The Constitution of the Philippines explicitly mandates the separation of Church and State. Towards this end, the State is prohibited from favoring an official religion and, as a general rule, no public money shall be spent for a religious purpose. In addition, organized religions are exempted from paying taxes in relation to anything that is directly involved with the practice of their respective faiths.
The rationale for the separation of Church and State is anchored on equity. When the government supports a particular organized religion, the government ends up unduly discriminating against other religions, organized or otherwise, as well as against citizens who do not belong to any religion. Such undue discrimination is no different from undue favoritism, which violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In turn, this clause means that people who are similarly situated should be treated similarly, and that classification, to be valid, must be based on distinctions which make real differences.
During the Spanish colonial period in Philippine history, there was a union of Church and State. That arrangement allowed abusive Spanish friars to throw their weight around in the halls of political power everywhere. It was one of the reasons why the Filipinos revolted against Spanish colonial authority.
The constitutional mandate of separation of Church and State obtaining in the Philippines today is essentially of American origin. It is lifted from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which explicitly disallows the State from establishing or sponsoring an official religion. It also forbids the State from prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom. Worth emphasizing is the principle that the freedom to worship includes the freedom not to worship.
Under the First Amendment, no religious institution is allowed to influence the affairs of the government. The early American government even viewed the Vatican and the pope with so much suspicion that it refused a papal donation to a fund drive to finance the construction of the Washington Monument. Unknown to many, it was only during the administration of President Ronald Reagan when Washington, D.C. first opened diplomatic relations with Vatican City, then headed by Pope John Paul II who, like Reagan, was a staunch anti-communist.
To repeat, the constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State means that public funds may not be spent for religious purposes. Although papal visits to the Philippines inevitably require the government to spend public funds for the papal reception, there is, strictly speaking, no expenditure of public money for a religious purpose because the papal visit is also the state visit of the pope as the head of state of Vatican City—the smallest state in the world.
Although the pope almost always ends us officiating in a mass for the Catholic faithful at the Luneta, the mass is seen as part of the official activities of the visiting head of state, except that the Filipinos are welcome to participate in it.
Allowing the papal mass to take place at the Luneta at government expense isn’t a breach of the Constitution. If there is nothing patently illegal about the pope, as head of state of Vatican City, being permitted to conduct a religious activity at the Luneta exclusively for his papal entourage, there is also nothing patently objectionable about that religious activity being open to the general public who wish to be part of the event.
It logically follows, of course, that while public funds may not be used for the construction or repair of church buildings, the Church is allowed to receive donations of private funds, a term that includes private money donated by public officials in their private capacity.
Since the Constitution prohibits the State from establishing or sponsoring a religion, it is unconstitutional to officially designate provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays with religious labels like “Christian,” “Catholic,” “Muslim,” “Islamic,” “Mormon” and the like. Thus, it is unconstitutional to call the country the Catholic Republic of the Philippines, or a city or town in a similar manner. For the same reason, signages of similar nature and import are likewise in breach of the Constitution.
The only exception to the foregoing rule is the official designation used by the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao—the use of this name is explicitly allowed, mandated even, by the Constitution. If a mere law instead of the Constitution allowed it, that law would be unconstitutional.
Several weeks ago, this column invited attention to a photograph of a welcome archway marking the boundary of Marawi City in war-torn Lanao del Sur province. The photograph, which was published in another newspaper, carried the signage “Welcome to the Islamic City of Marawi.” Without meaning to offend anybody on religious considerations, it was urged in this column that the said signage must be removed because there is no provision in the Constitution which allows it. If the mayor of Marawi City allows the signage to stay, he may be courting criminal and administrative raps before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Last week, about a hundred policewomen were sent to Marawi City purportedly to assist in the government’s rehabilitation efforts there. The news media reported that the policewomen were required by their superiors in the Philippine National Police to wear hijabs—the traditional scarf worn around the head by Muslim women. Since the hijab is not part of the official uniform of police personnel, the PNP official who required the policewomen to wear hijabs is also courting criminal and administrative charges.
Whether or not the hijabs issued to the policewomen were donated is immaterial. Police personnel cannot be required to wear an attire that is not officially allowed by law. If the hijabs were purchased with public funds, that’s worse because public funds were spent for a religious item that is not even part of official attire or needed in law enforcement.
Public interest crusaders should take legal action against this blatant iregularity committed by the PNP.