Should religious groups stop interfering in government affairs?

The answer is no. The members of the Church are also citizens of the republic. They have the freedom of speech, of expression and of peaceful assembly for redress of legitimate grievances. In the Philippines, there is a thin line between religion and citizenship. There is really no wall.

The first line of the Constitution's Preamble invokes the aid of Almighty God. Everytime Congress comes into session, there is always an opening prayer, and every oath of all public officials ends with the phrase "So help Me God." Many offices in the Philippine government celebrate the Holy Eucharist inside government offices and there are religious icons and even altars and chapels inside government buildings. The question is: Are these violations of the principles of the Church and State? The answer is no. We just need to understand the nuances of these principles of law.

Our research yields the conclusion that the separation of church and state is a fundamental constitutional and political principle aimed at ensuring that government and religious institutions should respectively act independently of one another. This concept is rooted in the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which together prohibit the government from establishing a national religion or interfering with individuals' rights to practice their faith.

Our readings led us to Roger Williams, a minister, lawyer, and merchant who desired a way to worship freely. Williams referenced ‘a high wall’ between church and state to keep the ‘wilderness’ of the human institutions out of the affairs of religion. He strove to prevent the corruption of the government from corrupting a person’s freedom of conscience. Or as he called it in 1636, "soul freedom." The metaphor of an impregnable wall portrays complete independence of the State from religion and vice versa.

The original aim of separation was really to prevent the State from imposing its will on the practice of religion, as well as to prohibit religious leaders from imposing their own practice of religion on the exercise of government and political affairs. The Constitution is a direct abrogation of the old Divine Right of Kings. Before the founding of the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (today known as the State of Rhode Island), governments claimed to derive their authority from an almighty source.

History tells us that the Catholic Pope Leo X " granted King Henry VI, the title Defender of the Faith. It solidified England’s bond to Spain and other Catholic nations. In this way, political power was consolidated across Europe and beyond. However, such to the dismay of European powers, Henry broke from the Catholic political structure and established the protestant Church of England. Henry argued that he wasn't a servant of the Catholic faith because he ruled “by the grace of God alone.”

Starting in the 1530s, Henry ruled England as both the king and the head of the English Church. Although England has a representative body, only the monarch allows it to meet." And so, when America was founded in defiance of Britain, the founding fathers made sure that there should be a strict separation between Church and State. The Philippines' legal system is by and large patterned on the fundamental principles enshrined in the US Constitution.

In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, the great political scientist, Thomas Jefferson, third US president said: " Religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions." He postulated that the US Constitution has erected an impregnable wall between the affairs of the State and the practice of religion.

In Philippine jurisdiction, all of us should read at least three landmark decisions penned by the Supreme Court En Banc, namely: Ruel Ebralinag et al versus Divisions Superintendent of Cebu, GR no 95770 dated 01 March 1993; The Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC, GR no 205728, promulgated on 21 January 2015 and the case of Renato Peralta vs Philpost, GR no 223395, on 04 December 2018. These three decisions should clarify many intricate nuances of the principles of separation of Church and State and the freedom of religion.

The Ebralinag decision was written by a Bar topnotcher, Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino. The Diocese of Bacolod case was penned by a former UP Law Dean, Justice Marvic Leonen, and the Peralta ruling was written by Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam. Ebralinag teaches us the sacredness of religious freedom. The Diocese of Bacolod instructs us on the importance of the freedom of expression which should not disqualify religious groups. The Peralta/Philpost ruling reminds us that aside from an imaginary wall, there is a bridge between the Church and the State.

The bottomline is that while indeed, there is a wall between Church and State, it does not mean that Filipinos who are both citizens and also Christians or of other religious faiths cannot express their beliefs in both realms of religion and citizenship. We can have the best of both worlds.