See - ON THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE | Michael Henry Yusingco | LinkedIn
"x x x.
During the Spanish colonial period, governance over the Philippines was through the collaborative partnership of the King of Spain, acting through the resident Governor-General, and the Roman Catholic Pope, represented by the Archbishop of Manila and the network of religious missionaries all over the islands. For all intents and purposes, under Spanish colonial rule there was a union of church and state and Catholicism was the state religion.
However, this mode of governance was completely abrogated after the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898 whereby Spain ceded the Philippines to the US in exchange for $20 million.
The assumption of the Americans as the new colonial power meant the advent of a new regime where an impenetrable wall now stands between the church and the state. This mode of state rule is now firmly entrenched in the Philippine Constitution in the following provisions:
Section 6 of Article II (Declaration of State Policies and Principles) — The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.; and,
Section 5 of Article III (Bill of Rights) — 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 extent of the principle of separation of church and state in the Philippines was thoroughly and extensively discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Estrada vs Escritor [1].
According to the ponente, the Treaty of Paris itself specifically stipulated that “the inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of religion.”
Meaning, the separation of the church and state has removed from the government the power to impose a particular religion on the citizenry. The guarantee of the freedom of religion meant that government no longer had the authority to interfere with religious matters.
The idea of guaranteed religious freedom within a secular state was fully embraced by the Filipino elites at the advent of US colonial period such that a little over a month later after the signing of the Treaty of Paris, a purely Filipino constitution (the Malolos Constitution) was adopted on January 22, 1899 which specifically provided that “the State recognizes the liberty and equality of all religion (de todos los cultos) in the same manner as the separation of the Church and State.” This constitution however had a very short lifespan because the American colonial administration eventually commenced operations.
Pertinently, the secularism of the Philippines began to find firm ground in the political consciousness of Filipinos under the American regime. Then US President McKinley issued Instructions to the body created to take over the civil government in the Philippines that reiterated:
“That no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed ... that no form of religion and no minister of religion shall be forced upon the community or upon any citizen of the Islands, that, on the other hand, no minister of religion shall be interfered with or molested in following his calling….that the separation between State and Church shall be real, entire and absolute."
And ever since the aforementioned colonial instrument was issued, this legal principle has been expressed in various enactments. Thus, it is safe to conclude that the idea of guaranteed religious freedom within a secular state is firmly embedded within the legal structure of the Philippines.
The doctrine that must be highlighted is the ruling of the court that the country’s“constitutional history and interpretation indubitably show that benevolent neutrality is the launching pad from which the Court should take off in interpreting religion clause cases. The ideal towards which this approach is directed is the protection of religious liberty “not only for a minority, however small- not only for a majority, however large- but for each of us” to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits."
This idea of “benevolent neutrality” stems from the innate spirituality of Filipinos. The state must give due respect to the place of religion in Filipino society but at the same time must faithfully perform its secular mandates.
Thus, even though the state is mandated to perform strictly non-religious functions, the principle of benevolent neutrality requires it to ensure that the practice of religion remains unhindered. Meaning, the government cannot enact legislation or any regulation that can unduly burden people from exercising their chosen faith.
This privilege though does not afford organized religious groups a free pass to do anything they want. The rule to respect the practice of religion simply means that the state cannot be antagonistic or apathetic to religious groups but must actually aim to tolerate them to the extent permissible within constitutional limits.
To summarize, in the Philippines all religions are guaranteed the freedom to exercise their rituals and traditions, to perform rites in the expression of their faith for as long as these acts do not violate state law and the Constitution.
More importantly however, the Philippines state is not an arena where the various religions compete for control. It is a neutral ground where any religion can lay claim to its own space. Thus, in the Philippines there can be no dominant or subordinate religion. In fact, it is the job of the state to ensure that all religions exist on a level field.
[1] ALEJANDRO ESTRADA vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003.
x x x."
According to the ponente, the Treaty of Paris itself specifically stipulated that “the inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of religion.”
Meaning, the separation of the church and state has removed from the government the power to impose a particular religion on the citizenry. The guarantee of the freedom of religion meant that government no longer had the authority to interfere with religious matters.
The idea of guaranteed religious freedom within a secular state was fully embraced by the Filipino elites at the advent of US colonial period such that a little over a month later after the signing of the Treaty of Paris, a purely Filipino constitution (the Malolos Constitution) was adopted on January 22, 1899 which specifically provided that “the State recognizes the liberty and equality of all religion (de todos los cultos) in the same manner as the separation of the Church and State.” This constitution however had a very short lifespan because the American colonial administration eventually commenced operations.
Pertinently, the secularism of the Philippines began to find firm ground in the political consciousness of Filipinos under the American regime. Then US President McKinley issued Instructions to the body created to take over the civil government in the Philippines that reiterated:
“That no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed ... that no form of religion and no minister of religion shall be forced upon the community or upon any citizen of the Islands, that, on the other hand, no minister of religion shall be interfered with or molested in following his calling….that the separation between State and Church shall be real, entire and absolute."
And ever since the aforementioned colonial instrument was issued, this legal principle has been expressed in various enactments. Thus, it is safe to conclude that the idea of guaranteed religious freedom within a secular state is firmly embedded within the legal structure of the Philippines.
The doctrine that must be highlighted is the ruling of the court that the country’s“constitutional history and interpretation indubitably show that benevolent neutrality is the launching pad from which the Court should take off in interpreting religion clause cases. The ideal towards which this approach is directed is the protection of religious liberty “not only for a minority, however small- not only for a majority, however large- but for each of us” to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits."
This idea of “benevolent neutrality” stems from the innate spirituality of Filipinos. The state must give due respect to the place of religion in Filipino society but at the same time must faithfully perform its secular mandates.
Thus, even though the state is mandated to perform strictly non-religious functions, the principle of benevolent neutrality requires it to ensure that the practice of religion remains unhindered. Meaning, the government cannot enact legislation or any regulation that can unduly burden people from exercising their chosen faith.
This privilege though does not afford organized religious groups a free pass to do anything they want. The rule to respect the practice of religion simply means that the state cannot be antagonistic or apathetic to religious groups but must actually aim to tolerate them to the extent permissible within constitutional limits.
To summarize, in the Philippines all religions are guaranteed the freedom to exercise their rituals and traditions, to perform rites in the expression of their faith for as long as these acts do not violate state law and the Constitution.
More importantly however, the Philippines state is not an arena where the various religions compete for control. It is a neutral ground where any religion can lay claim to its own space. Thus, in the Philippines there can be no dominant or subordinate religion. In fact, it is the job of the state to ensure that all religions exist on a level field.
[1] ALEJANDRO ESTRADA vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003.
x x x."
