Had we adopted American constitutional law doctrine on Church-State relations, many things about Pope Francis’ visit to the Philippines and the government’s involvement in according him welcome would be legally amiss. Fortunately, we are wiser, in that we courageously crafted an indigenous construal of the state policy that ordains that the separation of both be inviolate! It is jurisprudence as unique as our Constitution that, in many places, reads like a textbook in moral theology. And we are not necessarily worse off because of that!
All stops are pulled. For the past days, before the Pope’s arrival, PSG has been going through the procedure of securing the person of the Pope, supervised by no less than Malacanan’s representatives and even by President Aquino no less! Troops more numerous than the contingent we sent to Iraq have been detailed in Manila to protect Pope Francis and to secure the safety of the millions who, it is anticipated, will like to catch at least a glimpse of one the most beloved figures in the world today. And we Filipinos tend to be disorderly when we are excited! Quirino Grandstand has been refurbished and government has reportedly spent a handsome sum just putting up the barricades that, we hope, will somehow keep the exuberance of the crowds within reasonable bounds.
“Separation of Church and State” then, as a constitutional prescription, has many meanings and even if, in Philippine jurisprudence, we have fallen back on familiar juridical labels such as ‘benevolent neutrality’, we have construed the precept of separation in a way uniquely ours (in many ways), thanks in large measure to cerebral jurists who have graced the Supreme Court, the likes of Chief Justice Reynato Puno in Estrada v. Escritor. That is as it should be. A constitution that grants tax exemption to churches, that allows religious societies to operate schools, that provides for the possibility of religious instruction in public schools, that echoes teaching like the primacy of the authority of parents in regard to children’s education and the beginning of human life from conception so fundamental to moral theology cannot engender that kind of jurisprudence that outlaws prayer in public ceremonies and religious symbols in public spaces, and proscribes the “excessive entanglement” of the State in affairs of religion!
One will always hear of course perpetual malcontents who never seem to be able to move on from the abuses of some of the Spanish friars, conveniently forgetting of course that the defense of natives against the abuse of Spanish overlords, the authorship of the first lexicons and grammars of our languages, and genuine “obras pias” in difficult times, we owe to the much-maligned “frailes”.
And Pope Francis shows us just how meaningfully and promisingly the head of an institutional faith can be the champion of the values that ‘separation of Church and State’ is supposed to safeguard and to juridify. Separation is not an end in itself, but is called for by a society that has become pluralistic, with citizens maintaining beliefs not always compatible with each other. His gestures of openness and inclusiveness, his insistent demand that we be charitable and compassionate, and his willingness to throw open not only the windows but also the doors of the Church, and probably even knock down some of its walls—all these make clear the fallacy of equating zeal for liberty with antipathy towards religion!
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@yahoo.com