Revisiting the Wall: Rethinking Church-State Relations in Contemporary Society

“Erecting the Wall of Separation between Church and State is absolutely essential in a
free society,” said former United States president Thomas Jefferson in 1802.1 This line is one of
the earliest expressions in history advancing the principle of separation of church and state.
However, more than two centuries later, does this standpoint still hold value?

The separation of church and state is one of the most well-known principles in
democratic countries such as the Philippines. However, the separation of church and state is
often misunderstood and misapplied. The principle is used to perpetrate the very evils sought to
be prevented by the Constitution and statutes. As will be argued by this paper, a healthy degree
of interference between the church and state, which likewise adheres to constitutional mandates,
will help cultivate and preserve democracy and justice.

The concept of separation of church and state in the Philippines carries a complex history
linked to its colonial past. Being a colony of Spain for more than three centuries, the country
witnessed and felt the stronghold of Catholicism in its political and social affairs with the “unity
of Church and State” during the Spanish rule. The prominence of the Church in the Philippines
during the Spanish Colonial era has been summarized by the Court in Estrada v. Escritor:2

Before our country fell under American rule, the blanket of Catholicism covered the archipelago.
There was a union of church and state and Catholicism was the state religion under the Spanish
Constitution of 876. Civil authorities exercised religious functions and the friars exercised civil
powers.

The secularization movement, however, led to a successful resistance against the abuses
of Spanish friars, culminating in the enshrinement of the separation of church and state doctrine
in the Malolos Constitution. Despite this, its effectivity was temporarily suspended as the
revolutionary government prioritized unity amidst the war against new imperialist forces—the
Americans.
 Following independence from the United States, the Philippine government recognized
the necessity of a separation clause, leading to its inclusion in the 1935, 1973, and 1987
Philippine Constitutions. Atty. Raul Pangalangan view this principle as a borrowed concept,
transplanted from American influence.3

Indeed, the principle of separation of church and state operates uniquely in the
Philippines. As a predominantly Catholic country, it is quite difficult to properly delineate this
“separation”.

The principle of separation of church and state is inscribed in the following provisions of
the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, to wit:

Article II, Section 6: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.4

Article III, Section 5: 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.5

Thus, it is clear that the principle of separation of church and state in the country speaks
of what the State is prohibited from doing, viz., the prohibition of establishing a state religion to
protect the citizens’ rights to exercise religious freedom. It upholds non-discrimination on the
basis of one’s religious beliefs and practices. Moreover, the separation of church and state
prevents using the State’s funds, property, and resources to support or favor a particular religion.

Therefore, invoking the principle of separation of church and state has limits and should
not be arbitrarily wielded. Unlike the common misconception, the Constitution does not entirely
prohibit the church’s participation in political processes. As observed by Fr. Amado Picardal,
CSsR., the separation of church and state is often cited when bishops and priests “denounce
extrajudicial killings, human rights abuses, corruption, antipoor economic policies, etc.”6 In such
context, the principle of separation and state is used as an armor to shield the State from criticism
and reasonable scrutiny. Hence, Fr. Picardal asserted that “it is important to have a proper
understanding of what separation of Church and state really means. Otherwise, its
misunderstanding can be used to silence the Church.”

Hence, while it is well-established that the church and the state should be separate, such
should not equate to overlooking abuses of power. Illuminating the principle prevents it from
becoming a tool for malicious purposes. As stated by Thomas Jefferson, the wall separating the
church and the state is essential for a free society. However, such a wall dividing the church and
state should not be so tall that it allows the concealment of abuses, corruption, and offenses. The
separation of church and state should not operate to tolerate and perpetrate injustices. Rather, a
free society is one where dissent and criticism are allowed and encouraged for the healthy
functioning of the government, the church, and the public at large.

An illustrative example is the role of the former Archbishop of Manila, the late Jaime
Cardinal Sin, in Philippine democracy. As a staunch critic of the authoritarian regime of former
President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., Cardinal Sin used his position to strongly advocate for
democracy, human rights, and social justice. His influential radio broadcasts and moral authority
played a crucial role in mobilizing thousands of Filipinos to participate in a peaceful protest
against the Marcos regime during the People Power Revolution.

In addition, the Court’s decision in The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC exemplifies

how, to a certain extent, churches are entitled to express their opinion in state matters and such
expressions allow for a vigorous democracy:

In this jurisdiction, this court held that “[t]he interest of society and the maintenance of good
government demand a full discussion of public affairs.” This court has, thus, adopted the principle
that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open . . . [including even]
unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”7

Justice Barredo’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. COMELEC espoused

a similar idea, stating that inquiry and scrutiny on public officials, even those emanating from
religious leaders, empower democracy:
 If our democracy and republicanism are to be worthwhile, the conduct of public affairs by our
officials must be allowed to suffer incessant and unabating scrutiny, favorable or unfavorable,
everyday and at all times. Every holder of power in our government must be ready to undergo
exposure any moment of the day or night, from January to December every year, as it is only in
this way that he can rightfully gain the confidence of the people.8

In the same vein, the principle of separation of church and state does not prohibit the
State from investigating alleged violations of churches and leaders. To uphold such a view would
be tantamount to giving a special privilege to a particular group in a democratic society where
the law should be applied equally and equitably. To illustrate, Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC)
founder and leader Apollo Quiboloy has been subject to summons by the Senate pursuant to its
power of legislative inquiry due to sex trafficking and money laundering allegations.

However, it must be noted that the healthy interference of the church in state affairs and
vice versa must be confined to constitutional mandates. While expressing dissent and opinions
upholds democracy, it should not equate to dictating and controlling the state or the church of
what they should do.

The State and the Church are powerful societal institutions and history is a witness to the
dangers of unchecked authority. Hence, a proper understanding of the principle of separation of
church and state is crucial in preventing the exploitation of power, silence, and the tolerance of
wrongdoing. Rather than invoking the principle as a blanket defense, vigilance is essential to
ensure accountability from the Church and the State. Fostering an environment of open discourse
and accountability allows society to work towards addressing and rectifying any infractions of
the law, promoting justice, and upholding the rights and welfare of citizens.
Notes:
1
Monticello. Thomas Jefferson and Religious Freedoms.
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/thomas-jefferson-
and-religious-freedom/. Accessed March 31, 2024.

2
A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003.

3
Pangalangan, R. (2008). Transplanted Constitutionalism: The Philippine Debate on the Secular
State and the Rule of Law. Philippine Law Journal, 83(3).
https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/law/article/view/2365

4
Sec. 6, Art. II, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

5
Sec. 5, Art. III, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

6
Fr. Amado Picardal, CSSR. [OPINION] Understanding separation of Church and state. Rappler.
https://www.rappler.com/voices/thought-leaders/233891-understanding-separation-church-state-a
mado-picardal/. Accessed March 31, 2024.

7
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015.

8
G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967