Tuesday, March 1, 2016

State and the Church

The concept of separation of church and state
All rights reserved

   Is the principle of separation of church and state really inviolable?

    The short answer is no. The 1987 Constitution itself provides for exceptions to Section 6, Article II in Section 28(3) and 29(2), Article VI, and Section 3(3), Article XIV.

    You are not satisfied with the answer?  Well, we could arrive at a more detailed answer if we examine and differentiate the schools of thought involved in Church-State separation.

    The first is strict separation which believes that the Establishment Clause was meant to protect the state from the church, and the state's hostility towards religion allows no interaction between the two. According to this Jeffersonian view, an absolute barrier to formal interdependence of religion and state needs to be erected. Religious institutions could not receive aid, whether direct or indirect, from the state. Nor could the state adjust its secular programs to alleviate burdens the programs placed on believers.

    The second is strict neutrality wherein the state must be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers. "State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them." The strict neutrality approach is not hostile to religion, but it is strict in holding that religion may not be used as a basis for classification for purposes of governmental action, whether the action confers rights or privileges or imposes duties or obligations. Only secular criteria may be the basis of government action.

    However, there is a problem with the separationist approach, whether in the form of strict separation or strict neutrality. Although it "captures the spirit of the American ideal of church-state separation," in real life, church and state are not and cannot be totally separate. This is all the more true in contemporary times when both the government and religion are growing and expanding their spheres of involvement and activity, resulting in the intersection of government and religion at many points.

    The third is benevolent neutrality wherein religion is looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, it allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Accommodations are government policies that take religion specifically into account not to promote the government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. Their purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion.

    From our discussion, it is obvious that the 1987 Constitution adheres to the principle of benevolent neutrality because it accommodates religion.

Religion and law

    Under the principle of benevolent neutrality, can religious beliefs be used as a base for law or government policy?  Again, yes.  

    It must be understood that that the constitutional protection of religious freedom gave religious equality, not civil immunity.  Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma.

    Notwithstanding the principle of separation of church and state, if the state regulates conduct by enacting, within its power, a general law which has for its purpose and effect to advance the state's secular goals, the statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance, unless the state can accomplish its purpose without imposing such burden.

    In a case the Court ruled that the Government should not be embarrassed in its activities simply because of incidental results, more or less religious in character, if the purpose had in view is one which could legitimately be undertaken by appropriate legislation. The main purpose should not be frustrated by its subordination to mere incidental results not contemplated. This is because not every governmental activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property.

    Thus, as a rule, certain religious beliefs may be used as a base for a general law which aims to advance the state's secular goals, or any government act or policy that take religion specifically into account in order to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion. After all, certain religious beliefs may also be motivated by secular, moral, and ethical considerations.  Objectively and to non-believers, the belief in question may have no religious bearing at all.

   Case in point are laws that define marriage; the rights, obligations, and duties attached to marriage; when and how to dissolve the marriage; and penal laws related to the protection of marriage.  Another example is the town fiesta, a socio-religious event which primarily aims to hold the fiesta and celebrate the town's devotion to a patron saint, if there is one.

   Finally, and to those who insist that the separation clause forbids religion from the sphere of law and government policy, can you explain why we have the Family Code and the Code of Muslim Personal Laws? Think about it.


   Caveat: Most of the what you have read are lifted directly from jurisprudence with some edits.

Sources: 1) Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015; 2) Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411; 

Link: Part Two