The MISCONCEPTION about the SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE
9 03 2008 
In light of the CBCP’s call for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to scrap EO 464 (which she did), a call that dismayed the anti-Arroyo crowd who wanted the bishops to issue a stronger statement, i.e. resignation, the question which I believe until now has not been clearly answered is this:
IS THE SEEMING INTRUSION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INTO THE POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF THE NATION A VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution states:
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
In the case of Austria vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124382, August 16, 1999 (involving an illegal dismissal case filed by a Pastor against the Seventh-day Adventist Church), the Supreme Court made the following pronouncement:
The rationale of the principle of the separation of church and state is summed up in the familiar saying, “Strong fences make good neighbors.” The idea advocated by this principle is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions. The demarcation line calls on the entities to “render therefore unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” While the State is prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs, the Church is likewise barred from meddling in purely secular matters.
In that case, while the Court explained the meaning of “purely ecclesiastical affairs”, it did not expound on the phrase “purely secular matters”. Finding out the meaning of these terms is imporant in order for us to know when the two institutions can be said to be intruding into the affairs of the other. Hence, while an ecclesiastical affair is “one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form or worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership”, there is no such counterpart definition in the decision with respect to what are purely secular matters. That leaves us, therefore, to determine for ourselves what they are.
The daily operations of government and the official functions exercised by various government officials are, in my opinion, the matters which the Church should not meddle into. The business of government is better left to the expertise of people who are specially trained in running the day to day affairs of the State. Ergo, if the Church as a whole (or as a matter of policy) immerses itself in government, e.g. establish a political party, allowing its bishops and priests to be appointed or elected as public servants, then that would be a violation of the constitutional principle.
Be that as it may, Article II, Section 6 should be read in conjunction with Article III, Section 5 which provides:
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
There are three important principles in the aforecited section. First, it prohibits the establishment of any official religion by the State. Second, it guarantees the free exercise of religion. Third, it prohibits the conduct of religious tests before a person can exercise civil or political rights (like, for example, limiting public offices to those who adhere to a particular religion).
There are other constitutional provisions that reinforce Article III, Section 5. They are Article VI, Section 29 (2):
No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
and Article IX, C, Section 2 (5), 1st paragraph:
The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
x x x
Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the burden is more on the State to ensure, inter alia, that first, it does not intrude into the ecclesiastical affairs of the Church; second, it does not establish any official religion; third, it guarantees the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship; and fourth, it prohibits any religious test for the exercise of civil and political rights.
Except for the soft reminder that it should not interfere with “purely secular affairs”, nowhere in the Constitution can you find similar or counterpart burdens imposed on the Church. Thus, it is wrong to say that the Church is meddling with politics when:
1. the CBCP or any of its bishops issue pastoral statements attacking or defending the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; or when
2. activist priests and pastors hold rallies or stage protest actions against the government; or when
3. you hear priests like Fr. Romeo Intengan blame the Left for the ills of the nation; or when
4. you see Pastor Apollo Quiboloy (the self-proclaimed “son of god”) openly declare President Arroyo to be God’s choice; or when
5. religious denominations like the Iglesia ni Cristo endorse certain candidates for public office; or when
6. La Salle brothers and nuns provide sanctuary to NBN witness Jun Lozada; or when
7. you see priests holding political masses for former President Corazon Aquino and her followers; or whenever
8. you see 17 priests from Pampanga exorcising the evil out of Gloria. 
In all of the above cases, there is no violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.
Read the statements of:
Archbishop Angel Lagdameo here and here.
Archbishop Oscar Cruz here and here.
Ricardo Cardinal Vidal here.
Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales here.
the picture scares me so much. the idea that the church is separated from the state, in our case, is such because PGMA would immediately burn once the priests touch her. the government would be cleansed and hence, no corruption would ever take place. that is sad news for the crocs up in the government. EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!
hahaha. 17 priests from pampanga attempted to exorcise beelzebub lurking inside her system. they failed.
If the church is not separated from the world:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/01/in-world-and-of-world-unique-faith.html
What difference does it make if its separate from the state?
eric,
whether we like it or not, the Church (not just the Catholic church) will always be around to influence people and government.
[...] in ousting Presidents Marcos and Estrada. They did not invoke their misplaced concept of “separation of Church and State” before but they are unsurprisingly invoking it [...]