinsically evil act prevailing in the government.
Recently, the Church vehemently opposed the passage of the Reproductive Health Law, which promotes the use of contraceptives and imposes Sex Education in public schools.
The Church’s opposition to the RH Law led to two Supreme Court rulings that are relevant to this topic: Imbong v. Ochoa (2014) and Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (2015).
After the RH Bill was passed into law in 2012, petitioners went to the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of its provisions; most of them were religious groups. The RH Law had provisions that forced Catholic health workers to refer their patients to another health worker if they did not want to administer contraceptive procedures themselves. However, according to Church Teachings, if a Catholic health worker refuses to conduct contraceptive measures but refers his/her patient to another health worker, he/she would still be guilty of material cooperation to evil. Thus, Catholics objected to the RH Law, stating that the provisions of the law violated the Free Exercise Clause. As a result of these petitions, the Supreme Court declared those provisions unconstitutional (Imbong v. Ochoa, 2014) and gave health workers a right to conscientiously object.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC is quite timely as the 2022 Elections draw near. Although this case does not cover the Free Exercise of Religion, the ruling justifies the Church’s speech on political matters. Like the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech is there to protect speeches of individual persons and institutions. So the Church, like any other institution, is protected by this doctrine.
On February 22, 2013, the Diocese of Bacolod posted a six feet by ten feet tarpaulin within the cathedral compound. It was entitled “Conscience Vote” and classified 2013 election candidates as either “Team Patay” (Pro-RH) and “Team Buhay” (Anti-RH). The Commission of Elections ordered its removal for alleged violation of Election Guidelines. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the poster was protected by free speech.
“What is involved in this case is the most sacred of speech forms: expression by the electorate that tends to rouse the public to debate contemporary issues. This is not speechby candidates or political parties to entice votes. It is a portion of the electorate telling candidates the conditions for their election. It is the substantive content of the right to suffrage.
“This is a form of speech hopeful of a quality of democracy that we should all deserve. It is protected as a fundamental and primordial right by our Constitution. The expression in the medium chosen by petitioners deserves our protection.” (Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, 2015)
Today the Church once again faces issues that concern her, such as death penalty, human rights violations, divorce, and same-sex “marriage”. The facts stated above show that the Church may speak or act on these matters with the blessing of the State.
However, let this not be a consent for the Church to violate her own teachings. The hierarchy and the laity should be reminded that the Church should not endorse or publicly support a political candidate. The Church is neither red, nor yellow, nor pink, but rather, Catholic. We speak not as political supporters but as Catholics who desire to promote the common good, part of which is the spiritual good.
REFERENCES:
Books:
De Leon, H. M., de Leon, H. M., & de Leon, H. S. (2011). Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. Published & distributed by Rex Book Store.
Agoncillo, T. A. (1990). History of the Filipino People (Eighth Edition) — Philippine Book (8th ed.). C.& E. PUBLISHING, INC.
Court Decisions:
Aglipay v. Ruiz (Supreme Court of the Philippines March 13, 1937).
American Bible Society v. City of Manila (Supreme Court of the Philippines April 30, 1957).
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections (Supreme Court of the Philippines January 21, 2015).
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent (Supreme Court of the Philippines March 1, 1993).
Estrada v. Escritor (Supreme Court of the Philippines August 4, 2003).
Garces v. Estenzo (Supreme Court of the Philippines May 25, 1981).
Imbong v. Ochoa (Supreme Court of the Philippines April 8, 2014).
People v. Agbot (Supreme Court of the Philippines July 31, 1981).
People v. Asas (Supreme Court of the Philippines November 20, 1940).
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Supreme Court of the Philippines July 21, 2003).
