Separation of church and state in the Philippines
|
|
By passing through the numerous phases of colonial occupation, the relationship of the church and state in the Philippines has repeatedly changed from the collaboration of the Roman Catholic Church with the government during the Spanish era to today's generally accepted separation of church and state.
In the discussion of the Philippine experience, “Church” without any qualifiers (as opposed to “church”) refers solely to the Roman Catholic Church.
| Contents |
Spanish Occupation
During the Spanish colonial era, the merger and power-sharing of the Roman Catholic Church and state became the generally accepted rule. Horacio De la Costa, a Filipino Jesuit historian, mentions that the rules governing the cooperation of the two entities was set in the “Patronato Real de las Indias”, a combination of law and jurisprudence that governed the delicate relationship of the Holy See and the Spanish monarchy regarding colonial affairs. In the agreements, the Church gave the Spanish monarchy “the responsibility of promoting, maintaining, and defending the Roman Catholic religion in…all Spanish dominions overseas” (1). In return, the Spanish were permitted to exercise numerous rights to autonomously govern the colonial Church virtually independent of Roman jurisdiction (2-3).
According to Teodoro Agoncillo, a Filipino historian from the University of the Philippines, this collaboration enabled the Spanish to readily subjugate the Indios (“native Filipinos”) by a potent combination of secular and religious might (80). The successful Legazpi conquest of the Philippines recognized the power of clergy by bringing along Andres Urdaneta, a navigator and priest to help control the natives (74) and other Spanish rulers acknowledged the importance of clergy. A Mexican viceroy (quoted in Agoncillo) said that “in each friar in the Philippines, they had a captain and a whole army” (75).
Nevertheless, Church interference had numerous ill effects. As Marcelo H. del Pilar (quoted in Agoncillo) complains:
The friars control all the fundamental forces of society in the Philippines. They control the educational system, for they own the University of Santo Tomas, and are the local inspectors of every primary school. They control the minds of the people because in a dominantly Catholic country, the parish rectors can utilize the pulpit and confessionals to publicly or secretly influence the people. (79)
Rather than decrease the power of the Church hierarchy, Agoncillo notes that secular institutions increased ecclesiastic authority by giving clerics direct power over secular responsibilities in the areas of communication and municipal government (78-79). In fact, in special cases, religious authorities assumed the mantle of civil power (De la Costa, 12). Unfortunately, temporal power has led to numerous abuses by the Church, fanning the dislike of clergy through the archipelago.
This harmonious relationship, nonetheless, was often marked by friction between divergent interests of Church and state. Through the conflicts of Don Sebastián Hurtado de Corcuera with Fray Hernando Guerrero, and Governor Juan de Vargas with Archbishop Felipe Pardo, the constant disagreement and incompatibility of the Church and state proved to be a persistent feature of Spanish rule (5-9). The infighting continued and reached its peak when Fr. Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos, and Fr. Jacinto Zamora (called the Gomburza) were executed by civil authorities against Church opposition (Agoncillo, 125).
Philippine Revolution
The execution of the Gomburza set off a massive wave of social discontent that precipitated in the Philippine Revolution. The Spanish were unable to cope with multiple uprisings since their limited military was overextended. Bereft of the civil protection, clerics were at their most vulnerable. Rather than accept change, numerous friars “handled the Mausers and Remingtons when the tide of battle was going against the colonial government” (243). As the status quo was being changed, the decline of the combined Church and state system began.
Seeing this as an opportunity, some nationalistic Filipinos such as Isabelo de los Reyes proposed the creation of a new Filipino Church, separate from the control of Rome and doctrinally independent (236-237). His proposal was overwhelmingly approved by some radical sectors and the Filipino Church was called the Iglesia Filipina Independiente with Gregorio Aglipay, a prominent Filipino priest, as the head. With the founding of the Philippine Independent Church, the formal schism with Rome began. Despite popular support, others were reluctant to join, even Aglipay himself (237). He only accepted the pose of Obispo Maximo or Supreme Bishop only after failed negotiations with Jesuit representatives (242).
On the secular front, Filipino delegates to the Malolos Congress of 1898 were framing a new constitution for the Filipino Republic when heated discussions occurred on the provision of the state and religion (206). Felipe Calderon presented his draft proposal calling for Catholicism to be made a state religion. According to John Schumacher, a Jesuit historian, Calderon then attacked the position of Apolinario Mabini who insisted on the separation of Church and state (31). The Calderon proposal, however, was defeated by a single vote, and the provision was finally passed: “Article 5 – The State recognizes the freedom and equality of all religions, as well as the separation of Church and State” (Agoncillo 207).
American Occupation
Nevertheless, due to the superior millitary strength of the United States, Filipino resistance was crushed, ushering in the American occupation. Schumacher cites that William Howard Taft, the head of the Second Philippine Commission (Taft Commission) and the first civil governor of the Philippine Islands was very much aware of the need to defuse anti-friar feeling throughout the island. In order to do this, he first requested that the friars be removed from their parochial posts and replaced with Filipino or American clergy. Many of the friars left voluntarily, and were replaced by Filipino priests in lower ranks and American bishops in the ranks of the episcopacy.
The removal of the friars easily appeased the anger of the people (38). Only then could the issue of the haciendas be properly addressed by Governor Taft. Tricky negotiations began for the compulsory sale of vast Church holdings. Although the sale was affected by pressure from influential sectors like some bishops and certain delegates, it achieved Taft’s goal of sequestering all the Church lands – something that the ill-fated First Filipino Republic had failed to achieve. After taking the land, the governor intended to redistribute the land (38-39). This not only reduced the financial position of the Church, but also diminished the influential clout it had during the Spanish era.
With the American occupation also came the American idea of the separation of Church and state. Typical American jurisprudence on this matter has relied much on the First Amendment and the metaphor of Thomas Jefferson on the “high wall of separation…between church and state” (Goldberg 10), but the Philippine experience has shown that this theoretical “wall of separation” has been crossed several times by secular authorities. Schumacher states that in 1906, the Philippine Supreme Court intervened in the issue of parish ownership by returning church assets seized by the Aglipayans, while certain charitable organizations managed or influenced by the Church were either returned or sequestered (44-45).
Republic of the Philippines (until 1987)
As long as the Americans held power within the Philippines, their rule and interpretation of the law prevailed. Legal jurisdiction, however, changed when the 1935 Constitution was ratified, giving sovereign power back to the Filipino people.
The provision of the 1935 charter on religion mimicked the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but the sentences “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be forever allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights” were appended and this section became the basis for the non-establishment of religion and freedom of religion in the Philippines (Sison 14). It is interesting to note that the explicit clause “separation of Church and State” found in the 1898, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions is missing (5).
The Church then remained in the background until the elections of 1957. Agoncillo notes that even the Catholic hierarchy was dragged into the electoral quagmire. Numerous political leaders assumed that it was advantageous to court the Church for support, but the results of the elections demonstrated otherwise (469). This trend was also shown during the dirty 1965 elections where Raul Manglapus was said to be the Church’s candidate, but lost overwhelmingly to Ferdinand Marcos (481). Upon the promulgation of Proclamation No. 1081 on September 21, 1972, the Philippines was placed under martial law and Church-state relations changed dramatically. From the very start, some bishops opposed the proclamation and the Church eventually grew “critical” as the Marcos administration continued its abuses (Bacani, Church and Politics 75).
By 1973, a new constitution was ratified. For the first time since 1898, the new Constitution included the “separation of Church and State” clause, signaling a new development in the body of law on religious affairs (Sison 5). Joaquin Bernas, a Filipino Jesuit specializing in constitutional law, acknowledges that there were complex issues that were brought to court and numerous attempts to use the “separation of Church and State” against the Church, but he defends the statement, saying that “the fact that he [Marcos] tried to do it does not deny the validity of the separation of Church and State” (86).
The downfall of Ferdinand Marcos came after the assassination of Benigno Aquino Jr. By then, his hold on dictatorial power was waning rapidly, and it precipitated in the EDSA Revolution. Agoncillo shows that the Church was instrumental in winning support for the Corazon Aquino faction as Cardinal Sin (quoted in Agoncillo) issued a call for the people to support “our two good friends”, Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel V. Ramos, in their defection (584). Bacani acknowledges that the support of Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin, priests, and religious was essential to the success of the 1986 Revolution (Church and Politics 105).
After the Revolution, President Aquino initiated a new constitutional commission to frame a new charter for the country. It is noted that Catholic religious and clergy like Sr. Christine Tan, R.G.S., a nun, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a priest, and Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani became part of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and left their mark on the promulgation of the charter and its numerous provisions on the Church and state (105).
Printed references about the separation of church and state in the Philippines
- Agoncillo, Teodoro. History of the Filipino People. Quezon City: GAROTECH Publishing, 1990.
- Bacani, Teodoro. The Church and Politics. Diliman, Quezon City: Clarentian Publications, 1987.
- ---. Church in Politics. Manila, 1992.
- Bernas, Joaquin. The intent of the 1987 Constitution writers. Quezon City: REX Book Store, 1995.
- De la Costa, Horacio. “Church and State under the Patronato Real.” Church and State: The Philippine Experience. Horacio de la Costa and John Schumacher. Quezon City: Loyola School of Theology, 1976. 1-13.
- Goldberg, George. Church, State and Constitution. New York: Regnery Gateway, 1987.
- Schumacher, John. “Church and State in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” Church and State: The Philippine Experience. Horacio de la Costa and John Schumacher. Quezon City: Loyola School of Theology, 1976. 14-60.
- Sison, Carmel. Comparative study of the 1987, 1973 and 1935 Philippine constitutions. Diliman, Quezon City: Law Publishing House, Legal Resources Center, U.P. Law Complex, 1988.
External links
- An article by Horacio De La Costa S.J. (http://members.aol.com/farolan1/revprima.html#HORACIO)