Holy Trinity University

Basic Education Department

Performance Task in
Critical
Thinking XII
“Lack of Separation of
Church and State in the
Philippines ”

Submitted to: Sir John King Rubias

Submitted by: Stiffanie Joy Alvior
Grade XII, Peace Advocate, HUMSS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_Philippines

Freedom of religion in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Philippines.

Background[edit]

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares: The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable. (Article II, Section 6), and, 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. (Article III, Section
5).....

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, ruling in 2003[1] and 2006[2] in the landmark case of
Estrada vs. Escritor, established the doctrine of benevolent neutrality-accommodation. The 2006
ruling, penned by former Chief Justice Puno, explained benevolent-neutrality in the context of
U.S. jurisprudence as follows:

Under the benevolent-neutrality theory, the principle underlying the First Amendment is that
freedom to carry out one’s duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not one dependent
on the grace of legislature. Religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a
privilege against discriminatory legislation. With religion looked upon with benevolence and not
hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances.
[2]

The ruling went on to cite a U.S. Supreme Court decision which had held that if prohibiting the
exercise of religion is merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid
provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.[3] Though concurring in the decision,
Justice O'Connor dissented strongly from the rationale, arguing that a compelling state interest
test should have been applied.[4]
Echoing Justice O'Connor's point from the U.S. case, the ruling in Estrada vs. Escritor went on to
quote her as having said that strict scrutiny is appropriate for free exercise challenges because
“[t]he compelling interest test reflects the First Amendment’s mandate of preserving religious
liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.[2]

The ruling then declared Underlying the compelling state interest test is the notion that free
exercise is a fundamental right and that laws burdening it should be subject to strict scrutiny, and
summarized a three-part compelling state interest test by quoting Michael W. McConnell as
follows:

If the plaintiff can show that a law or government practice inhibits the free exercise of his
religious beliefs, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law or practice is
necessary to the accomplishment of some important (or ‘compelling’) secular objective and that
it is the least restrictive means of achieving that objective. If the plaintiff meets this burden and
the government does not, the plaintiff is entitled to exemption from the law or practice at issue.
In order to be protected, the claimant’s beliefs must be ‘sincere’, but they need not necessarily be
consistent, coherent, clearly articulated, or congruent with those of the claimant’s religious
denomination. ‘Only beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause’; secular
beliefs, however sincere and conscientious, do not suffice.[5]

The ruling noted that the then-current prevailing view under U.S. law is that there are no required
accommodation under the First Amendment, although it permits of legislative accommodations.
Considering Philippine jurisprudence, though, the ruling said:

By juxtaposing the American Constitution and jurisprudence against that of the Philippines, it is
immediately clear that one cannot simply conclude that we have adopted—lock, stock and barrel
—the religion clauses as embodied in the First Amendment, and therefore, the U.S. Court’s
interpretation of the same. Unlike in the U.S. where legislative exemptions of religion had to be
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constituting permissive accommodations, similar
exemptions for religion are mandatory accommodations under our own constitutions.[2]

These landmark decisions in Estrada vs. Escritor established that benevolent neutrality-
accommodation is the framework by which free exercise cases must be decided in the
Philippines. This amounts to a requirement that any law which conflicts with a violator's
sincerely held religious beliefs must pass a strict scrutiny test in order to be enforceable.

History[edit]

By passing through the numerous phases of colonial occupation, the relationship between
religion and government in the Philippines has repeatedly changed. The country had close ties
between Roman Catholic Church and the government during the Spanish colonial period from
1565 to 1898. The American concept of separation of church and state was introduced during the
American colonial period in the Philippine Constitution of 1899 and remains a part of the
Philippine constitution today.

Beginning with the Christianization of most of the Philippines in the 16th century, political
power was shared by the Roman Catholic Church and the Spanish civil authorities. 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 Roman Catholic clergy gave the Spanish monarchy the
responsibility of promoting, maintaining, and defending the Roman Catholic religion in... all
Spanish dominions overseas[6] (1). In return, the Spanish were permitted to exercise numerous
rights to autonomously govern the colonial Roman Catholic Church virtually independent of
Roman jurisdiction.[7] On the other hand, Teodoro Agoncillo, a Filipino historian from the
University of the Philippines, mentions that the collaboration enabled the Spanish to readily
subjugate the Indios (natives of the Philippines) by a potent combination of secular and religious
might.[8] The successful Legazpi conquest of the Philippines in 1565 recognized the power of
clergy by bringing along Augustinian friar, navigator and priest Andrés de Urdaneta, to help
control the natives.[9] 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.[10] However, Church involvement had numerous ill effects, as antifriar Marcelo H.
del Pilar of the late 19th century 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 Tomás, 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.[11]

Government allowed ecclesiastical authorities to hold responsibilities in the areas of

communication, defense, and even municipal government. There were numerous abuses
conducted by the clergy, fanning the dislike of clergy through the archipelago. This harmonious
relationship between the civil authorities and the ecclesiastical authorities, nonetheless, was often
marked by friction between their divergent interests. 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 two proved to be
a persistent feature of Spanish rule[citation needed](5-9).

In-fighting continued and reached its peak when the Gomburza, a triad of priests composed of
Mariano Gómez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, were executed by civil authorities in
1872[12] after being implicated in the failed Cavite Mutiny in that same year. Popular discontent
ensued, leading to the Philippine Revolution some twenty years later. 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.[13] As the status quo was being changed, the ties between Church and State began
to fall apart.

Filipino nationalists in 1898 framed a constitution for an independent Philippine republic. There
were heated discussions on the provision on state and religion.[14] Felipe Calderón presented his
draft proposal calling for Roman Catholicism to be made a state religion. According to Jesuit
historian John Schumacher, Calderón then attacked the position of Apolinario Mabini who
insisted on the separation of church and state.[15][16] The Calderón proposal, however, was
defeated by a single vote, and the provision was finally passed. The constitution of 1899 states in
Article 5:

The State recognizes the freedom and equality of all religions, as well as the separation of
Church and State.[17]

Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States in 1898. By the end of February, 1902,
American forces had defeated the Philippine forces seeking to establish an independent
Philippine republic. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 provided, among other things, "That no
law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed." [18]

Schumacher cites that William Howard Taft, the head of the Second Philippine Commission and
the first civil governor of the Philippine Islands, was very much aware of the need to defuse anti-
friar feeling throughout the islands. He requested the Spanish friars be given leave of their parish
posts. Many of the friars left voluntarily, and were replaced by native Filipino priests in lower
ranks and American bishops in the ranks of the episcopacy. Negotiations also began for the
compulsory sale of vast Roman Catholic 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 Roman Catholic Church lands, something that the ill-fated Philippine
Republic had failed to achieve. After taking the land, the governor intended to redistribute the
land.[15][19] This not only reduced the financial position of the Roman Catholic Church, but
also diminished the influential clout it had during the Spanish colonial period.

American jurisprudence reintroduced separation of church and state relying on the First
Amendment and the metaphor of Thomas Jefferson on the wall of separation... between church
and state[20] (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 assets
seized by the Philippine Independent Church, while certain charitable organizations managed or
influenced by the Roman Catholic Church were either returned or sequestered.

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.[21]

With the guarantee of religious freedom in the Philippines, the Roman Catholic Church clergy
subsequently remained in the political background as a source of moral influence for many
voters during elections until today. Political candidates generally court the clergy for support,
although this does not guarantee victory for a candidate. The Philippines was placed under
martial law by dictator Ferdinand Marcos and relations changed dramatically, as some bishops
opposed the martial law.[22]

A new constitution was ratified in 1973 which included the separation of church and state clause,
signaling a new development in the body of law on religious affairs.[23] 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 Roman Catholic 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.[24]

The Roman Catholic Church was instrumental in winning support for Corazon Aquino who
replaced Marcos as president with Cardinal Sin calling for support. Aquino then initiated a new
constitutional commission to frame a new charter again for the country. It is noted that Roman
Catholic religious and clergy like Christine Tan, R.G.S., a nun, Joaquin Bernas, S.J., 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.[25]

http://bulatlat.com/main/2015/09/03/the-principle-of-separation-of-church-and-state/

The principle of separation of church and state

Benjie Oliveros September 3, 2015 Department of Justice (DOJ), iglesia ni cristo, Liberal Party

bu-op-icons-benjieBy BENJIE OLIVEROS

Bulatlat perspective

The principle of separation of church and state has been much abused and misinterpreted (or
rather interpreted for political ends) in the country, especially after the Sin of Edsa I. Of course,
the Sin that this writer is referring to is the late Jaime Cardinal Sin, who was one of the prime
movers of People Power I that ousted the Marcos dictatorship. Since then, the administrations
after that of the late Cory Aquino, who was the beneficiary of Edsa I, have been citing the
principle of the separation of church and state whenever a church, most especially the powerful
Catholic Church, which counts as its members 80 to 90 percent of the Filipino people, criticizes
or moves against a government policy or wrongdoing.

The recent protest action conducted by the Iglesia ni Cristo was the first time that a church
denomination cited the principle of the separation of church and state as its rallying call. The
Iglesia ni Cristo said that Justice Sec. Leila de Lima unduly interfered in the case filed by
expelled member Isaias Samson in order to pursue a political agenda.

So what is the spirit and true meaning of the principle of the separation of church and state?
Two major historical events shaped the principle of the separation of church and state: the
bourgeois democratic revolutions, which began in Europe, and the founding and shaping of the
American nation.

The bourgeois democratic revolutions were an assertion of the sovereignty and individual rights
of the people. It stood against the claims of divine right of the monarchies as well as feudal
bondage. Sovereignty resides in the people meant that the government derives its mandate from
the people. And people have individual rights; among the important ones are freedom of belief
and the freedom to practice this belief through association and expression. There are, of course,
other fundamental rights such as right to life, due process, freedom from torture, universal
suffrage, among others.

The principle of the separation of church and the state is based on these two fundamental
premises.

First, the government derives its mandate from the people and not from the church, which,
during feudal times, bestowed upon the king the divine right to rule the people (This was why it
was the bishop who used to crown the king or queen.). Based on this principle of divine right, the
state and the church propagated the belief that going against the king meant going against God,
the consequence of which was eternal damnation.

Second, the people have the fundamental right to practice one’s beliefs. This was a reaction to
the official religion being imposed upon the people by the monarchy.

Coinciding with the European bourgeois democratic revolutions was the shaping of the
American nation. It could be remembered that the first settlers to what is now America were the
Puritans, a group of English Reformed Protestants who sought to purify the Church of England
of all Roman Catholic practices and were therefore, persecuted in England. This struggle was
carried on in America when it was still a British colony up to the time that it was framing its
constitution after independence.

Often cited in the discourse regarding the separation of church and state and was quoted in the
First Amendment of the US Constitution was Thomas Jefferson, who filed a landmark bill in
Virginia and wrote a letter about religious freedom to Baptists in Virginia.

Passed by the State of Virginia on Jan. 16, 1786, Jefferson’s bill on Religious Freedom states:
“Almighty God hath created the mind free. … All attempts to influence it by temporal
punishments … are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion, who being Lord
both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His
Almighty power to do. … Be it enacted … that no man shall … suffer on account of his religious
opinions.”

Quoted in the First Amendment was this phrase in Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists of Virginia,
who were then suffering persecution, “…I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of
separation between Church and State.”

The US Constitution thus provides that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Although a predominantly Catholic country, the principle of separation of church and state has
particular significance in the Philippines because the Filipino people struggled against Spanish
colonization, which used the power of both the sword and the cross in subjugating the nation.
The provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution regarding the separation of church and state
was patterned after the abovementioned provision in the US Constitution. Article II, Section 6 of
the Philippine Constitution declares that: “The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.”

Article III, Section 5 provides that: “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.”

The provisions cited above could be summarized in the following: the state could not prescribe
any official religion nor could it enact laws or commit acts that limit the exercise of or interferes
with the practice of any religion.

So does the Catholic Church, or any religious denomination for that matter, violate the principle
of the separation of church and the state whenever it criticizes or acts against a government
policy or wrongdoing? No, it is not a violation of this principle. Acts of justice and acts of
charity are even integral in the church’s work of spreading the Good News of Salvation, which
Pope Francis elaborated on in his encyclical Evangelii Gaudium.

Did the Aquino government violate the principle of the separation of church and state in its
handling of the illegal detention and harassment cases filed by Isaias Samson against eight
leaders of INC?

If the allegations of the INC that De Lima unduly interfered in the investigation of the
complaints were true, the Aquino government did violate the principle of separation of church
and state. The INC was, therefore, correct in raising this as an issue in its protest action. On the
other hand, if De Lima abided by the proper guidelines and processes in the administration of
justice, then the government has the duty to investigate a complaint and could not be faulted of
violating the principle of separation of church and state.

However, more alarming is the allegation that De Lima interfered in the investigation to force the
INC to negotiate with the Aquino government and get the INC’s commitment to vote for Mar
Roxas and the entire Liberal Party slate in the 2016 elections. If this were true, then the Aquino
government violated more than the principle of the separation of church and state; it is already
rigging the elections

http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=491

separation of Church and State

Filed under: Pro Bono - Atty. Jo Imbong |

Atty. Jo Imbong

PRO BONO

Separation of Church and State

SEPARATION of Church and State is a legal principle misunderstood and wrongly invoked to
discredit the pro-life agenda. This is unfortunate, for the principle actually protects the realms
and mandates of those two institutions which are both oriented to human good. To dispel the
error, I am posting a refutation of U.P. Professor Florin Hilbay’s Paper that was published in a
broadsheet on June 7, 2012.
What the Constitution says on the principle of separation is, One, the State cannot establish a
national religion, and Two, the State cannot interfere in the free exercise of religious belief of its
citizens.

To simplistically interpret this principle to mean that religion is anathema to good governance is
to fail to understand that the function of the State is to serve the well-being of its citizens. Man is
made up of body and soul, and the Constitution acknowledges this spiritual orientation of man
when it mandates that the State should not violate the religious belief of its citizens. This is so
because religious belief is essentially part of a citizen’s perception of his well being. The flaw of
Prof. Hilbay lies in his assumption that there is an inherent conflict between the State and
religion, and that all conflicts and differences connote contradiction or incompatibility.

According to Filipino philosopher Felix M. Montemayor, there is no such thing as contradiction

in nature. Contradiction occurs only in language. Rather, there are only opposites, polarities or
contrasts. Opposites and contrasts co-exist and are inseparable from each other (e.g., body and
soul, freedom and obligation, right and duty, male and female) without which, humanity is non-
existent, in the same way that without positive and negative polarities there is no electricity, just
as there is no day without night, etc.

The same thing can be said of the State and religion. They may differ in their domain and
purpose, but they do not necessarily antagonize or cancel each other. In fact it is only through
their co-existence and harmony that the well-being of man is achieved, that is, the State
providing for the material goods of man and religion ministering to man’s spiritual needs. This
co-existence comes about because they have a common form of reference–man’s well-being.

The next thrust of Prof. Hilbay is that, being openly against the reproductive health and divorce
bills, same-sex union and the recent concert of Lady Gaga, the organization AngProlife is
necessarily an association organized for religious purposes, hence, disqualified from the Partylist
system. This is false. AngProlife’s objection to the reproductive health bill is anchored on the
sanctity of life and the corresponding right to life which the Constitution recognizes as the
highest in the hierarchy of rights. In fact, this right to life constitutes the very reason under the
Social Contract doctrine why the people have found the need to organize the state at all: to
protect the former against the state, including assault against the former by the state. The right
to life is inalienable and non-waivable even by man himself. The economic theory of population
control to promote the alleged “quality of life” is nothing less than putting the cart before the
horse, which is an absurdity. If Prof. Hilbay will look deeper into the reproductive health bill he
will discover the bill’s fiendish attempt to eradicate poverty by eliminating the poor for being a
burden to the economic resources of the country. But life is more than bread. It is also about
knowing what is right and what is wrong.

Life precedes economics, not the other way around. Life is the end, and economics is only the
means to sustain it. German philosopher Emmanuel Kant is of the same mind with his moral
philosophy that man is always the end and never a means to anything else, economic or
otherwise.

AngProlife, like other like-minded groups, is composed of civic-minded persons motivated by

the desire to become responsible and upright citizens except that most of all, it is committed to
protect life and the family, the latter being the basic foundation of society, an institution that has
become marginalized by the practices which the reproductive health bill seeks to legitimize into
a norm of society, dooming it to decadence.

Will the fact that AngProlife believes that to protect life is more than just a constitutional
mandate but a transcendent spiritual truth operate to disqualify it from the Party-list system? Do
Pro-Life groups have to profess Atheism to be able to participate in a political exercise? But does
not the Constitution precisely protect the free exercise of religious belief?
One should go slow in demonizing religion whose only concern is the development of virtuous
people. Prof. Hilbay should realize that only a virtuous people can be promoters of the common
good. In fact, history teaches us that without a strong moral foundation no civilization can
survive. If civilization is the fruit, morality is the stem and religion is the root. Considering the
importance of religion to national development, Church and State relations should not be
interpreted along the divisive spirit of contradiction and separation but by the harmonization and
the reconciliation of the material and spiritual demands of man’s well being. Church and State
are both needed to promote the well-being of man.

http://8list.ph/philippine-separation-church-state/

8 Reasons the Philippine Separation of Church and State is a (Bad) Joke

With the ridiculous mass of people in EDSA supposedly fighting for “Separation of Church and
State” amid an impending investigation into potentially criminal activities involving a certain
church’s leadership, it has been easy to point and laugh at their gross misunderstanding of this
inviolable right granted unto us by the 1987 constitution.

8. This DOJ investigation actually upholds the separation of church and state.

Unfortunately, this rare moment where we can flaunt our apparent moral ascendancy in this
matter does not necessarily mean we are that much better. Most of us are guilty of not
understanding the implications of a genuine separation between church and state.

There is a saying that goes “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God the things that
are God’s.” The practice of ordination or excommunication, both big deals in most religions, are
out of the jurisdiction of the government, no matter how sexist (any female priests lately?) or
outdated (excommunication in general) they may actually be. This very separation is why, if,
say, gay marriage were made legal in the Philippines, religions need not worry about being
forced to fall in line with this newly legalized practice.
However, state affairs, such as investigations regarding actionable complaints involving, in this
case, illegal detention and gross misuse of funds, are indeed state affairs–regardless if those
standing accused are religious leaders. Church and State are separate precisely so that the State
can investigate a legal, criminal issue without having to consider the rank of the religious leaders
in question. Since their religious position is none of the government’s concern but rather the
allegations of what, in secular society we would normally call “kidnapping” and “plunder”
instead of “illegal detention” and “gross misuse of funds” actually are.

Was De Lima investigating this case “selective?” I wouldn’t know, but that’s the point. Who
does? What’s important is to find out if the case was actionable, and in this case, it apparently
was. The INC leadership are reading from the exact same playbook the ADD leadership was
when they insisted the late former Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales was persecuting them when
he took an interest in the allegations of rape against Brother Eli Soriano. Sounds familiar? Two
years ago, I got threats for pointing out that fact offhand in a previous article, and was even
accused of maybe being a paid hack for the INC.

Observing these things and pointing them out to be allegations that are actionable are the rights
of anyone, yet somehow, because religion is involved, these people suddenly become
untouchable and irreproachable. The same goes for law enforcement agencies who might have
reason to work on these issues.

It Gets Worse: When the rally started in EDSA last Friday, they did so without a permit, yet were
treated with kid gloves, despite the fact that a journalist was assaulted by the mob. Separation of
Church and State means that when this call was made, whoever organized this demonstration is
guilty of sedition, and the subsequent demonstration has to be dispersed. Instead, they were
handed a permit post hoc, which does not happen if, say, a labor group tried to pull the same
stunt. Why would a church get preferential treatment over a bunch of disgruntled workers? Do
they not have the same rights to address their grievances? Because bloc voting, which we’ll get
into in a bit.
7. We have laws that currently favor specific religions (when this shouldn’t be the case).

Remind yourself what Freddie Aguilar did in 2013 when, at the time, he couldn’t legally marry
his 16-year old girlfriend. That’s right: he changed religions.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that religions should be taxed, but as it stands, Separation of
Church and State is already being ignored in ways very advantageous for religious organizations,
such as the special consideration regarding marriage for our Muslim brothers.

We are not under shariah law, yet these marriage exceptions magically exist. Neither are we
under puritanical law, yet it’s illegal to “offend religious feelings,” which is what got Carlos
Celdran in trouble. We are a secular government governed by laws held in common for Filipinos
regardless of creed or lack of it. So why are we making these concessions?

It Gets Worse: The BBL is one of the things we need to bring peace to Mindanao. If only for its
goal, that of solving the peace and order situation in Mindanao, it should be put into action. But
the means? The part where we give special rights to other people because they’re of a specific
religion? It’s easy to find that iffy, although to be fair, most of us find that questionable mainly
because it favors Muslims. And hey, most of us reading this right now aren’t Muslims, right?
Meanwhile, any law that might privilege other religions over others will continue going
unchecked. And if not laws, how about…

6. Our government funds or practices religious activities and functions (when it shouldn’t).

Holidays? I get that. Making concessions for a visiting Pope? I get that, too. The Angelus being
blared on the PA for a government office? Christmas trees in City Hall? Swearing on a Bible in a
trial? Billboard in Cavite welcoming the Pope despite him not being scheduled to pass there?
Massive tarps with politician’s faces wishing the Iglesia a happy 10X’th anniversary? Hold on a
minute here.
There is nothing wrong with a private individual expressing their faith. If a government
employee uses their personal money to buy a rosary, where’s the harm? But when the
government spends taxpayer money to favor a particular religion or another, that’s questionable,
because where is the spending on Rizalistas? The Scientologists? The atheists? The (insert
obscure religion here)? Why do only select religions get this special treatment?

It Gets Worse: Religious freedom means one is free to believe or not to believe in what they
want. Despite that, when Mideo Cruz came up with his controversial exhibit called “Politeismo,”
people got so offended that the whole exhibit was shut down ahead of schedule. Yes, freedom of
expression does not come with freedom from consequences, but when the government steps in to
favor a religion at the expense of everyone else when the sensible solution was to not go to the
exhibit that might offend you, it’s pretty clear that Separation of Church and State is a myth in
this country. Just ask Mong Palatino, who tried really hard to make it happen and failed.
Miserably.

5. The right to religion needs to work in conjunction with our other rights.

Religious people have the same rights non-religious people have. They can’t insist that their
freedom should trump the freedom of other people, such that while Muslims may choose to not
eat pork, Iglesias may choose to not eat dinuguan, and Catholics may abstain from meat on
Fridays. They cannot practice this and then ignore the rights of other people to practice
differently. In short, walang basagan ng trip. Any chance people can understand that distinction?

Of course, this needs to come with the reminder: illegal detention is a serious crime, not just a
“trip.” Just in case people forget this little detail.

It Gets Worse: The right to life, liberty, and property is a very important right. It is perhaps the
most basic of human rights. When a man decides to become a priest, he willingly cedes that right
in the service of a perceived higher cause. When someone gets illegally detained, this happens
against their will (why else would they sue?) and is an abrogation of a person’s rights.
4. We currently do not legislate with secular sensibilities in mind.

Why is divorce illegal in this country? Because morality, blah, Vatican, blah. Where does that
leave everybody else, no matter how minor?

Is divorce immoral? I guess that’s debatable, but the government’s function is not to legislate
morality, and certainly not to legislate the kind of morality observed only by Catholics (since
practically every other religion allows for divorce, albeit begrudgingly). The fact that we keep
citing religious reasons for issues like divorce, the RH Law and, chances are, marriage equality,
only goes to show our “separation” of Church and State has been vestigial at best all this time.

It Gets Worse: If Separation of Church and State has been functionally ignored for decades by
the Philippines, why is the INC protesting it only now? Why, because it now works to their
advantage to do so, even if they used a very misguided reading of the provision to do it. If for
some reason, we would elect a president who turned out to be, say, a Satanist, do you think that
the CBCP would let him express his religion in public the way they encouraged it when GMA
used to do this all the time for photo ops?

3. Religious leaders are not above the law. (Well, duh.)

Does this really need to be explained? Apparently, yes. The non-establishment of a state religion
is in place to assure us that religious leaders do not have the kind of power they had during the
medieval ages. It protects the state from them, but it also protects the other religions who might
not be as lucky as the one that gets to run a theocracy. In theory, it should all work out for the
best but we all know that’s not the case.

Despite that, if a religion happened to celebrate ritual human sacrifice, it’s pretty sure that such a
practice being religious in nature will not protect it from prosecution. We still have our limits (I
hope).
It Gets Worse: Does this story sound familiar? Maybe the CBCP doesn’t have the power to
mobilize people to EDSA to stage a rally on a payday Friday at the start of a long weekend, but
it’s fairly obvious that the notion of “investigation” and “suspicion” is easily muddled with the
pretense of “persecution.” It’s just that this time, we have a more persuasive church leadership
demanding that its rank and file members protect it from having people look into their billion-
peso aircraft and alleged penchant for playing hide the minister.

2. Bloc voting is shady, but not necessarily illegal.

While there is some level of protection afforded the government by theoretical separation of
State and Church, most of the protection is in favor of the Church, actually. For example, the
government can’t dictate who becomes church leaders to a given church, but the church can
dictate to their flock who to vote for, and if the flock obeys, well, that’s just too bad for the
candidates who didn’t curry the favor of the church in question.

A church as a unit but a bunch of private individuals when apart, it isn’t exactly possible to insist
that the church not have a say in the affairs of the state, so while reprehensible since it leads to
politicians figuratively (I think) getting into bed with religious leaders just to gain their
endorsement, its just like feudalism all over again. This is also why some sectors insist that it’s
time the church started paying taxes, which is a topic for another day.

It Gets Worse: Pastor Quiboloy endorsed Gibo Teodoro in 2010, calling him “Gibobama.”
Doesn’t it put your own god into question when your leader who is supposedly the second
coming of Christ himself doesn’t even have the ability to guarantee a presidential win for one of
the best candidates on paper?

Share Tweet

Search

Sections

Home
Pop

News

Life

Geek

Food

Nest

Style

Health

Travel

More Info

About

Submit

Advertise

Follow us on

Facebook

Twitter

8ListOchopi

HOMEPOPNEWSLIFEGEEKFOODNESTSTYLEHEALTHTRAVEL

OPINION | 63,494 VIEWS

8 Reasons the Philippine Separation of Church and State is a (Bad) Joke

Where is the line drawn, and what does it entail?

By Kel Fabie | August 31, 2015

218

SHARESShare Tweet Pin Stumble

8 Reasons the Philippine Separation of Church and State is a (Bad) Joke

With the ridiculous mass of people in EDSA supposedly fighting for “Separation of Church and
State” amid an impending investigation into potentially criminal activities involving a certain
church’s leadership, it has been easy to point and laugh at their gross misunderstanding of this
inviolable right granted unto us by the 1987 constitution.

Unfortunately, this rare moment where we can flaunt our apparent moral ascendancy in this
matter does not necessarily mean we are that much better. Most of us are guilty of not
understanding the implications of a genuine separation between church and state.

Take, for example…

8. This DOJ investigation actually upholds the separation of church and state.

8List_Separation_8

Via GMA Network

There is a saying that goes “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God the things that
are God’s.” The practice of ordination or excommunication, both big deals in most religions, are
out of the jurisdiction of the government, no matter how sexist (any female priests lately?) or
outdated (excommunication in general) they may actually be. This very separation is why, if,
say, gay marriage were made legal in the Philippines, religions need not worry about being
forced to fall in line with this newly legalized practice.

However, state affairs, such as investigations regarding actionable complaints involving, in this
case, illegal detention and gross misuse of funds, are indeed state affairs–regardless if those
standing accused are religious leaders. Church and State are separate precisely so that the State
can investigate a legal, criminal issue without having to consider the rank of the religious leaders
in question. Since their religious position is none of the government’s concern but rather the
allegations of what, in secular society we would normally call “kidnapping” and “plunder”
instead of “illegal detention” and “gross misuse of funds” actually are.

Was De Lima investigating this case “selective?” I wouldn’t know, but that’s the point. Who
does? What’s important is to find out if the case was actionable, and in this case, it apparently
was. The INC leadership are reading from the exact same playbook the ADD leadership was
when they insisted the late former Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales was persecuting them when
he took an interest in the allegations of rape against Brother Eli Soriano. Sounds familiar? Two
years ago, I got threats for pointing out that fact offhand in a previous article, and was even
accused of maybe being a paid hack for the INC.

Observing these things and pointing them out to be allegations that are actionable are the rights
of anyone, yet somehow, because religion is involved, these people suddenly become
untouchable and irreproachable. The same goes for law enforcement agencies who might have
reason to work on these issues.
It Gets Worse: When the rally started in EDSA last Friday, they did so without a permit, yet were
treated with kid gloves, despite the fact that a journalist was assaulted by the mob. Separation of
Church and State means that when this call was made, whoever organized this demonstration is
guilty of sedition, and the subsequent demonstration has to be dispersed. Instead, they were
handed a permit post hoc, which does not happen if, say, a labor group tried to pull the same
stunt. Why would a church get preferential treatment over a bunch of disgruntled workers? Do
they not have the same rights to address their grievances? Because bloc voting, which we’ll get
into in a bit.

7. We have laws that currently favor specific religions (when this shouldn’t be the case).

8List_Separation_7

Via zglaw.com

Remind yourself what Freddie Aguilar did in 2013 when, at the time, he couldn’t legally marry
his 16-year old girlfriend. That’s right: he changed religions.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that religions should be taxed, but as it stands, Separation of
Church and State is already being ignored in ways very advantageous for religious organizations,
such as the special consideration regarding marriage for our Muslim brothers.

We are not under shariah law, yet these marriage exceptions magically exist. Neither are we
under puritanical law, yet it’s illegal to “offend religious feelings,” which is what got Carlos
Celdran in trouble. We are a secular government governed by laws held in common for Filipinos
regardless of creed or lack of it. So why are we making these concessions?
It Gets Worse: The BBL is one of the things we need to bring peace to Mindanao. If only for its
goal, that of solving the peace and order situation in Mindanao, it should be put into action. But
the means? The part where we give special rights to other people because they’re of a specific
religion? It’s easy to find that iffy, although to be fair, most of us find that questionable mainly
because it favors Muslims. And hey, most of us reading this right now aren’t Muslims, right?
Meanwhile, any law that might privilege other religions over others will continue going
unchecked. And if not laws, how about…

6. Our government funds or practices religious activities and functions (when it shouldn’t).

8List_Separation_6

Via Inquirer

Holidays? I get that. Making concessions for a visiting Pope? I get that, too. The Angelus being
blared on the PA for a government office? Christmas trees in City Hall? Swearing on a Bible in a
trial? Billboard in Cavite welcoming the Pope despite him not being scheduled to pass there?
Massive tarps with politician’s faces wishing the Iglesia a happy 10X’th anniversary? Hold on a
minute here.

There is nothing wrong with a private individual expressing their faith. If a government
employee uses their personal money to buy a rosary, where’s the harm? But when the
government spends taxpayer money to favor a particular religion or another, that’s questionable,
because where is the spending on Rizalistas? The Scientologists? The atheists? The (insert
obscure religion here)? Why do only select religions get this special treatment?
It Gets Worse: Religious freedom means one is free to believe or not to believe in what they
want. Despite that, when Mideo Cruz came up with his controversial exhibit called “Politeismo,”
people got so offended that the whole exhibit was shut down ahead of schedule. Yes, freedom of
expression does not come with freedom from consequences, but when the government steps in to
favor a religion at the expense of everyone else when the sensible solution was to not go to the
exhibit that might offend you, it’s pretty clear that Separation of Church and State is a myth in
this country. Just ask Mong Palatino, who tried really hard to make it happen and failed.
Miserably.

5. The right to religion needs to work in conjunction with our other rights.

8List_Separation_5

Via PhilStar

Religious people have the same rights non-religious people have. They can’t insist that their
freedom should trump the freedom of other people, such that while Muslims may choose to not
eat pork, Iglesias may choose to not eat dinuguan, and Catholics may abstain from meat on
Fridays. They cannot practice this and then ignore the rights of other people to practice
differently. In short, walang basagan ng trip. Any chance people can understand that distinction?

Of course, this needs to come with the reminder: illegal detention is a serious crime, not just a
“trip.” Just in case people forget this little detail.

It Gets Worse: The right to life, liberty, and property is a very important right. It is perhaps the
most basic of human rights. When a man decides to become a priest, he willingly cedes that right
in the service of a perceived higher cause. When someone gets illegally detained, this happens
against their will (why else would they sue?) and is an abrogation of a person’s rights.

4. We currently do not legislate with secular sensibilities in mind.

Why is divorce illegal in this country? Because morality, blah, Vatican, blah. Where does that
leave everybody else, no matter how minor?

Is divorce immoral? I guess that’s debatable, but the government’s function is not to legislate
morality, and certainly not to legislate the kind of morality observed only by Catholics (since
practically every other religion allows for divorce, albeit begrudgingly). The fact that we keep
citing religious reasons for issues like divorce, the RH Law and, chances are, marriage equality,
only goes to show our “separation” of Church and State has been vestigial at best all this time.

It Gets Worse: If Separation of Church and State has been functionally ignored for decades by
the Philippines, why is the INC protesting it only now? Why, because it now works to their
advantage to do so, even if they used a very misguided reading of the provision to do it. If for
some reason, we would elect a president who turned out to be, say, a Satanist, do you think that
the CBCP would let him express his religion in public the way they encouraged it when GMA
used to do this all the time for photo ops?

8List_Separation_4

Via Blogspot

Insert tongue-in-cheek comment here.

3. Religious leaders are not above the law. (Well, duh.)

8List_Separation_3

Via Tumblr

Does this really need to be explained? Apparently, yes. The non-establishment of a state religion
is in place to assure us that religious leaders do not have the kind of power they had during the
medieval ages. It protects the state from them, but it also protects the other religions who might
not be as lucky as the one that gets to run a theocracy. In theory, it should all work out for the
best but we all know that’s not the case.

Despite that, if a religion happened to celebrate ritual human sacrifice, it’s pretty sure that such a
practice being religious in nature will not protect it from prosecution. We still have our limits (I
hope).

It Gets Worse: Does this story sound familiar? Maybe the CBCP doesn’t have the power to
mobilize people to EDSA to stage a rally on a payday Friday at the start of a long weekend, but
it’s fairly obvious that the notion of “investigation” and “suspicion” is easily muddled with the
pretense of “persecution.” It’s just that this time, we have a more persuasive church leadership
demanding that its rank and file members protect it from having people look into their billion-
peso aircraft and alleged penchant for playing hide the minister.

2. Bloc voting is shady, but not necessarily illegal.

While there is some level of protection afforded the government by theoretical separation of
State and Church, most of the protection is in favor of the Church, actually. For example, the
government can’t dictate who becomes church leaders to a given church, but the church can
dictate to their flock who to vote for, and if the flock obeys, well, that’s just too bad for the
candidates who didn’t curry the favor of the church in question.

8List_Separation_2

Via Tumblr

Also Shady. Also not illegal, if only the FCC would let him be.

A church as a unit but a bunch of private individuals when apart, it isn’t exactly possible to insist
that the church not have a say in the affairs of the state, so while reprehensible since it leads to
politicians figuratively (I think) getting into bed with religious leaders just to gain their
endorsement, its just like feudalism all over again. This is also why some sectors insist that it’s
time the church started paying taxes, which is a topic for another day.

It Gets Worse: Pastor Quiboloy endorsed Gibo Teodoro in 2010, calling him “Gibobama.”
Doesn’t it put your own god into question when your leader who is supposedly the second
coming of Christ himself doesn’t even have the ability to guarantee a presidential win for one of
the best candidates on paper?

1. Our government and churches break the “inviolable” separation between them whenever it’s
convenient or advantageous to do so.

All of these arguments have been nothing but a showcase in the many ways the constitutional
provision of Separation of Church and State has been nothing more than a joke in this country,
and it is only ever brought up as an issue when people’s privilege on the matter is challenged.
It is so ingrained in us to be Catholic, or to be Christian, or to be INC, or to be Muslim, or to be
any other creed, that it seems normal and appropriate when we want the government to conform
to our beliefs, even if other people do not necessarily share these beliefs. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it
evil? Not necessarily. But it is a mistaken notion that needs to be challenged and corrected.

The religious are privileged in status in that the norm follows their common practices so much
that when other people call attention to it being actually discriminatory in their favor, they cry
“persecution” instead of recognizing it for what it truly is: a call for equal treatment for everyone
in the eyes of the law. No rich. No poor. No man. No woman. No Catholic. No Iglesia. No
atheist. Just a Filipino citizen with the same rights and freedoms as every other Filipino citizen.
If an atheist Filipino has to celebrate “Happy Secular Holidays” without the government greeting
him, why would he have to put up with it when a Christian is pandered to with Christmas
billboards featuring politicians spending his tax money to remind him how oh-so-Christian his
leaders are in celebrating Christmas? Just like Chinese-Filipino Tiffany Uy is every bit as
Filipino as the rest of us, why wouldn’t this atheist Filipino likewise be?

Look at it this way: if you’re already going to heaven after all this is said and done, why the need
to make everyone else’s life a living hell just to spite them?

If you truly believe in the inherent merit of Separation of Church and State, then know one thing:
we have a long way to go to actually having it. A misguided rally in EDSA is not going to solve
anything for us. In fact, the whole thing set us all back a long way, and the only thing that
separated that day was us and the fantasy that Separation of Church and State was ever a thing in
this “secular” country.
pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/Bagares_Church-State_separation.pdf

The Separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. 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.

http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2012-08-26/842108/separation-church-and-state

Separation of church and state

UGNAYAN By Emmanuel M. Dalman (The Philippine Star) | Updated August 26, 2012 -
12:00am

8 248 googleplus2 13

Many of us wonder why there is a separation of church and state. Under this policy, the church
does not interfere with the affairs of the state and vice-versa. In extreme cases, the separation of
church and state involves limiting the exercise of religious beliefs only in church structures or
within the private confines of the home. The display of faith in public is prohibited. In some
countries, one is not even allowed to carry a Bible or a rosary in public view.

Why is there a need to separate Church affairs from state affairs and vice-versa? Is such
separation borne out of necessity? Is it a prescription for good government? Or is it because there
are different types of religion and the state does not want to favor anyone?

The internet provided some interesting answers, although most of them are quite indirect and
incomplete. Thomas Jefferson explains that “Religious institutions that use government power in
support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faith or of no faith, undermine all
our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy
unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within the religion itself. Erecting the
“wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely necessary in a free
society.”

What happens if the government favors a particular religion? Harry Blackmun has this to say:
“When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of
exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be
premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”

What if there is no separation of church and state? Robert Heinlein tries to answer this question.
He said that “Almost any sect, cult or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the
political power to do so.” Is it possible to have a middle ground in the principle advocating the
separation of church and state? Ronald Reagan declares that “Freedom prospers when religion is
vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

How is the principle of separation of church and state applied in some countries? In one country,
while its constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the state collects some taxes from
recognized religious communities upon their request and a fee is charged for the service.
Religion is taught in some schools but no teacher can be compelled to teach the subject of
religion because the state considers itself as neutral as far as religion is concerned. But those who
teach religion are required to secure prior permission from their religious community.

In another country, the King is also the head of the state church. Its constitution requires that
more than half of the members of its legislative body are members of the state church. The same
constitution guarantees freedom of religion but while it guarantees such freedom, it also
designates one type of religion as the official state religion. And the church propagating this
religion is administered through a government department.
In another country, while there is separation of church and state, the Pope had accepted the
ordination of a bishop who was pre-selected by the government for a Catholic association. In
another country, the separation of church and state means the separation of religion from
political power. While it protects religious expression from state interference, it also puts a limit
to public religious expression to ensure that public power is insulated from the influence of
religious institutions. In another country which has Islam for its religion, conversion to another
religion is totally prohibited and any violation is punishable by death.

In Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, the
Catholic Church teaches that all people are entitled to religious freedom. However, while it
permits the separation of church and state, it does not support a separation of religion and
politics. It believes that the proper role of the Church is to guide and inform the people of their
rights. In the Philippines, the Catholic Church has always opposed any bill that seeks to impose
the death penalty. It is now also strongly opposing the passing of the Reproductive Health bill,
which aims to guarantee access to methods and information on birth control and maternal care.

Which policy therefore is best for a country — complete, partial or no separation at all of church
and state? In a democratic setting, it is the people who decide what is best for their country and
their preference is expressed in their constitution and statutes. But what does the Bible say?
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark
12:17). It also says: “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men’”
(Acts 5:29) and again in Romans 13:1 — “Let everyone be subject to governing authorities, for
there is no authority except that which God has established.”

How do you apply these Biblical prescriptions to a particular country? The answer to this
question may vary from one country to another for indeed, the practice of faith, whether by
individuals or by countries, is a subjective decision.
https://businessmirror.com.ph/separation-of-church-and-state-2/

By BusinessMirror Editorial - February 16, 2017

The current controversy about the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)
speaking out on issues and government policy that it considers important is a “tempest in a
teapot”—an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion.

It might be well to remember that for virtually all of recorded history, leaders—from great kings
in magnificent palaces to tribal leaders underneath the jungle canopy—sought to establish their
credibility by invoking Divine Rights. On the timeline of history, the separation of religion
(Church) and government started only a few moments ago.

The ancient Egyptian pharaohs from 5,000 years ago were themselves considered “gods”.
Shintoists considered the Japanese emperor a divine descendant of the goddess Amaterasu until
1946. Looking back even only a few hundred years past, there was no line between religion and
the state.

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares: “The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable” and “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof”. This is taken from the first legal prohibition of the government
establishing a state religion found in the US Constitution. Many different religious groups fled to
the colonies in North America to avoid religious persecution, and were not about to start over the
same way again.

No one with any common sense would deny the absolute right of the CBCP or any individual or
group to exercise its rights of freedom of speech and opinion. The argument that the CBCP only
speaks for a small segment of Philippine society is immaterial also. That same 1987 Constitution,
which enshrined the separation of Church and State, also enshrined party-list representation,
which protects special interest groups.
The 2016 election saw the PBA Party-list receive the ability not only to give its input on
proposed legislation, but to vote for or against laws. By its own mandate, PBA is “responsive to
the interests of Filipino athletes”. Aren’t those Filipino athletes already served in Congress by
their locally elected representative? What particular broad national interest is served by the
Manila Teachers’ Savings and Loan Association having its own congressional seat?

As with the 46 special-interest organizations that won in the party-list elections, the CBCP
speaks for its particular constituency, and is no different than the ABS-Arts, Business and
Science Professionals.

But it is the “religious element of the CBCP that seems to get people upset. Would there be the
same kind of discussion if the CBCP were the initials of the “Camote Buyers Confederation of
the Philippines”? To attack the political positions of the CBCP on the grounds that it is a
religious organization is wrong.

The current discussion about bringing back capital punishment has absolutely nothing to do with
the constitutional guarantee of the separation of Church and State. Further, it is a short walk
between stopping a person or group because they hold opinions based on religious belief and
stopping those religious beliefs altogether.
The Philippines violates the Separation of Church and State in its 1987 Constitution

https://www.zamboanga.com/z/index.php?
title=Separation_of_Church_and_State:_The_Philippines_violates_its_1987_constitution

1. The Philippines violates the preamble of the constitution: "We, the sovereign Filipino people,
imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a
Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve
and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of
independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution."

it violates the principle of equality by putting the religion of Islam above other religions.

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

The government of the Philippines must never violate the "separation of church and state".

(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.

"No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion": This means that laws must never
be created to favor, uphold, honor, or respect any religion.

The Philippines violated this section by creating Republic Act No. 6734 ARMM (Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao). This region is reserved specifically for Muslims(Moros) the
followers of the religion of Islam. The republic act 6734 "RESPECTS" the religion of Islam.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.": We have the freedom of religion. the government must
respect that.

Article 6, section 29 (2): states "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.."
No law must be created that would finance a religion or financially benefit only the specific
followers of certain religions. i.e. Must not financially benefit Christians, Muslims or any
followers of any religion.

The government of the Philippines created Republic Act No.9997, the NCMF. A commission
with a yearly governmental budget of over 500 million pesos to serve only Muslims. Public
money and property has been and is appropriated for the Muslims(Moros), the followers of the
religion of Islam.

The Philippine government violates all 4 points. The Philippine government financially supports
the religion of Islam via the NCMF, the ARMM and now the Bangsamoro.

The teaching of religious classes in public schools is permitted with the written consent of the
parent so long as provided there is no cost to the government. Religious organizations register
with the Securities and Exchange Commission to apply for tax exemption. Registered religions
and non-profit organizations are tax exempt but only with the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.

Note: The developer of this site (Frank Maletsky), is appealing to all of academia, political
leaders, and other religious leaders to say something about this. Whether you are for this
violation or against it. Say something. Why does the Philippines favor one religion (ISLAM)
over the rest?

Bangsamoro (Moroland) (Moronation): Bangsa: A Malaysian word meaning Nation

As defined by Wikipedia: "The Moro people or Bangsamoro are a population of indigenous

Muslims in the Philippines, forming the largest non-Catholic group in the country, and
comprising about 5% of the total Philippine population." This definition contradicts itself.
Wikipedia defines bangsamoro as a "religious group" by calling them non-Catholics.

Muslims are not indigenous people. Muslims belong to the religion of Islam. Muslims are
comprised of different cultures, races, and different ethnicities all over the world. It is
unfortunate that most of the Philippine academia, leaders, politicians and lawyers follow the
same incorrect definition of wikipedia.

The Philippine government financially supports only one religion and that is the religion of
(Islam). Those who practice the religion of Islam are called Muslims. The Bangsamoro is run by
Muslims.

We will not go article by article or section by section of what the BBL is about. You may peruse
over the basic law yourself. Here is the link to the Draft for a law to create the Bangsamoro - 122
pages.

If the BBL is passed it will replace the existing ARMM. The Bangsamoro is a bigger blanket that
covers more space and also requires more governmental budget.

This budget is what the Filipino people should be concerned about. The Moro people or
Bangsamoro want to be defined as "indigenous Muslims in the Philippines". The Philippine
government goes along with this and therefore classifying Muslims in the Philippines as an
ethnicity. But there is an intrinsic problem with this definition. It violates the 1987 constitution
of the Philippines. Hey, being Muslim does NOT make the person indigenous, being Muslim
makes that person a follower of Islam or one who practices the religion of Islam but in no way
does it automatically make him/her indigenous. Muslims are not indigenous people.

The Philippine Government claims that The Philippines has the Freedom of Religion and the
Separation of Church and State

In 1987 the constitution of The Philippines created the Separation of Church and State

As far as the "Freedom of Religion" unquestionably the Philippines protects that.

As far as the law of the Separation of Church and State, and whether the Philippines is actually
following that law in the constitution, is up for debate.

Article VI, Section 29, part (2) states: "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."

The 3 items below, don't they violate the constitution's Article VI, Section 29, part (2)?

In 1987 Executive Order No. 122-A, created the Office of Muslim Affairs (OMA). This office
served only the Muslim people and not the non-muslims. This office answered only to the
President of the Philippines.

In August 1, 1989 just two years later, The Philippines through Republic Act No. 6734 otherwise
known as the Organic Act created the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao or ARMM.
Non-Muslims are not allowed to participate in the ARMM government. Then referred to
Mindanao as Muslim Mindanao

In 2010 the "National Commission on Muslim Filipinos" replaced the "Office of Muslim
Affairs". This office still falls under the same umbrella and that is, it reports only to the President
of the Philippines.

Non-Muslims can't participate in this commission. Non-Muslims can't benefit from this
commission and this commission will not serve non-muslims. This commission is funded by the
government and answers only to the President of the Philippines.

Every year the Philippine government provides a budget (billions of pesos) for both the ARMM
and the NCMF. Both of these entities are Muslim Entities. Both religious entities under the
religion of Islam (Muslim).

So what does this do to Article 2 section 6 which states: The separation of Church and State shall
be inviolable.?
Inequality in how The Philippine government looks at Religion

The Philippines claims separation of church and state. Meaning not one centavo will go to the
support of any religion from the tax payers money or no law will be created respecting an
establishment of religion. Yet the Philippines administration and legislature turns around and
violates the constitution for the sake of ISLAM.

There is the NCMF (National Commision on Muslim Filipinos) financed by the government. The
Muslims belong to the religion of Islam.

The government has no existing program to support Iglesia ni Cristo, Aglipayans, Seventh day
Adventists, Catholics or any other religion because the government says that it is against the
constitution and that it violates the "separation of church and state". But it is OK to financially
support the Muslims.

The government has the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) for the support of
all the indigenous people of the Philippines. Doesn't it bother the government officials that a
religion is getting more money than the indigenous people?

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has P35.46 million as of 2016.

The National Commission on Muslim Filipinos has P469.67 million in 2016.

Polygamy in the Philippines was illegal for all citizens. But on February 4, 1977, The Philippines
created Presidential Decree 1083 to legalize POLYGAMY for Muslims only. There you have it.
Polygamy is illegal for non-muslims but legal for Muslims.

Why does The Philippine government financially support ISLAM (the Muslims) and not the
other religions?

History records that Islam arrived in the Philippine (Sulu archipelago) in the year 1380 (14th
century). Prior to the arrival of ISLAM, the early occupants of the archipelago practiced
Animism (the worship of spirits) and other forms of religion. The archipelago was divided into
ruling tribes with Datus and Rajas as their chieftains. Commerce was vibrant. A Thriving
commerce attracted the Muslim traders to the Sulu archipelago. All throughout the archipelago a
vibrant society was already established by the indigenous tribes.
The conversion of the natives into Islam was gradual. The early Muslim missionaries had the
opportunity to gather the tribes under one religion, the religion of Islam. There were other
religions but they were not entrenched in politics and governance as Islam was. Islam is not just
a religion. It is a way of life and a form of governance.

So as Islam gained its spread starting from the south to the north, they met no resistance for over
140 years. Islam enjoyed and prospered in the spread of its religion and its governance by
practicing the law of the Qur'an and attaching the title of Sultan to the highest ruler of an area.
The sultan (arabic in origin) became a higher position of leadership than the original native tribal
titles of Datu and Raja.

The Datus were already in place as chieftains of tribes before Islam set foot in the Philippines.
The earliest history tells the story of a Datu Dinagandan who was a chieftain of Aklan in the
island of Panay during the 12th century. Way before the recorded arrival of Islam (year 1380) in
the Philippines. These tribes were the ancestors of the current INDIGENOUS peoples of the
Philippines. These tribes existed with their own autonomy before the Muslims converted them
into the religion of Islam.

As history would record it. A Muslim Arab from Sumatra named Abu Bakr crowned himself the
first official Sultan of Sulu around 1450. He was not even a native of the archipelago.

To this date these indigenous peoples still wear their traditional garb mistaken for Muslim attire.
Many of the tribal traditions were assimilated by the Muslims who now inaccurately call it as
Muslim originated.

The Spaniards arrived in the archipelago in 1521 and brought Christianity with it, Islam
confronted competition in the archipelago for the first time. The Spaniards identified the
Muslims as Moros because the Spaniards knew the Muslims as Moros. From that moment on
Islam no longer had monopoly in the Philippines. This gave the indigenous tribes in the
Philippines the opportunity to choose to be Christians, Muslims, or neither of the two.
Since the tribal rulers were mostly already Muslims, the rebellions where considered religious. It
became a battle between the crescent and the cross. The members of the tribes who continued to
maintain the religion of Islam and totally rejected Christianity were chased away from their own
villages and most went south. The tribes who remained had to chose to either convert to
Christianity, remain as Muslims or stay non-religious but they all had to pledge allegiance to
their new Spanish leaders.

This continued on.....

In 1898, the Americans and the Spaniard came to an agreement. Spain surrendered the
Philippines to the United States for a payment of twenty million dollars. Then signed the treaty
of Paris.

Prior to the signing this Cable message from Pres. McKinley on Nov. 25, 1898 was very explicit:
"... to accept merely Luzon, leaving the rest of the islands subject to Spanish rule, or to be the
subject of future contention, cannot be justified on political, commercial, or humanitarian
grounds. The cessation must be the whole archipelago or none. The latter is wholly inadmissible,
and the former must therefore be required."

By then most of ISLAM has been eliminated from Luzon and the Visayas. Most of the Muslims
retreated to the southern island of Mindanao. During the American colonialism, the word MORO
(spanish origin meaning Muslim. Derived from the word Moor) was gradually integrated into
government, which the U.S.A. equated to the indigenous non-Christians tribes of Mindanao. The
error of referring to the indigenous people as Moro was capitalized by Muslim scholars, to get
the Philippine government to define Muslims as indigenous people. Currently in the Philippines
the word "Muslim" was incorrectly defined as an ethnicity and as a minority indigenous people.
So in effect The Philippine government did not classify "Muslim" as a person who practices the
religion of Islam but instead as an indigenous people. From there it all unfolded.
Note: To this date Muslim advocates continue to lobby the government to hold on to the
definition that a Muslim person is an indigenous person regardless of race or tribe.

Note: Today the Philippines has the NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and the
NCMF National commission on Muslim Filipinos. The NCIP as 17 of the 18 regions of the
Philippines reports to the DILG. But the NCMF and the ARMM do not. Both answer only to the
President of the Philippines.

The Muslims or Moros continue to push to regain autonomy and the Islamization of the
Philippines. They know that it would just be a matter of time and with continued persistence, the
archipelago will be dominated by them again. The Spaniards were almost successful in
subjugating Islam in the Philippines, but then the following happened:

Here is a short Chronology of what happened to the Philippines since the arrival of Americans in
the Philippines.

1898: The Americans took over the Philippines in 1898. Not only in part but the entire
Archipelago. From Batanes to Tawi-Tawi.

The Philippine organic act of 1902:

Section 7. That two years after the completion and publication of the census, in case such
condition of general and complete peace with recognition of the authority of the United States
shall have continued in the territory of said Islands not inhabited by Moros or other non-
Christian tribes and such facts shall have been certified to the President by the Philippine
Commission, the President upon being satisfied thereof shall direct Commission to call, and the
Commission shall call, a general election for the choice of delegates to a popular assembly of the
people of said territory in the Philippine Islands, which shall be known as the Philippine
Assembly. After said Assembly shall have convened and organised, all the legislative power
heretofore conferred on the Philippine Commission in all that part of said Islands not inhabited
by Moros or other non-Christian tribes shall be vested in a Legislature consisting of two Houses
– the Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly. Said Assembly shall consist of not
less than fifty nor more than one hundred members to be apportioned by said Commission
among the provinces as nearly as practicable according to population:Provided, that no province
shall have less than one member: And provided further, that provinces entitled by population to
more than one member may be divided into such convenient district as the said Commission may
deem best....Read on...

Note: This is how the meaning of the word moro or muslim in the Philippines got skewed. This
was the jumping board that enabled the members of legislature favoring Islam to define the
Muslim Filipino as indigenous people.

The Americans made the mistake of classifying the indigenous peoples of Mindanao as
Moros(Muslims) in 1902, the light at the end of the tunnel was seen by the Muslim people.

The Americans started the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes which then later became an
independent agency called the commission on national integration (CNI)

July 4, 1946: The Philippines gained its independence. It became a sovereign country with its
own constitution. The constitution upheld the Separation of Church and State. The religion of
Islam was equal to the rest of the religions in the Philippines. The Muslims did not agree. Islam
does accept the "separation of church and state". Development of the southern part of the
Philippines continued (started by the americans). This did not sit well with the Moros. They
rebelled and it became almost a religious war. Christians against Moros, the conflict started in
the 50's. The Moro leaders knew that they can't win in battle, so they worked on the presidents of
the Philippines. They lobbied non-stop. They broke a chip in the armor in 1965 and that's all it
took.

October 11, 1965: The first Philippine official Muslim Community Site was created.
Proclamation No. 472, s. 1965: carved out 57,716 square meters off of the barangay of Rio
Hondo, Zamboanga City to create the exclusive Muslim Community Site, signed by president
Diosdado Macapagal.

Rio Hondo, Zamboanga City became the first recognized official "Muslim" community in the
Philippines.

October 21, 1972: The founding of The Moro National Liberation Front or Mindanao National
Liberation Front (MNLF): A secessionist political organization in the Philippines that was
founded by Nur Misuari.
February 7, 1974 Jolo War: Right after the MNLF was organized, they started to amass
membership into their militia with the threat of war against the Philippines with the "take over"
plan. The AFP began to increase their military personnel in Jolo with the hope to quell the
prospect of war. However, the MNLF began their attack and the AFP retaliated. It became the
bloodiest war in Jolo, Sulu. The aftermath of the war led pres. Marcos to negotiate with the
MNLF.

1975: Creation of SPDA:

By the Presidential decree 690 april 22, 1975 (ratified by Presidential decree No. 719 May 30,
1975), then President Ferdinand E. Marcos created the Southern Philippine Development
Authority (SPDA) which took over the government programs for the Muslims and later became
the Ministry of Muslim Affairs and the Presidential Assistance on National Minorities
(PANAMIN), which took over the government programs for the Non-Muslim or other tribal
groups. One of its main tasks was to integrate into the mainstream of society certain ethnic
groups which seek full integration into the larger community and at the same time protect the
rights of those who wish to preserve their original way of life beside the larger community.

By sheer political influence and the promise of peace the Muslims managed at this time to
convince president Marcos that the Muslims were indigenous people.

This later became OMA(Office of Muslims Affairs in 1987) and currently NCMF (National
Commission of Muslim Filipinos), whose sole purpose is to attend to the welfare of Muslims and
spread Islam.

The 1976 Tripoli Agreement: Signed by president Ferdinand E. Marcos.:

The establishment of Autonomy in the Southern Philippines within the realm of the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. Many Non-Muslim Filipinos do not
know that Gaddafi was instrumental to the downfall of the Philippines by helping the religion of
Islam. Gaddafi strengthened the MNLF and paved the way for the Tripoli agreement of 1976.
Before the signing of this agreement Islam like all the other religions in the Philippines were
equals. On December 23, 1976, the Philippine government made the religion of Islam superior to
all other religions in the Philippines.

February 4, 1977: Immediately after the Tripoli Agreement, Presidential Decree 1083 was
signed, effectively upholding Sharia law in the Philippines.
1978 MILF founded by Hashim Salamat: A rift within the MNLF created the MILF. This
organization was formally established in 1984 as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Muammar
Gaddafi (leader of Libya) became a longstanding supporter of the MILF after its emergence.

The commander in chief of the Philippines allows the MILF to have its headquarters in
Darapanan, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao

The 1987 Constitution: Declaring Mindanao as "Muslim Mindanao": Under the guidance of
President Cory Aquino

Not satisfied with the SPDA, because it's activities were limited to only Mindanao, The
OMA(Office on Muslim Affairs) was created and it gave the Muslims authority over the entire
Philippines to help the muslims.

1989 Organic Act: Republic Act No. 6734 August 1, 1989, creating the Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao - ARMM

These 4 provinces were allocated to the ARMM: Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Sulu and Tawi-
Tawi

1991: Having two Islamic militias was not enough so Abdurajak Abubakar Janjalani in 1991
founded the Abu Sayyaf Group. To this date this terrorist group creates havoc in southern
Philippines.

2001: The Muslims were not satisfied with these 4 provinces, so a second plebiscite in 2001
successfully assimilated the island province of Basilan except for its capital, the city of Isabela.

2007 conflict: Let to the "Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain" pushed by MILF
which then created the Coined name of the entitiy of "Bangsamoro".

On August 4, 2008, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a temporary restraining order,
preventing the Government and the MILF from officially signing the Memorandum of
Agreement on Ancestral Domain, which would conclude all dispute and begin formal talks that
would lead to the drafting and eventual signing of a Final Comprehensive Compact between the
two groups.

not satisfied with the decision of the supreme court, negotiations were taken to Malaysia, with
the blessing of the president of the Philippines. The president of the Philippines is not just the
commander in chief of the AFP but that of the ARMM (the muslims). Since the ARMM reports
and answers only to the president of the Philippines. This negotiation continued until they were
ready to be re-introduced to the legislature.

2008: The Muslims through political muscle managed to convince 12 senators (SENATORS
AQUlLlNO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., EDGARDO ANGARA, RODOLFO BIAZON, PIA
“COMPANERA” CAYETANO, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, FRANCIS “CHIZ” ESCUDERO,
JINGGOY ESTRADA, GREGORlO HONASAN, PANFILO LACSON, FRANCIS
PANGILINAN, RAMON “BONG” REVILLA, MANUEL “MANNY” VILLAR) on April 23,
2008 to introduce a Federal system of Government, which will guarantee the Bangsamoro a state
of its own.

The Muslims are always doing their best to attract presidential candidates to embrace this idea of
a Federal form of government which will guarantee them a state of their own.

2008: The failure of the BBL to be passed prompted Ameril Umbra Kato to break away from the
MILF and form another Islamic militia in the Philippines, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom
Fighters.

2010: On February 18, 2010, Republic Act No.9997 Created the National Commission on
Muslim Affairs (NCMF). This was the evolution of the 1975 SPDA. The NCMF has the mandate
from the president to spread Islam throughout the Philippines with the financial support from the
government. This commission serves only Muslims.

2014: The BBL Bangsamoro Basic Law was re-introduced. It was voted on for hearing by the
majority of congress in 2015 but defeated in the senate in January of 2016.

2016: June 30, 2016, the Philippines officially inaugurated the first ever Muslim president of the
Philippines. Pres. Rodrigo Duterte.

On August 9, 2016, Duterte, threatened martial law. The new president of the Philippines
(Duterte) will try to make the filipino people accept bangsamoro by introducing the idea of
Federalism. It is a form of government that is enticing to the people. They forget that Federalism
is simply a ploy to slip in the Bangsamoro as one of the states of the Philippines as it was
introduced in the resolution of the 14th congress.
May 23, 2017: Duterte made his threat true. He declared Martial Law in Mindanao. This was due
to the Islamic attack on the city of Marawi.

July 23, 2017: Salaam TV (Philippines) (Muslim TV network) was launched by the office of the
President. Financed by the Philippine government.

This march forward will not stop until the Muslims will get what they want, the entire
Philippines.

Note: These 3 presidents (Diosdado Macapagal, Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino), within 25
years have successfully undid what the Spaniards accomplished in over 350 years.

The Muslims are always courting and bribing the president of the Philippines to get what they
want. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, successfully managed to allow the first introduction of the BBL.
Then Benigno Aquino almost successfully passed the BBL into law. The current president
Duterte does not talk about BBL anymore, he goes directly into Federalism. Federalism in the
Philippines guarantees the Moros an Islamic Bangasamoro State.

The Muslims know that the Philippine government is weak and corrupt specially the presidency.
By supporting and electing the right candidate into the office is the key to the Islamization of the
Philippines.

Politically supporting the right president is key in winning the battle for autonomy. President
Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III (2010-2016) was against the "separation of church and state".
Aquino was and is still pro Bangsamoro and is willing to do anything to pass the Bangsamoro
Basic Law.

None of the presidential candidates for the year 2016 are tackling the issues of the "ARMM" and
the "NCMF" which are both violating the constitution. Even if this BBL bill is quelled, another
bill in its place will surface later because the Bangsamoro still exists within the ARMM and the
NCMF and they all continue to get governmental yearly budget in the billions of pesos.
A couple of presidential candidates for the 2016 election are even talking about Federalism and
making sure that one of the states will be designated for the bangsamoro.

As long as the presidency of the Philippines continues to be in bed with Islam, it is no longer a
question as to "if" this bill will pass, it is a question of as to "when" it will pass.

A non-islamic country that does not strictly adhere to the "separation of religion and
government" will in a matter of time be assimilated by the religion of Islam.

The Philippine government should support Ethnic and indigenous tribes but not a RELIGION

The Philippine government should support Ethnic and indigenous tribes but not a RELIGION

All the Ethnic and indigenous tribes in the Philippines should be supported by the government.
Below are some of the tribes in Mindanao.

B'laan

Badjao

Bagobos

Banwaon

Dibabawon

Diyangan

Higaunon

Iranun

Jama Mapun

K'lagan
K'lata

Kalagan

Kalibugan

Kaulo

Kuwemanen

Lambangian

Maguindanao

Mamanuwa

Mangguwangan

Mandaya

Manobo

Mansaka

Molbog

Maranaw

Palawanon

Sama

Sangil

Subanen(Subanon)

T'Boli

Tagabawa

Talaandig

Tausūg
Teduray

Tinenanen

Ubos (Ubu)

Yakan

Muslims: not an Ethnic group or race, Muslims are those who practice the religion of Islam

Being a Muslim (Moro) does not make an individual an indigenous person. Being a Muslim
(Moro) makes the individual the follower of the religion of Islam.

Being Muslim does not make you indigenous.JPG

These are four Muslims from four different races. But if they become Filipino citizens, the
Philippine government will classify them as indigenous. Only in the Philippines.

Muslims are not indigenous people.JPG

Muslims are not indigenous people. They are the followers of Islam.

Muslim (Moro) is not an ethnicity. Muslim by definition is an individual practicing the religion
of ISLAM. Not all the Muslim (Moro) people in the Philippines are indigenous. There are
several races in the Philippines practicing the religion of Islam and they are Muslim. But not all
of them are indigenous. Take the Chinese Muslims in Tawi-Tawi, the Indian Muslim in
Zamboanga, or the caucasian Muslim in CDO; all three belong to different races and ethnicity.
Also the moros/muslims are preaching that the indigenous people of Mindanao and Sulu are
Muslims or moros. They are preaching lies. These indigenous people practice and follow
different religions besides Islam.

Case in point via history: Let us take two indigenous tribes as an example. The tausugs of Sulu
and the Maranaos of lake Lanao.

Before the Muslims (Moros) arrived in the archipelago, the Tausugs and the Maranaos were non-
Muslims (Moros). They practiced their own forms of worship. Most say that they practiced the
animistic beliefs and traditions. As history would record it, by the 14th century when the
Muslims (Moros) arrived in the Philippines and started to convert the natives to the religion of
Islam, these two tribes (Tausugs and Maranaos) were (most of them) converted into the religion
of Islam. Not all the Tausugs and Maranaos are Moros but all of them are indigenous people.
They were indigenous before they became Moros. Being Muslim (Moro) did not make them
indigenous. Being Tausugs and Maranaos made them indigenous.

Somehow, in the twisted minds of the legislators of the Philippines, they now classified all
Moro-filipinos as indigenous people.

Muslim scholars, Muslim academia, Muslim politicians, and Muslim leaders will forever
continue to break the line that divides religion from ethnicity, race, ancestry and inherited status.
They will continue to complicate issues until the dividing line simply becomes a shade of gray.
This push will not stop until the world will define the word Muslim (Moro) as an ethnicity and
classify Moros as indigenous people.

To the Muslim, governance and religion are synonymous. If a Muslim is within a country that is
not Islamic, he will simply tolerate the government. The Muslims in that country will cluster and
unite in their unending effort to assimilate that country into their ISLAMIC fold. Time is not a
factor.

A Muslim (Moro) is trained from childhood when asked for his/her race, to answer with "I am
Muslim".

Here is how the bangsamoro is It's trying to convince legislature that the Filipino-Muslims were
the original inhabitants of Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan

The BBL immediately makes an assumption that all the ancestral lands of the sulu archipelago,
Mindanao and palawan all belongs to the Muslims (Moros). They made this assumption and they
have the legislature fooled.
Article II section 1 of the BBL defines the bangsamoro people as:"Those who at the time of
conquest and colonization were considered natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and the
Sulu archipelago and its adjacent islands including Palawan, and their descendants, whether of
mixed or of full blood, shall have the right to identify themselves as Bangsamoro by ascription or
self-ascription. Spouses and their descendants are classified as Bangsamoro."

Then Article II section 2 of the BBL talks a little about the indigenous people: "Freedom of
Choice. – The freedom of choice of other indigenous peoples shall be respected."

Let me inform you folks. The "natives or original inhabitants" at the time of conquest and
colonization were not the bangsamoro people. They were the indigenous people who practiced
several forms of worship and one of them just happened to be Islam. Muslims (Bangsamoro) are
not indigenous people. They are the followers of the religion of Islam.

Before the introduction of any religion or ideology into the Philippines, the indigenous people
already had their own languages, traditions, beliefs and practices. These new introductions or
additions simply became part of the original.

The Muslims (Moros) claim that they deserve their own state because they are the original
inhabitants of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. WRONG! Muslims (Moros) are the followers of
Islam. The original inhabitants were the indigenous people. Muslims are not indigenous people,
neither is it an ethnicity. If a tribe converts to Islam and all the members of that tribe become
Muslims, it does not make the Muslims indigenous, it only makes the indigenous people in that
tribe Muslims. The creation of the bangsamoro is based on the biggest lie in history. They claim
to be the original inhabitants of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan.

This push by the Muslims (Moros) for a state of their own is not just from the Muslims within
the Philippines. Other Islamic countries are involved. The country that stands out in full support
of the Muslims (Moros) in the Philippines is the country of Malaysia. They have been involved
since 2007 with the former president Arroyo.
The religion of Islam should be treated just like any other religions in the Philippines. The
Philippines should uphold the "separation of church and state as it is stated in the constitution.
The government should not financially support any religion. Giving the bangsamoro a state of its
own is a violation of the constitution. It is financially supporting the religion of Islam.

The Philippine Government is religiously biased. To defeat the BBL or Bangsamoro once and
for all, legislature must be convinced that the Bangsamoro people were not the original "natives
or inhabitants" of the entire Philippine archipelago or the sulu archipelago, mindanao or
palwawan for that matter.

To reiterate: The indigenous people were the original "natives or inhabitants" and not the
Bangsamoro. The bangsamoro (nation of muslims) people are not indigenous people.

Muslims are the followers of Islam

Moros are Muslims.

Bangsamoro is Nation of Muslims

Bangsamoro Lied when it claimed that they were the original inhabitants of Mindanao, Sulu and
Palawan.

A moro or muslim may be an indigenous person (tausug or other indigenous people) but just by
being a muslim or moro does not make anyone indigenous.

The indigenous people were the original inhabitants and just because some of them converted to
Islam does not make the Muslims, Moros or Bangsamoro the original inhabitants of Mindanao,
Sulu, and Palawan.

Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims

Islam is a religion and a form of governance. Muslims are obligated to follow Sharia law. This
religious law (Sharia), is what regulates the daily lives of the Muslim. Without Sharia law there
is no Islam. Hence, the separation of religion and state or government is not an option for the
Muslims. The muslims will contradict this statement by re-routing the topic other quotes in the
Quran and and will point out how some Muslims are living in countries without Sharia law. If
you follow that discussion format then the topic will get confused because that is what they want.
Simply go back and ask the Muslim a simple question: "Can you as a Muslim live without
believing and following Sharia Law?"

The expansion of Islam is through conversion and family expansion. Much like any other
religion. As most religious groups do, they cluster in communities. For the Muslims (followers
of Islam) it does not stop there. The intention is always to take over the community.

Will The Philippines be a more prosperous Country if it is an ISLAMIC country?

There is a great possibility that the Philippines may be a better country if it is an Islamic country.
Read this Article.

The Philippines has congressmen and women in a contest to create laws. The problem is, once
approved they are rarely enforced. There is an obvious lack of discipline. Maybe Islam can bring
that much needed discipline to the country.

What to do to Make the Philippine government follow the "Separation of Church and State"

Remember that this is not a "religious" problem. This is a government problem.

Do not be quiet about this problem. Let others know and be aware of this situation.

Let as many government officials know about this.

Write to your local congress representative.

Ask that the ARMM and the NCMF must be repealed. Uphold the NCIP (national commission of
indigenous peoples) a non-religions commission created to represent all indigenous peoples of
the Philippines.
If you belong to a church, write to the government and ask for a donation to your church.
Remind the government representative that you are asking because you just want fairness. If the
government is financially supporting the Muslims, why not your church?

http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/12/separation-of-church-and-state.html

The State and the Church: Inviolably separate?

THURSDAY, 08 DECEMBER 2011 18:22 MERCEDES B. SULEIK / FREE ENTERPRISE

IT has often been stated that the Philippine Constitution has built an inviolable wall of separation
between the Church and the State, so as to ensure that religion and politics do not mix and
impede upon each other. Often it has defended this position by saying that Christ Himself has
exhorted to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

I would like to cite an article by Atty. Ma. Conception S. Noche, entitled “The Church and the
State: Building Bridges, Not Walls,” which was published in the July 2011 issue of the ALFI
(Alliance for the Family Foundation) News. She questioned the “wall” metaphor, as to whether
it was really impregnable, and whether there is a strict separation in each and all respects.

She establishes the notion that the Church and the State, as they are, are distinct societies with
different purposes for being—one, for the spiritual ends of man, the other, for the earthly and
material well-being of man. Each serves different needs for the same human being who is a
member of both societies at the same time. Both, however, aim at achieving the common good
of the human community.

Further, she notes that those who believe in strict separation are hard put to explain why there are
prayers in court and the legislatures, oaths that end “so help me God,” legal holidays to observe
religious practices, etc., as well as other constitutional arrangements regarding Church and State
relations.

To point out, the Philippine Constitution in its preamble implored “the aid of the Almighty God.”
It accepts the principle of the “free exercise of religion” which means the freedom to believe and
the freedom to act based on one’s belief. The Constitution is emphatic in guaranteeing religious
liberty which assures that no person or religious organization would be molested, coerced,
penalized or discriminated against on account of religious belief. It follows that religious
profession and worship are forever allowed, and therefore no law shall be passed that will
diminish or destroy religious freedom.

Concluding from Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate, she states that religion is
an integral part of a person, and is not concerned solely with the future life, but with the here and
now as well, with the ordinary day to day struggles that citizens, including their leaders, contend
with every day. And since it is an integral part of the person, civil society should recognize
religion as a constituent element of the common good for which it is responsible.

However independent Church and State are from each other, she notes, there are necessary
connections that exist between them. Distinction and independence should not cause
government to be hostile to religion, and vice versa. Coordination and cooperation is possible,
and in the spirit of goodwill, the State and the Church can work together to provide an
environment that will foster and promote to the fullest the integral development of each person.
The task of achieving the common good, which is a shared objective of both Church and State,
would surely “benefit from a friendly, benevolent and wholesome mutual cooperation between
them.”

She concludes that “walls divide, foster enmity and stunt growth and development. The Church
is involved in the politics that deals with authentic human development focused on the citizen’s
very person, his human dignity, his material and spiritual needs, and rights that must be tended to
and protected.”

Moreover, “the State has as its sacred duty the protection and promotion of the basic and
inviolable rights of its citizens, notably the right to life and religious freedom.” And so she
enjoins that the Church and State should endeavour to “build bridges—not walls—bridges that
will bring the citizens-faithful beyond the limited and the ephemeral.”

At this point, I must emphatically resist the legislative proposal for a misnomered reproductive-
health bill. Indeed, this bill has caused so much distress and division among our people. The
many years that its proponents have so far unsuccesfully endeavoured to have this bill passed
gives us a telling truth that the Filipino people, while not all of them have fully understood its
total implications, is nonetheless averse to a State policy that intrudes on their religious
convictions. It is almost tantamount to a State mandating a “religion” that abhors man’s innate
dignity, and would immolate him on a mistaken altar of economic prosperity alone. As Attorney
Noche emphasizes, let us build bridges rather than put up walls.
http://www.philstar.com/opinion/214065/church-and-state-separation

Church and State separation

A law each day (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By A law each day (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY)
Jose C. Sison | Updated July 18, 2003 - 12:00am

4 73 googleplus1 0

The wall separating the Church and State appears to be in constant motion, either narrowing or
widening the yards of the two "good" neighbors. Its exact location has not been permanently
fixed and definitely established simply because different persons have varying points of view as
to where it has been put up. Or some just cannot see where the wall stands in the country’s
landscape due to a vision blurred by narrow-mindedness. Thus even an innocent and solicitous
admonition from the Roman Catholic Cardinal Jaime Sin encouraging, for the country’s
sake, qualified Filipinos including President GMA to run for President in 2004, has been viewed
as a breach of that wall which obviously has been pushed back to restrict the sphere of the
Church influence.

The doctrine of separation of Church and State however operates more as a restriction on the
powers of the State or the government than on the Church. When the Constitution says that the
"separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable"(Section 6,Art. II), it basically and
principally means that "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as provided in Section 5, Article III of the "Bill of Rights".
The incorporation of this doctrine in the Bill of Rights is the best argument supporting the view
that it is more of a limitation on State or governmental power. For the main role of the Bill of
Rights is precisely to define the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual and to
impose limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing those rights.

Section 5 of the Bill of Rights has two essential parts according to noted constitutionalist, writer
and dean of the Ateneo Law School, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.; the non-establishment of religion
clause and the free exercise of religion clause.
The non-establishment clause prohibits the State from setting up a church, passing laws which
aid one religion, or all religions, or prefer one religion over another, and from participating
openly or directly in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa (Board of
Education vs. Everson 330 U.S. 1,15-16). According to Fr. Bernas again, this clause seeks to
foster the growth of religious sect as a social force by the voluntary support of its members based
on the belief that "both spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to
compete on their own intrinsic merit without the benefit of official patronage". This principle is
known as voluntarism which can be achieved only if the political process is insulated from
religion, and religion from politics. Thus, our Constitution also prohibits the registration of
religious sects and denominations as political parties(Sec 2[5] Art. IX-C) and excludes the
religious sector in the allocation of party-list representatives for the lower house( Section 5[2]
Art.VI).

The free exercise of religion on the other hand embraces the absolute freedom to believe and the
limited freedom to act on ones belief. This means that the law cannot restrict the freedom of
conscience and the freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the
individual may choose. Primarily therefore this clause protects the inviolability of human
conscience which the non-establishment clause likewise protects. Hence the second sentence of
Art III section 5 provides further that "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". But the moment "belief flows into
action" it becomes subject to government regulation especially if it is destructive to society or
constitutes an offense which the statute condemns. Thus, for example "crime (polygamy) is not
the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion" (Davis
vs. Beason 133 U.S. 333, 345). Or the death of a boy in a prayer healing session of a particular
cult does not exempt members involved from criminal liability simply because of their religious
belief (People of the Philippines vs. Caranca G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001).

But behind any viewpoint on the Church-State separation is the unalterable truth that every
human activity is necessarily connected to man’s ultimate end reaching far above his
worldly physical existence and encompassing his spiritual relationship with his Creator, the
Supreme Being. The State itself recognizes this truth in the very preamble of our charter that
seeks the intervention of the "Almighty God" in order to build a just and humane society...and
secure for ourselves and our posterity a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love equality and
peace" So even purely temporal matters that disrupt man’s relation with God and harm the
common good as they transgress the natural law or divine precepts, are within the ambit of
Church concerns. The wall of separation should not be built along this perimeter as to render the
Church liable for breach of Church-State separation. After all, that wall serves to limit the power
of the State more than the Church.