By now, many readers know of the plight of Carlos Celdran, the controversial tour guide and political activist who, in September 2010, went to a meeting of religious leaders held at the Manila Cathedral. Celdran displayed a placard bearing the word “Damaso” and verbally decried the bishops for their meddling in politics. For that, Monsignor Nestor Cerbo of the Manila Cathedral instituted criminal charges against Celdran for violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes “anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”
Cerbo’s complaint led to Celdran’s conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. The conviction was upheld by the Regional Trial Court and, lately, by the Court of Appeals.
Prior to the arrival of Pope Francis in the Philippines, Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle made a less-than-straightforward public announcement that the Roman Catholic Church had forgiven Celdran. Tagle claimed that it was not the Church which filed the criminal case against the outspoken tour guide. This doublespeak on the part of Tagle was discussed in this column last Saturday.
A number of constitutional issues have been raised by the conviction of Celdran.
One issue relates to the separation of Church and State.
Section 6, Article II of the 1987 Constitution categorically states that “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” Towards this end, Section 5 of Article III mandates that “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. xxx.” In addition, there is Section 29, Article VI which prohibits the expenditure of public money for the benefit of any church or religious denomination.
The separation of Church and State is enshrined as a state principle in the Philippine Constitution not only because of the secular government crafted by the American colonial authorities in the Philippine Islands, but also because of the bad experience Filipinos had under the abusive Spanish colonial government where the union of Church and State prevailed for almost four centuries. This is best illustrated in Jose Rizal’s novels – Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo.
Even Christ himself endorsed the separation of Church and State when he declared that the people should “render unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar, and render unto God the things that belong to God.”
Attention is also invited to Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution which exempts all religious denominations from taxation. This tax-exempt status of religious denominations is a high privilege. The press is not even afforded that privilege. This tax-exempt status given to the Church is intimately related to, and is a consequence of, the separation of Church and State.
For starters, the government of the Republic of the Philippines cannot operate without funds to sustain its expenditures. The funds come from the tax revenues raised by the government mostly from the Filipinos themselves. While some foreigners sojourning in the Philippines or doing business in the country also pay taxes, the bulk of the nation’s tax revenue emanates from Filipino individual and corporate taxpayers.
With taxes imposed on every sale or similar activity in this country, e.g., the purchase of food, medicine, gasoline, cinema house tickets, and with the Philippine economy dependent largely on sales, it is not exaggerating to say that every Filipino is a taxpayer.
Because the funds used by the government come from taxpayers, the latter have the inherent right to criticize the way the government is managed, and to question in court any illegal expenditure of public money.
The Church, however, is not similarly situated with taxpayers.
Taken together, the inviolability of the separation of Church and State, and the tax-exempt status enjoyed by the Church, likewise embody an unwritten prohibition against meddling by the Church in the affairs of the State. In theory at least, this means that since the Church does not pay taxes, it should refrain from engaging in politics, especially politics of the partisan kind.
This is not to say that the Church is absolutely prohibited from expressing its views on issues which have a direct bearing on Church doctrines such as family planning, divorce, same-sex marriages, and abortion. Thus, the Church can oppose the reproductive health law and denounce it at the pulpit. That is legitimate expression. On the other hand, when the Church threatens to campaign against the re-election of legislators who vote for the approval of the reproductive health law, that threat constitutes not just religious adventurism into secular concerns, but political blackmail and reprisal in their baldest forms as well.
In its criticism of the reproductive health law when it was still pending in Congress, the Church did just that – it questioned the propriety of the proposed statute, and went on to say that it will actively campaign against the re-election of the legislators concerned.
Such religious adventurism, political blackmail, and threat of reprisal must have irritated Celdran enough for him to go out of his way to dress up like Jose Rizal, complete with a bowler hat and period attire, and travel to the Manila Cathedral and display his placard. In other words, Celdran’s act was provoked by the Church’s manifest violation of the constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State. This suggests that if Celdran is guilty of violating a penal law, then the Church is also guilty, not of violating a penal law, but the Constitution – the fundamental law of the land. The only difference is that a violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code carries a penal provision. A violation of the constitutionally-mandated inviolability of the separation of Church and State has none.
There is a principle in Law which postulates that one who seeks relief from the courts must come with clean hands. When the Church sued Celdran, the Church did not come to court with clean hands.