Erroneous and harmful conclusions

P-Noy’s administration should watch out lest it be eventually perceived as trying to intimidate or bully the Catholic Church. The timing of its recent airing about certain favors given by the past administration to some Catholic prelates somehow creates the notion that it is trying to settle the score with the Church for the latter’s vehement opposition to some of its policies affecting family and life, and open attack on its style and capability in running the affairs of government.

Its latest expose on the assistance in kind given by the PCSO under the past administration once more brings into focus the oft used but least understood principle of Church and State separation which should be inviolable pursuant to Article II Section 6 of the Constitution.

First of all, this principle of inviolability of the separation of Church and State can be understood better by pointing out what it is not. As held in Aglipay vs. Ruiz (64 Phil. 201), it is not “an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. As a matter of fact, the Preamble of the Constitution starts with these words: “We the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God….” With these words, the Filipino people manifested their intense religious nature and placed unfaltering reliance upon him who guides the destinies of men and nations. Hence it does not “imply a division between belief and public actions, between moral principles and political choices” (Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, December 27, 2009).

Actually, the principle of the inviolability of the separation of Church and State consists of two aspects as set forth in Article III Section 5 which provides that: “no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

The first clause intends to erect what Thomas Jefferson described as a “wall” separating the Church from the State which means that “the State or the government cannot set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa (Everson vs. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1). Thus the Constitution also provides 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, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary, except when such priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution or government orphanage or leprosarium (Article VI Section 29 [2]).

The second clause refers to the free exercise of religion. This Constitutional guarantee or religious freedom consists of “the right of a man to worship God, and to entertain such religious views as appeal to his individual conscience, without dictation or interference by any person or power, civil or ecclesiastical (16 Am Jur, 648). It forbids restriction by law or regulation of freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose” (Cantwell vs. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296).

COA and the present management of the PCSO contend that the assistance in kind extended to some bishops of the Catholic Church by the PCSO under the previous administration violates the principle of the separation of Church and State particularly Section 29 (2) Article VI because public money or property has been paid or employed for the use, benefit and support of the Catholic Church and its prelates.

It must be pointed out however that under existing jurisprudence on this matter both here and in the US where this principle came from, government aid that may incidentally redound to the benefit of religion or church is not absolutely prohibited (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, supra). It is allowable if the primary purpose is to promote social welfare of the people in the community and to help in the government’s social and educational work (Board of Education vs. Allen 392 U.S. 236; Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602).

Thus, before rushing to judgment and immediately airing its charges in media, the PCSO should have first verified the real score on the alleged illegal and “immoral” donations. It should have called the attention of those involved and gave them the chance to explain their side. And if it believes that the charges are based on reasonable grounds, it should have filed the necessary complaint before the Ombudsman instead of going to the media which are now feasting on the expose with their various interpretations and erroneous conclusions of fact and of law.

As it is now turning out in the Senate investigation and according to the bishops involved, the vehicles given were not necessarily luxurious and they were donated mainly to carry out social work projects and medical outreach programs for the poor people in far flung areas, as well as to help in the development of peace in the community. In short the Church is merely collaborating with the government in rendering services to the people. Obviously these donations are not unconstitutional, nor are they immoral.

Hopefully people in this administration realize that treading the matuwid na daan does not mean projecting a “clean” image by unfairly soiling the reputation of others, and thus sowing more animosity.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]