Separation of church and state: Where to draw the line
Posted by Admin | Posted in Philippine Constitution | Posted on 19-06-2010
Tagged Under : free exercise clause, freedom from religion, freedom of religion, non-establishment clause, religious freedom, separation of church and state
It is said that when the Pharisees and Herodians asked Jesus whether or not they should pay taxes to the emperor, Jesus answered: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” This could very well illustrate the ancient origin of the concept of separation of the church and the state, though the phrase separation of church and state is more popularly attributed to Thomas Jefferson. In his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment[1] to the US Constitution as a “wall of separation” between church and state.[2]
So what does this separation mean? This simply means that each one should not interfere with the other’s affairs. Each one has its own sphere of influence and should not in any way exercise dominance over the other. However, this does not mean total isolation or non-cooperation. Instead, they should be like friendly neighbors who do not meddle with the personal matters of the other but offers a helping hand in times of trouble.
The Philippines is a Catholic-dominated nation, but the concept of separation of church and state has been well-enshrined in our Constitution. Our Constitution echoes the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it is stated 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 forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
Section 5 capsulizes the twin aspects of religious freedom. The first part is the non-establishment clause: “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion” while the second part is the free exercise clause. These two reinforces each other and reflect the main intent to separate the church and the state. By allowing the free exercise of religion, the State cannot be said to be supporting the establishment of any particular religion. And by not espousing a state religion, the state guarantees the people of the freedom to believe in anything or nothing at all and to act according to that belief or non-belief.
If we assess the Philippine setting, can we say that the two institutions are really separated as the Constitution directed? I think not. With the likes of Father Panlilio entering politics and Health Secretary Cabral distributing condoms to call center agents, clashes of interests are very likely.
The religious entering the political sphere
The present Philippine Constitution does not prohibit priests or any individual who is a member or leader of any religious group from running for any public office. The Omnibus Election Code and other special laws on election do not consider religious vocation or affiliation as a ground for disqualification. The common requirements relate to citizenship, residence, and moral character, but not religious profession or belief.
The Constitution, however, prohibits the registration with the COMELEC of religious denominations and sects [Article IX-C, Section 2(5)]. It also prohibits the religious sector from participating in the party-list system of election to the House of Representatives [Article VI, Section 5(2)]. But as we have witnessed in the party list elections of the past years, some parties actually represented religious groups. In the most recent national elections, the party list of El Shaddai leader Mike Velarde (Buhay Hayaang Yumabong or BUHAY) was able to participate, although its accreditation by the Comelec was questionable. Read the rest of this entry »