MANILA, Philippines-AS THE ELECTION PERIOD HEATS UP, VOICES will once again be heard from the pulpit, and the charge of violation of separation of Church and State is bound to follow. It should be remembered, however, that the ?non-establishment clause? of the Constitution, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, is a command addressed to the State. Thus only the State can violate it. As far as the churches are concerned, they can be beneficiaries of the State?s violation of the non-establishment clause but they cannot be the violators. Thus when politicians decry a violation by the Church and churchmen of the Church and State separation principle, what they are really doing is violating not only free exercise but also freedom of speech and expression.

The key provision on free exercise is found, like the provision on non-establishment, in Article III, Sec. 5. ?No law shall be made . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof.? Not content with that, Sec. 5 adds two other clauses: ?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.?

A violation of the free exercise clause by the State can come in the form of either prohibition or compulsion. Philippine cases on free exercise of religion are relatively few but not uninteresting. Let me just focus on the prohibition of religious test for the exercise of civil or political rights.

This prohibition is a corollary of the guarantee of religious liberty. The purpose of this provision is to render government powerless ?to restore the historically and constitutionally discredited policy of probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to persons who have or, perhaps more properly, profess to have a belief in some particular kind of religious concept.?

When the religious test that is imposed by law is overt and clear, the constitutional problem it presents is easy to resolve. For instance, if belief in the existence of God should be required as a qualification for public office, the violation would be clear. But there can be subtler ways of violation.

Not too long ago, the Supreme Court was asked to prohibit Jaime Cardinal Sin, Mike Velarde and other religious leaders from giving directions to their adherents on how to vote. The case was dismissed on technical grounds. But the substantive question remains alive, although no one of substance is pushing it.

One person who expressed in very strong language his opposition to religious involvement in politics was Barry Goldwater. The occasion was when the Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell criticized the nomination of Sandra Day O?Connor to the Supreme Court. Goldwater said: ?The great decisions of government cannot be dictated by the concerns of religious factions . . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of the state from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups, and we mustn?t stop now!?

Eloquent the words may be, but the second sentence could not have been more inaccurate historically. If you measure it against history, whether American or Philippine, the statement is false. Churches have influenced American politics from the days of Thomas Jefferson down to the prophetic preaching of Martin Luther King and the pastoral letters of the American bishops. Likewise, in the Philippines, religion has been involved in politics from the days of Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora down to the pastoral letters on social justice and on the conduct of elections. I do not see this involvement coming to an end. Depending on circumstances, it can even intensify. Thus it is legitimate to ask how religion fits into the Philippine political culture.

The issue can be broken down into several questions: (1) In their sermons and homilies, should religious leaders limit themselves to teaching general moral ideas, or should they draw specific political conclusions? (2) Should they oppose or support particular political parties or candidates? (3) Should they refrain from running for public office? (4) Should they engage in movements (e.g., lobbying and demonstrations) that put pressure on political officials? (5) Should they advocate specific policy conclusions or should they limit themselves to general recommendations? (6) When engaging in debate on public issues, should they use religious arguments or only secular arguments?

These are some of the questions that come up when one analyzes the objections to religious involvement in politics. The questions invite discussion, and I shall attempt to present my own thinking on the subject.

First of all, it is not enough to say the Constitution guarantees the freedom of expression of the clergy. The issue transcends mere constitutionality. Neither is it enough to assert that through the centuries Judaism and Christianity have firmly held that religious duty includes active involvement in politics and that the Scripture indicates that God cares about justice and public morality. I too firmly believe that the pursuit of justice and morality is a religious obligation for all believers. Moreover, I also believe that, when it comes to contests for the formation of public policy, individuals cannot effectively deal with the vastness and complexity of issues. There is therefore need for organized action. But whether engaging in individual or in organized action, the questions I have enumerated need to be dealt with.

(To be continued)

More Inquirer columns

Previous columns:
A time of testing ? 02/26/07
University rankings ? 02/18/07
The dismissal epidemic ? 02/12/07
An afternoon at Holy Angel University ? 02/05/07
Watching Saddam die ? 01/29/07
Davide?s ad interim appointment ? 01/22/07
Court packing ? 01/15/07