No absolution even for ‘religious’ crimes
It must be stressed that the act of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima is absolutely not an encroachment on the religious freedom of the Iglesia ni Cristo. She was only performing a solemn duty of her office, considering the fact that there was already a criminal complaint being filed by Isaias Samson Jr. against some of the leaders of the INC for the nonbailable offense of illegal detention, conformably with the provisions of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The expulsion of some INC members was a matter of religious discipline, which the government cannot question, in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Long vs Basa (GR No. 134963-64, Sept. 27, 2001). However, if such expulsion involved illegal detention, which is a criminal act punishable under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, then the government, through the justice secretary, must properly and legally act on it, especially when a criminal complaint is already being filed as in this instance.
Freedom of religion is a matter of right and covered by the principle of separation of church and state, but a criminal act, even if committed in the course of a religious activity, cannot be absolved under the banner of religious freedom.
The incident in Mamasapano where 44 SAF members were killed is separate and distinct from the illegal detention case against the INC ministers; no one filed a criminal complaint for the death of the 44 SAF members—not even the heirs of the two INC members who were killed in that tragic event. Thus, the Department of Justice cannot proceed immediately with the preliminary investigation pursuant to the provisions of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court. But the DOJ has conducted a discreet fact-finding investigation to determine who are criminally liable, preparatory to filing the appropriate criminal complaints should it find any basis for such.
As the saying goes, “Little learning is a dangerous thing, and don’t jump into conclusion without having first a concrete observation of the thing at issue.”
Viewed from all the foregoing, it could well be said that the primary and sole purpose of the INC rally had, therefore, no semblance of legality; under such circumstances, it is just and proper that under the police power of the state and the general welfare clause, the local government may refuse to issue a permit for such a rally.
The INC ministers accused in the illegal detention suit filed in the DOJ should file their respective counter-affidavits and not resort to a rally to force the DOJ to drop the case, which is tantamount to bullying.
—PEDRO E. LUNA JR., Ormoc City, Leyte
