Valladores, Marianne Josel C.

AB Political Science 1-B

Philippine Politics and Governance
Finals Examination

1. Is power of the state to enforce quarantine absolute?

Answer: The freedom to travel must not be infringed upon unless in the interest of protecting
public health, as may be established by legislation, according to Section 6 of Article III of the
1987 Constitution. It isn't absolute, especially when there isn't any basis for it. It can,
however, be imposed in times of epidemic, when public health demands it. It can be enforced
by legislation passed by Congress.
The Philippine government implemented a comprehensive lockdown across Luzon on March
16, 2020, known as the Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ), as a preventive step to
reduce the COVID-19 outbreak. This ECQ is commonly regarded as one of the world's
longest lockdowns. All forms of domestic travel, including ground, air, and sea, were
prohibited under the ECQ. Residents were not permitted to leave their houses except under
emergency situations. Border closures and entrance restrictions were also imposed.
Thousands of police officers and military personnel were stationed at checkpoints to ensure
that people followed the lockdown instructions. It is no longer only class suspensions and the
ban of large-scale gatherings at that time. All travel to and from Luzon has been halted, and
all businesses, with the exception of those providing critical services such as food and health
care, have been forced to close. All modes of public transit have been halted.
However, frontline service providers, such as health care employees, supermarket and public
market sellers, airport personnel, and those employed by business process outsourcing
organizations, are still expected to report to work. A representative from each home is still
permitted to go out and buy food and other needs.
However, the problem is now on a bigger scale, and officials must figure out the quarantine
regulations as they are applied.
As countries work to halt the global spread of the novel coronavirus COVID-19, some are
taking more drastic measures than others, such as closing borders, prohibiting travelers,
quarantining foreigners, and refusing cruise ships from docking at their ports. Over the last
few months, COVID-19 has infected over 82,000 people and killed over 2,800. The vast
majority of cases are still in China, which global health officials attribute to the Chinese
government's aggressive approach to containment, which included quarantining Wuhan, the
outbreak's epicenter.
The World Health Organization has repeatedly praised China's approach to containing the
virus's spread within China while also buying time for other countries to prepare for a spread.
However, the nature of the outbreak is changing, raising questions about what role these
types of restrictions will play in the outbreak's longer term.
Other countries, in addition to China, have taken an active approach to containment. Russia
temporarily excluded Chinese people from entering the country, after the closure of its land
border with China and Mongolia. Dozens of other nations have also imposed visa restrictions
on Chinese tourists. Iran's neighbors have blocked their borders as the number of cases in the
nation increases. Foreigners have been quarantined in North Korea. Countries have taken
these measures out of fear and terror in the face of a virus with no vaccine, no treatment, and
many unknowns.
Others, on the other hand, have pushed to keep borders and people moving freely. WHO's
Tedros has repeatedly urged the international community to show “solidarity” in its reaction,
praising measures that defy the trend of isolation, such as the Cambodian government's
decision to accept a cruise ship that had been denied by ports in five nations.
Foreign ministers from China and Southeast Asian nations met and pledged to “jointly
continue people-to-people contacts, trade, and investment operations in the area, and, based
on the progress of the epidemic's prevention and control, resume and strengthen relations and
cooperation.”
These decisions, however, have not always been politically popular. While making these
judgments, governments must balance competing needs such as maintaining strong
diplomatic relations with China, a global economic superpower, while simultaneously
working feverishly to prevent the virus from spreading among their populations.

2. Why is separation of church and state shall be inviolable at all times?

Answer: Religion and politics may be divisive precisely because they deal with sensitive
issues that are very personal and near to our hearts. However, these debates do not have to be
divisive or hostile. Tolerance of another's beliefs is a personal choice, not a legal duty. We
are also advised that “religion and politics should not be mixed.” Again, this adage has a
profound truth: when religion is utilized for political goals, religion loses its eternal meaning
and becomes simply another cynical process of acquiring power. However, there is a caveat
concealed in that phrase: when people say, "Don't combine religion with politics," they often
mean, "Don't bring your faith into the public square where I can see it." In other words,
because we have a “separation of church and state,” you should keep your faith hidden
outside of your place of worship. The separation of religion and state is just too fundamental
a notion to be abused, especially as a means of suppressing opposing viewpoints.
In summary, the legislation confirmed what we should acknowledge in all eras: the ability to
profess any faith, or none at all, is a fundamental freedom for all.
A constitutional restriction on the state establishing or restricting personal faith was
genuinely innovative at the time. Regrettably, religious freedom remains revolutionary in
many nations today. The Philippines is obligated to embody this reality and illustrate the
breadth of this important human right.
Unlike in many other countries, our government is neither banned from mentioning or
accommodating religion, nor is it obligated to remove all religious allusions from the public
space.
This Amendment assures that the government does not favor one religion over another and
that the government does not restrict an individual's freedom to practice religion. In other
words, the church should not be allowed to rule over the state, and the state should not be
allowed to govern over the church. Religion is far too essential to be reduced to a
government program or a political spectacle.
There is no restriction against the Church or any religious body being involved in politics.
Although Church law prohibits it, members of the clergy can run for public office. The
Church is made up of laypeople in addition to clergy. As citizens of the country, all members
of the Church are free to exercise their civic rights and duties. This includes voting in
elections and opposing government acts and policies that are contrary to the common good
and the moral ideals taught by the Church. As a result, it is absurd to claim that the Church
cannot get engaged in politics because of the separation of the Church and the state.
From a historical standpoint, the idea of separation of Church and state arose in response to
the connection of Church and state exemplified by Patronato Real, or royal patronage. This
was in use for three centuries in Europe and the Philippines during Spanish colonial
authority. The patronato was founded on the idea of the state selecting one official religion,
such as Catholicism (to the exclusion of all other religions), and the state's responsibility to
promote that religion. This includes financial assistance for the clergy, the construction of
buildings and monasteries, and the protection of the Church against her adversaries.
To carry out her purpose, the Church required the support of the state. In exchange, the state
obtained the power to intervene in the Church's internal affairs. The appointment of bishops,
the formation of religious organizations and communities, and the construction of churches
and monasteries all required the consent of the state. There were periods when monarchs
might even convene Church councils to settle theological squabbles and heresies that
threatened state unity. The state may even meddle in papal elections. Patronato, taken to its
logical conclusion, resulted in governmental absolutism and Church rule.
With the emergence of liberal democracy and secular nations throughout history, the unity of
Church and state was replaced by the separation of Church and state. The Church lost its
privileged status, but it was a blessing in disguise since it eliminated not just the state's
patronage, but also the state's meddling and control over the Church. Today, governmental
control of religion occurs exclusively in communist regimes — but without public backing or
patronage.
Thus, the Church benefits from the separation of church and state because it shields the
Church from governmental control and intervention. The Church can freely carry out her
mission of spreading the Gospel and Christian moral principles, condemning evil in society,
serving the common good, working for the defense of life and the environment, fighting for
justice and peace, and conducting social action initiatives that help the needy. It does not
exclude the Church from being involved in social and political matters.
This implies that a government official cannot simply instruct Church members to cease
attending worship services or making financial contributions. It forbids any government
official from dictating to clergy what to teach and what not to preach. It forbids the state from
compelling priests to breach the seal of confession. The Church does not need the permission
or consent of government officials to carry out her mission.
As a result, it is critical to have a clear grasp of what the term "separation of Church and
state" actually implies. Otherwise, the Church may be silenced as a result of its
misunderstanding.

SOURCES:
 [OPINION] Understanding separation of Church and state (rappler.com)
 Why We Should Debate Religion and Politics More, Not Less | Time
 Department of Health website (doh.gov.ph)
 Factors affecting perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 prevention measures among Filipinos
during Enhanced Community Quarantine in Luzon, Philippines: Integrating Protection
Motivation Theory and extended Theory of Planned Behavior - ScienceDirect
 To contain the spread of coronavirus, Manila grapples with lockdown | Devex
 THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES – ARTICLE III | Official
Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines