The
concept of separation of church and state
Part
2
All rights reserved
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES! You have a flawed understanding of the concept
of church-state separation.
Generally,
the Constitution1
protects the church from government.2
It does not protect government from political action organized by
the church.
Why?
Because the separation clause must always be read with the freedom
of expression provisions found in the Bill of Rights.
Understand
that "[t]he individual citizen is but a speck of particle or
molecule vis-à-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government.
His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his
fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in
times of need."3
In other words, the Bill of Rights limits the powers of government.4
So,
if the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens from
government, then by relating the separation clause with the
provisions found in the Bill of Rights, we can conclude that the
church, the physical manifestation of the exercise of religious
freedom, is being protected against government intervention.5
Was
that too much of a "stretch" for you? You still want to
cling to your flawed understanding of the separation clause?
Wow,
talk about fans serving their idols! Riddle me this: if our
Constitution demands that the state be protected from the church,
then why do we give churches, including their priests, certain
benefits under our Constitution?
Answer:
Benevolent Neutrality.6
This
concept should be more than enough to fell your mental walls called
bias. Still, if you want to (malisciously) cling to your (flawed)
beliefs then that be your right. After all, freedom gave us the
right to be (ir)responsible and (mis)informed.
1See
Section 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution
2"faith,
practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and
rule of a church...are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which
are outside the province of the civil courts." Fonacier v.
Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 417 (1955)
3Secretary
of Justice v. Hon. Lantion, 379 Phil. 165 (2000)
4
See Yrasuegui v. PAL, 590 Phil. 490 (2008);
5
See Estrada
v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411
