Those who dislike Rodrigo Duterte and his brand of leadership, or who cannot accept the draconian methods he employs in his fight against drugs and crime, or are simply shocked by the language he mouths which do not pass the standards of urbanity they prefer of a president of the land, may think they have found a strong ally in the bishops of the Roman Catholic church.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, which twice became an instrument in toppling governments in this country, is no longer as powerful or influential as it used to be in a perverse sort of way, during the years when the unlamented Cardinal Sin was its unelected leader.
Filipinos have realized that their lives did not get any better, and in fact became worse, after they listened to the interventionist voice of the man called Sin. In Edsa One, there may have been great moral outrage which synthesized with the moral posture of the Church in the Philippines. There was largely a grave doubt in the public mind that their vote was robbed by the Comelec under strongman Marcos. This broke the camel’s back, which was under great strain since the assassination three years earlier of Ninoy Aquino. The conviction was strongest, and the opposition was most vociferous in Metro Manila, the seat of political and economic power.
Edsa Two was otra cosa. It was a clear power grab with little genuine moral outrage propelling the conspiracy of the elite. But it was backed by ambitious military generals who wanted to bask in the power that a female vice president was all too willing to share with them. And when the interventionist Cardinal Sin convinced then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo that she had a “moral” duty to assume power and grab the presidency from the man who two years and a half ago was elected by overwhelming numbers of the lumpen, once more the influence of the Roman Catholic leadership in the Philippines altered the course of history.
But after two Edsas, which we will again commemorate in less than two weeks hence, what “blessings from heaven” have our people received in return?
Nada.
Well, except if one considers this perverted democracy we “enjoy” more important than a better quality of life for some 90 percent of our population.
That is why the people of this benighted land saw a “savior” in Rodrigo Duterte, despite his cussing profanity, at one time directed towards Il Santo Papa, mismo!
Rodrigo’s victory in democratically held elections last year was a triumph of the ordinary man against a system where only the forms of democracy presided over an utter lack of democratic substance, which is equal opportunity. And so those who supported his political competitors found themselves engulfed by a maelstrom of protest they could not quite fathom until it hit them straight in the eye.
They have become yesterday’s men, consigned to bite the dust of a new wave of nationalism and a strong desire for meaningful change in the everyday life of the everyman.
Look at the recently released short jeremiad of the CBCP, which in rather cautiously-calibrated language denounced the so-called culture of death foisted by the secular leadership against drugs. Once again, the CBCP segued into their consistently-advocated fear of the death penalty now pending in Congress. Invoking their “bias” for the poor, the bishops virtually state that in the kind of society where we exist, poor boys fry while rich men fly if the death penalty is reimposed. Which may be true, but that is precisely because they have conspired with the elite in foisting this kind of feudal order upon the benighted land.
But Rodrigo Duterte and his House Speaker will have none of the usual balderdash from the bishops. Calling them “hypocrites,” Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez minced no words in pushing his proposed legislation, and even went as far as threatening those who would not follow him and the President to resign from their positions of power and prominence.
Never have the bishops been confronted by this kind of tit for tat, by the in-your-face intransigence of political leadership.
But that is how it must be. We live in a secular state, where the Constitution, whether the present or the past basic laws, guarantee the separation of State and Church. (I purposely began with the word State before Church).
Let the Church confine itself to matters that belong to it, and let the State care about the daily affairs of keeping order in society and ensuring the material basics of the people it serves. Was that not how Christ himself decreed the separation of State and Church, by stressing that people must “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s?”
So should it be. So it must be.
The real and undiluted separation of State and Church might well be the beginning of a better Philippines.