The endless meddling of the CBCP in the affairs of the supposedly secular State from one presidency to the next drives people to angrily invoke Article II Section 6 of the 1987 Phlippine 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 is indeed violating this rule.
I am reminded of an article written by one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, Dean Emiritus of Ateneo Law School and amicus curiae Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., where 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 …” Immediately it can be seen that the command is addressed not to the church but to the state. It is the state, after all, which passes laws.
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 make sense, at least to me. 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:
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 hasn’t really declared Roman Catholicism as the official state religion – just the official consultant on issues and policies that affect all Filipinos, Catholics and non-Catholics 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 we’ve been making noise about the Church’s meddling, it is actually the State we should be blaming. (Besides, it is the Church’s moral obligation to meddle and try to impose its dogma.)
But the State is highly influenced by the Church, and we can’t 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. This ought to be tolerable, but the problem is that this isn’t just the generic God as the creator of the universe; it has to be a particular brand of God even more specific than the Judeo-Christian God. It is, of course, the Roman Catholic God who says that contraception is evil because the main (sole?) purpose of sex is procreation between married couples and that overpopulation and poverty and the spread of STDs are all caused by immorality and can only be solved if people turn from their evil ways.
So what do we do now? Aside from taking the necessary legal steps to make sure the State observes the separation, I guess we could go for the source of the Church’s power. And I don’t mean God. I’m talking about the followers, who happen to make up the majority of the electorate and whose votes the state politicians are desperate to get. If we could open the eyes of enough people, we will be able to reach critical mass. It may be a long, uphill battle where we gain and lose ground one step at a time, but once we begin to weaken the Church’s influence, I imagine it will be all downhill from there.
firstly, this state existence is by other states recognizing it’s government and not it’s religions. this state is run by it’s government and not by it’s religions. religions should honor state laws since it’s members are citizens of the state and the state is respecting religions that they do not discriminate them and even grant them freedom from taxation even if the religions are benefiting from state projects and many activities. since the religious institutions are enjoying their many benefits from the state then it is just normal that they respect it’s rules especially pertaining to them.
to make it clear, the CBCP did not violate it (SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE). it was not CBCP’s official stand, but a personal opinion of only a few bishops (Msgr. Villegas and Cruz)
I just made a fight-club-ish haiku for this:
You, free man may leave.
Pews you sat on rot away.
The priests are your slaves.
good perspective.i hope that education in our country is furthered.this is what I see as the means to progress in our culture of thought and how our thinking precisely determines the future of our country.
this gives me proper perspective. thank you.
thank you for this profound explanation!
can you imagine if PETA was a religion and they lobbied for mandatory vegetarianism? 😀
I've said this before, but I think it's worth mentioning that I seriously doubt that the CBCP really speaks for Philippine Catholics
Recent SWS surveys indicate that most Filipinos want to support an RH program, and most of the candidates that the CBCP supported (JC De Los Reyes and Jo Imbong, for example) lost during the elections; JC himself finished close to dead last during the elections.
If you want a real understanding of Catholic sentiments, I suggest visiting the local parishes – the priests there tend to be more in touch with reality than the old farts in the CBCP.
i think the DAVAO City Council should read innermind's article. look at what they've done:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/councilors-okay-s….
[from the link: " THE City Council last week passed an ordinance, authored by City Councilor Ma. Belen Acosta, requiring all food establishments in the city to offer halal food.
The ordinance requires any restaurant, fast food chain, eateries, food stalls in movie houses, school or university canteens and other food establishments or function halls in the city to acquire Halal accreditation from the Davao City Muslim Ulama Halal certifying and monitoring agency "]
Indeed a clear violation of the constitutional separation of church and state: every restaurant/food store in Davao has to bribe/subjugate to the ‘Muslim Ulama Halal’ to stay in business otherwise the government will fine them. What about Jewish Kosher requirements – where is the demand for every restaurant to offer also kosher food and apply a certificate from the chief rabbi, what about Hindu-Brahman vegetarian food requirements, about Jain vegetarian and only above surface harvested fruits etc… ?
Seems the R of P is sinking deeper and deeper into a theocracy and the state is just a play-ball of religious interest groups controlling spineless politicians like in the US of A. And the guarding of the constitutional separation of church and state via opened lawsuits is left to humanist or freedom FROM religion foundations privately financed as plantiff.
This ordinance might be more understandable if the city was predominantly Muslim, although that doesn't excuse a city from forcing the restos to submit to one religion, as Roland puts it.
Even if it was, or even if it is predominantly Catholic, we cannot let the state to force restaurants not to serve fish during Lent.
uhh, grammatical error?
Were you trying to say that
"we cannot let the state force restaurants not to serve fish during Lent."
or
"we cannot let the state force restaurants to serve fish during Lent."?
Just asking, and to clarify, Fish is halal, so seafood restos should be a non-issue.
typo. thanks for pointing that out.
but Davao City is not a Muslim City, more than 90% are Christians.
Actually it turns out that the ordinance is only for those restaurants that display a Halal sign and does not apply to non-Halal establishments.
I agree with this. Nice article. But I think both the Church and the government is to blame of their violations.
[Twin-Skies says: “ If it were any other religious organization – or heck, even us! – who raised a stink for whatever reason regarding the sex ed program, do you think that DepEd would have been as accommodating?”]
Exactly: it’s about political power, counter power, pressure and lobby groups. That’s why it is necessary for atheist/agnostic/humanist/freethinkers to creep out of their closet to unite and get heard. We had this discussion of ‘vocal new atheist’ versus ‘stay in your closet and shut up atheists’, feel superior but let the arena to uneducated noisy theist …etc… the last years in RichardDawkins.Net.
Staying in the closet and shut up like the last 2000 years is not solving the problem of society !
The place where you are looking to get "atheist/agnostic/humanist/freethinkers" to is within the vicinity of where the Church is…which ironically is being referred here as "meddling". Everyone, regardless of religion/affiliation, is free to advocate what they believe in.
In any case, i agree with innerminds' take on Fr. Bernas' quote. The separation is there to protect the church and the religious freedom of the people from the state, not the other way around. And getting involved in the public life/politics has nothing to do with the wall.
But in this case, wouldn't it be Catholicism that is being actively endorsed in place of other religions by the state?
[ Reynor Santiago says: “ separation is there to protect the church and the religious freedom of the people from the state”]
No- the separation is there to protect the people of ANY religious denomination that the state is preferring ANY SPECIFIC religious sect and/or is suppressing specific religious denominations.
So therefore the preferential nomination of the RCC as SexEd consultants or the forcing of all restaurants/food stores in Davao to provide halal food and request/pay for Muslim Ulama certificates, is a violation of the clause, as it is preferring a specific religion above others.
i have to agree with you. it is not just preferring one religion over another.. such violation would also make small-time businessmen lose profits and might close their businesses later on. the requirements of city council are too much to bear. how about prohibiting pork menu in the restos as well?
It is still meddling from the RCC – as the absolute basic process of democracy is undermined : the fee and fair election process. Declaring any politician standing in the election as evil and non-electable if he supports the RH-Bill is meddling and sabotaging the meaning of separation of church and state. Challenging and intimidating the executive branch ( e.g. DepEd officials) indicted as private persons in the court case is sabotaging the meaning of separation of church and state.
But from a mere legal standpoint after this additional information and legal expert comment provided here, I have to change my earlier evaluation of violation of the RP constitution from the RCC : if the constitution is only binding for the elected government, then the RCC – or any other religious sect – can make the most outrageous demands and intimidations as much as they like. The main culprit seems to be then the Arroyo government (or now the Aquino-3 government) and its executive branch the DepEd, who is favoring a single religious sect (the RCC) as advisor for a secular school curriculum.
Then the defense of the secular state has to go similar like the ‘American way’ : every attempt of any religious sect to invoke their own dogma on the school curriculum (like creationism instead of evolution, flat earth and geo-centrism instead of cosmology, Catholic dogma instead biology/medicine …etc…) have to be settled like a Dover-trial court case.
"The main culprit seems to be then the Arroyo government (or now the Aquino-3 government) and its executive branch the DepEd, who is favoring a single religious sect (the RCC) as advisor for a secular school curriculum."
Hmm, you raise a good point. If it were any other religious organization – or heck, even us! – who raised a stink for whatever reason regarding the sex ed program, do you think that DepEd would have been as accommodating?
Indeed, the burden is on the state to avoid the influence of the church since they are directly mandated by the present constitution to uphold their separation from the church. Just like the church, freethinkers are protected by the constitution to enjoy their freedom of speech. Hence, we are on the same ground with the church promoting our respective causes. It so happens that the church has been established long enough to maintain their influence on the people and lawmakers. Reason dictates that a person who wants change must educate or enlighten or address his/her fellow citizens of the need for gender education as a tool for population control.. instead of barking at the wrong tree that shares the same rights as we do.
I agree. I guess it's time we make the government accountable for their violations. Great post, Jong!