Breaching the wall

This is a record third consecutive long weekend. And choosing my topic today inexorably brought me back to that oft-invoked but still misunderstood principle of Church-State separation which our Constitution says is inviolable (Article II Section 6). Obviously the reasons behind Malacañang’s declaration of September 7 (today) and September 21, 2009 as special non-working holidays have something to do with it.

Writing about the topic prompted me to go back to basics. My first impulse was to look for the meaning of “Church” and “State” which are the main institutions involved in this principle.

In common and legal parlance, State refers to people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and customs into one body politic exercising through the medium of government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relationships with other communities of the globe (Black’s Law Dictionary).

Church, on the other hand is a society recognizing and practicing a particular system of faith and worship. Black’s Law Dictionary also defines it as a religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ to receive, preserve and propagate His doctrines and ordinances. More specifically referring to the Catholic Church in its institutional aspect, it is an organic and hierarchical society, structured and governed by the pope and the bishops under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff who is the head of the Episcopal college with all members having an active role to play. In its mystical aspect, Church has also been defined as a Trinitarian mystery of Christ who enables us to share in His divine life as God’s son for through Him we have access in one Spirit to the Father (Belmonte, Faith Seeking Understanding I p.386).

Actually Article II Section 6 of the Constitution declaring that “the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable” is only one of the constitutional provisions expressing the principle set forth in the first paragraph of Section 5 Article III which provides that “no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion”. Religion here means a particular system of faith and worship recognized and practiced by a particular church, sect, or denomination. This principle is known as the “non-establishment clause” which simply means that “neither the State nor the government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can it openly nor secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa” (Board of Education vs. Everson, 350 U.S. I, 15-16). Everson has been adopted in this jurisdiction as the interpretation of the non-establishment clause which is intended to erect, in the words of Jefferson, a “wall of separation” between Church and State.

The other constitutional provisions expressing the non-establishment clause are: (a) Article VI Section 29(2) which says that “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 or denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher or dignitary as such”…; and (b) Article IX C, Section 2(5) which prohibits religious denominations and sects from being registered as political parties or organizations.

According to the most reliable authority on constitutional law in this jurisdiction, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., one of the commissioners who drafted the 1987 Constitution, the non-establishment clause seeks to protect voluntarism as a social value in the sense that “the growth of a religious sect as a social force must come from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief that both spiritual and secular society will benefit only if religions are allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without the benefit of official patronage”.

But, as Fr. Bernas says, voluntarism cannot be achieved unless “the political process is insulated from religion and religion is insulated from politics”. Thus “the non-establishment clause also assures such insulation and thereby prevents inter faith dissension”. In other words, Fr. Bernas is simply and plainly saying that “a particular system of faith and worship practiced and recognized by a particular church, sect or denomination must be insulated from the science of government or from the art or practice of administering public affairs, and vice versa.

And so going over once more on the purposes for declaring today September 7 and September 21, 2009 as special non-working holidays, this non-establishment clause as expressed more concretely in the principle of Church and State separation immediately comes to mind. Several questions instantly came up and continue to bother me like: Is there an incursion of politics into religion in these proclamations? Or on the other hand, has religion intruded into our political process? Is Malacañang preferring or favoring one or two religions over the others? Is it openly participating in the affairs of some religious organizations or groups? In short, is there a breach of the wall separating the Church from the State which is firmly embedded in the constitution?

These questions acquire more validity and relevance especially in the light of previous incidents where this administration has apparently taken for granted or even disregarded certain basic principles of law. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net