Without jurisdiction

This case illustrates the meaning of the principle of separation of Church and State. This is the case of a religious sect (PIC) organized locally with members comprised of Filipinos only.

The case arose from the political differences between the parishioners led by Tirso and their parish priest, Fr. Flores. Tirso and nine other Church members resented the fact that the wife of Fr. Flores was supporting an opposing political party. Since they believed that Fr. Flores was siding with his wife, they requested the Bishop (de la Rosa) to transfer Fr. Flores to another Parish. The Bishop however found this reason too flimsy and denied their request.

So during the town fiesta, Tirso tried to organize an open mass to be celebrated by Fr. Amor, another priest. Bishop de la Rosa tried to dissuade him because the priest was not a member of the clergy in his diocese and his credentials as a parish priest were in doubt. The Bishop also appealed to Tirso and his faction to refrain from committing acts inimical and prejudicial to the best interest of PIC. He likewise advised Tirso and his group to air their complaints before the higher authorities of PIC if they have valid grievances against him, the parish priest and the canons of the PIC. But Tirso and his group still carried out their plans and proceeded to hold the open mass with Fr. Amor as celebrant.

So nine days later, Bishop de la Rosa expelled/excommunicated Tirso and eight other members for: disobedience, inciting dissension and causing fear and anxiety among the general membership by threatening to forcibly occupy the parish church.

When Tirso’s faction appealed to their Obispo Maximo, the Obispo did not intervene in the diocesan decision. He only opined that Fr. Flores should voluntarily step down to avert hostility and enmity among members. Then the Obispo reassigned Bishop de la Rosa to another diocese and replaced him with Bishop Templo who also did not heed the clamor of Tirso’s faction. Hence Tirso and his cohorts continued holding their own mass with Fr. Amor as celebrant. They also sued Bishop de la Rosa, Fr. Flores and another member for damages with preliminary injunction contending that their expulsion was illegal because it was done without trial thus violating their right to due process of law. Will their suit prosper?

No. In a form of government where the complete separation of civil and ecclesiastical authority is insisted upon, civil courts must not allow themselves to intrude unduly in matters of an ecclesiastical nature. The expulsion of members of a religious institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of officials and the laws and canons of said organization/institution. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities in the performance of their discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations. All matters of faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom, rule of a church and having reference to the power of excluding from the church those allegedly unworthy of membership are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the civil courts (Taruc et.al. vs. De la Cruz et.al. G.R. 144801, March 10, 2005. 453 SCRA 123 citing Gonzales vs. Archbishop 51 Phil. 420 and Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals 96 Phil. 417).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]