The Philippine Catholic Church is not shy in expressing its views in several issues of the country.

In 1986,
its leader, the late Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin, is considered to be one of the major forces
behind the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos despite the fact that the former is considered to be a
dictator and ruthless. Thousands of Filipinos, especially the Catholics, heeded his call to go to EDSA to
help the rebels when he went to the radio and delivered the line I ask you now to prepare your power as
a people.

In 2001, a few weeks away from the 15 th anniversary of the first EDSA revolution, the same Archbishop of
Manila stood beside some active and retired Filipino politicians and other celebrities to call for the
resignation of then President Joseph Estrada. The event is considered to be the second EDSA revolution.
Estrada stepped down eventually, albeit ambiguously (which will be a subject of a case in the Supreme
Court eventually), and on the same day, Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took her oath to take
over as new president of the Philippines. In the photos of her inauguration, Jaime Cardinal Sin is seen
standing along with then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., and then Senate President Aquilino Pimentel,
Jr. To some Filipinos, Cardinal Sins presence in the event signifies that the change in presidency is
approved and has the blessings of the (Catholic) Church.

***

Jesus is Lord Church founder Eduardo Villanueva ran for president twice 2004 and in 2010 and as
senator in 2013. He lost in all of his bids. However, his son Joel is a former member of the House of
Representatives and now the Secretary-General of the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority TESDA), an active member and one of the senatorial candidates of President Aquinos Liberal
Party.

***

Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), a Christian sect founded in the Philippines, is believed to have a policy that
requires all of its members to vote for a candidate that is endorsed by its leaders. INC has more than a
million members that included registered voters. Their total number of registered voters is small compared
to the total number of voters in the entire country but their votes matter especially for candidates who are
in the borderline of losing and winning, especially for senators that aims for at least the 12 th slot.

In August 2015, the INC staged a rally in the already problematic EDSA highway that caused major road
congestion. They protest the impending arrest, ordered by the Department of Justice, of some of their
church leaders allegedly, among others, for kidnapping. Their act earned much ire in social media but
despite that, they seemed to have pushed their protest enough to cause Malacanang to call their leaders
for a dialogue. The rally ended suddenly with the protesters claiming victory. Rumors have it that a deal
has been reached between the president and some of the leaders of the INC. It is worth noting however is
that when sought for comments, a few politicians are a bit cautious in commenting regarding how they
view the INC members rally.

***

The cited incidences are some of the events in Philippine history in which the border separating the
Church and State is believed to have been crossed. Some people think and blame the churches in the
country for holding back progress because of its backward thinking. On the other hand, there are also
people who are happy with the insistence of the church to every now and then be vocal about State
affairs because to them the church is a moral beacon worth considering in every step of the way.

Both the State and Church has its basis in its stand on the issue. In the case of the Philippine
government, it is the Constitution which states nothing more than that the principle is inviolable.
Whereas for the Churches who core is the Christian faith (which comprises majority of Filipinos and their
leaders), shouldnt it be the Bible?

Therefore, if the Philippine Constitution said it is inviolable, what does the Bible say about separation of
Church and State?

How do Filipinos understand the Principle of the Separation of Church and State?

A. Under Malolos Constitution

The root of confusion or indecisiveness on the issue can be found to as early as the 1899 Malolos
Constitution. In its Title III, Article 5, it states:

Title III-On Religion

Article 5. The State recognizes the freedom and equality of all beliefs, as well as the separation of
Church and State.

The Separationists won by one vote, however, then Philippine president Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo,
heeding the advice of the countrys Prime Minister Apolinario Mabini, suspended the implementation
of the cited provision. At that time, the Philippines is at war with the United States and he cannot
afford to have conflict with his fellow Filipinos including those who are for the unity of Church and
State.

If the anti-separation then were aiming to have a State religion and if there is any religion they were
rooting for it would be Roman Catholicism. The faction is led by Felipe G. Calderon, a considered
Filipino Ilustrado (translated, enlightened). However, more than as a moral guide for governance, the
core of Calderons contention is the Filipinization of Roman Catholicism in the Philippines. His aim is
to make native Filipinos eligible for appointment in the hierarchy of the Church in the country. He
fears that if there will be a separation of church and state, the Vatican may take advantage and
appoint foreign bishops and ecclesiastical authorities in the country. Calderons stand is based on the
premise that Filipino native clergies will be more loyal to the country than to the Vatican. And most
probably, those natives that may be appointed to church positions will be the same people who are
members of the revolutionary movement thereby putting them in a position to believe that they also
have a share in government affairs to which they contributed or sacrificed much. Historians, however,
notes that Calderon has a Spanish friar grandfather and himself admitted that he had intimate
relations with the Jesuits from Ateneo Municipal.

Opposite Calderon is Tomas Del Rosario who is sided with Mabini on the issue. Their faction had two
main reasons: the diversity of faiths in the country, citing the Muslims in Mindanao and the non-
Christian tribes living in other parts of the country; and the distrust of the Papacy.
 The debates on the issue led to the contention of whether or not to make Roman Catholicism a State
religion. In this question, Del Rosario reasoned that privileging the Catholic Church as a state
religion would be unjust and would bring about serious conflicts and provoke a civil war. (Aguilar,
FV, Church-State Relations in the 1899 Malolos Constitution: Filipinization and Visions of National
Community) On the matter regarding the distrust of the Papacy, Del Rosario relied heavily on the
lessons learned in European history. According to a Felipe Calderons memoir:

He (Del Rosario) spoke of the errors and the constant ambitions of the Pontificate, which resulted in
intolerance, persecutions and religious wars. He dwelt on the dual dangers of public power whenever
religious power is joined with civil power He deplored the odious and military character assumed by
Catholicism, when the Popes proclaimed themselves leaders of civil government, reducing the princes of the
church to soldiers of the Pontiffs.

xxx

He examined the obstacles to the formation of a juridical community among the pueblos, which was
opposed by the Catholic Church, thereby establishing religious inequality, and the princes were forced to
accept the temporal supremacy of the Church, thus there remained a permanent state of war He said that
the Popes considered the State as a religious and ecclesiastical institution, absorbing the irresistible apogee
of the Middle Ages.

In the end, the common ground shared by the two contenders is nationalism. One wants to retain the
unification of Church and State but that Filipinos take control of the church while the other complete
separation for reasons held even now.

B. American Period

The United States seemed to have resolved what the framers of the Malolos Constitution cannot.
The Malolos Constitution was short-lived after the US colonized the Philippine Islands. Part of their
policy is to extend the Principle of Separation of Church and State found in the First Amendment of
the US Constitution. From McKinleys instruction to the Philippine Commission in April 7, 1900 1:

[] That the provision of the Treaty of Paris that no form of religion and no minister of religion shall be
forced upon any community or upon any citizen of the islands; that upon the other hand no minister of
religion shall be interfered with or molested in following his calling, and that the separation between state
and church shall be real, entire, and absolute. [] (Emphasis supplied by the author)

As mentioned earlier, the basis of the instruction is the First Amendment to the US Constitution that
was adopted in 1791 and it states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The reason behind the clause against establishment of religion is that it seems the early inhabitants
of the United States were fed up by the religious persecutions in the Old World and want to put up a

1 https://berneguerrero.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cons1-annex2.pdf (Instructions of the President to the Philippine Commission

April 7, 1900)
 New World where the freedom of conscience is respected and perhaps even valued 2. The freedom
to, or not to, have a belief in god is one of the personal freedoms demanded then. Without it,
religious minorities could be persecuted and the government might establish a state religion 3.

C. Fast Forward to the present 1987 Constitution.

Article II, Section 6 of the present constitution reads:

Article II

Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Principles

xxx

Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

What does that mean? It should be noted that prominent Filipino Catholics Teodoro Bacani, Joaquin Bernas and
Christine Tan are among the framers of the 1987 Constitution. When asked to explain the provision, Bernas
comments:

2 http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/Bagares_Church-State_separation.pdf

3 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about-the-first-amendment