Religious rallies and separation of Church and State

Should Church leaders stay away from politics? Should religion be practiced separately of government affairs? And should religious leaders stop using the Bible in denouncing official decisions and actions by the State? Should priests and pastors avoid using the pulpit in attacking public officials?

When bishops put out a giant tarpaulin calling some senatorial candidates "Team Patay" and "Team Buhay", when Philpost used public funds to print stamps showing the face of the Iglesia Ni Kristo founder, was there violation of the law? Whenever the respective members of the Iglesia ni Cristo, Jesus is Lord Movement, the Kingdom of God, or whatever other religious groups conduct rallies are they violating the principle of separation of Church and State? I don't think so.

Article II, Section 6 of the Philippine Constitution explicitly mandates that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. The Bill of Rights, Article III, Section 5 states 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."

The Supreme Court, in the En Banc Case of Reynato Peralta v. Philpost, GR no 223395, held that “the elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain general concessions are indiscriminately accorded to religious sects and denominations. Our Constitution and laws exempt from taxation properties devoted exclusively to religious purposes (sec. 14, subsec. 3, Art. VI, Constitution of the Philippines and section 1 and subsection 4."

The Supreme Court said: “The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's beliefs. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. The individual is free to believe (or disbelieve) as he pleases concerning the hereafter. He may indulge his own theories about life and death; worship any god he chooses, or none at all; embrace or reject any religion.”

It also warned: "But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the State. As great as this liberty may be, religious freedom, like all the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, can be enjoyed only with a proper regard for the rights of others is error to think that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare." These are important reminders by way of balancing between religious freedom and the police power of the State.

Inherent police power can be exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society. And this is true even if such practices are pursued out of sincere religious conviction and not merely for the purpose of evading the law. In the landmark case of Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, Justice Mario Victor Leonen lectured on the nuances involving the freedoms of religion, expression, and the principle of separation of power.

He wrote: "All governmental authority emanates from our people. No unreasonable restrictions of the fundamental and preferred right to expression of the electorate during political contests no matter how seemingly benign will be tolerated… Although our constitutional history and interpretation mandate benevolent neutrality, benevolent neutrality does not mean that the Court ought to grant exemptions every time a free exercise claim comes before it."

The Supreme Court interjected: "But it does mean that the Court will not look with hostility or act indifferent towards religious beliefs and practices and that it will strive to accommodate them when it can within flexible constitutional limits" In upholding the right of the Diocese of Bacolod to express political preference, the court held: "free speech should be encouraged under the concept of a marketplace of ideas. This theory was articulated by Justice Holmes in that “the ultimate good desired is better reached by [the] free trade in ideas."

The bottom line is that members of religious groups are not prohibited from exercising the freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and other related human rights. After all, they are not only Christians, they are also Filipinos.