Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo may not have read the statement of the undersigned, concerning the pastoral letter of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), in its entirety.
The opening statement is clear enough. Neither a categorical nor a conclusive assertion is made that the pastoral letter violated the constitutional principle on the separation of the Church and State. An alternative view is contained in the same statement, to wit: “[e]ven if it is not deemed to be a violation thereof, we note that it parrots the detractors’ favored false narrative” against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA).
The constitutional provision was quoted as an admonition on the separation of the Church and State in view of the CBCP’s unequivocal attempt at influencing the Supreme Court to decide against the ATA in relation to the pending cases before it. We recognize the right of members of the clergy expressing their advocacy or dissent on certain issues. However, when members of their top ranks, collectively, in the name of their religion, exert pressure and influence on a purely governmental process by publicly posting a powerful rhetorical question such as: “Will the highest level of our Judiciary assert its independence, or will they, too, succumb to political pressure?” , they cross the line that separates the church and state.
For it for recklessly and unfairly creates a perception that should the Supreme Court ultimately decide against the petitions apropos the ATA, then it has conclusively surrendered its independence and succumbed to political pressure. It is unfair as undeniably their postulations intrinsically involve the moral obedience of its numerous followers to faith — that adopting a hostile position against the ATA is to be on the right side of fighting evil when, in truth and in fact, the measure is pro-life and crafted by legislators precisely to address the evils of terrorism.
The influence of the Church on the decision-making process of our State-leaders therefore can not be ignored . History teaches us how our leaders refuse to take positions against the contemporary beliefs of the Church on public policy due to the latter’s clout in our country and citizenry. It is for this reason that the Church should not attempt to interfere in purely political or temporal matters; otherwise, with its strong persuasion, they are to dictate how the nation should run its earthly affairs — a clear derogation of the separation principle.
We recall the words of the President: “ When you are a religious, you have to be something of a neutral dito sa faith mo pati government because it is really the concept of a republican system that there is a separation of Church and State. So when you criticize me, do not use the platform of God.”
Case law is also not wanting of reminders that the political processes must be insulated from religion. The Supreme Court, in the course of a ruling, has recently wrote that, “the Church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they are good for the country.” ( Inchong vs. Ochoa )
Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution should not be construed only against the State. As Commissioner Gregorio J. Tingson, one of the drafters of the Constitution, said during the deliberations, “[r]eligion is a pervasive and overwhelming fact of our national existence. While we do not entertain the notion of ever regulating the observance of religion, let us make sure that religion, encompassing as it does large segments of our society, does not unduly influence the formulation and implementation of state policies… Our overriding concern as a committee, therefore, can only be this: The Church or the State can destroy itself by interfering with the business of the other. The passage ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’ is not an idle passage in the Holy Book. It is an established principle, and violating it can only mean disaster, either for the Church or the State.”
Mr. Neri Colmenares’ remarks that the statement of the undersigned, following its logic, similarly violates the Church-exhibit his inadequate comprehension as the subject of both the pastoral letter and statement is a secular and not a religious matter, thus removing any mark of intrusion into the affairs of the Catholic Church.
It is amusing and disturbing to witness a bishop dare — or pose a challenge for — the government to file a case against them. The manner in which it was hurled seemed to demonstrate hubris and hate on his part. We will simply shrug off such challenge. Pursuing such an action would only give them the excuse to decry government suppression, silencing of voices, and weaponization of the law, similar to what detractors and critics recite when they are hailed to court for their transgressions.
