LAST Wednesday’s filing of an impeachment complaint against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo by a Catholic bishop has again brought to fore the oft-invoked, if not abused, principle of the separation of Church and State.

Malacañang and its allies have taken issue with the action of Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez, criticizing the Diocese of Caloocan church leader for engaging in “partisan politics” in violation of the Church-State separation principle. Arroyo even has gone to the extent of appealing to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to have Iñiguez investigated for possible violation of Church doctrines.

Section 6 of Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of the 1987 Constitution declares that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. Inspired by the First Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution), the separation principle was further guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, Section 5 of which states 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.

Two aspects define the principle, says University of the Philippines law professor Marvic Leonen, a constitutional expert. First, the freedom to choose one’s religion and second, the non-establishment of a State-sponsored religion.

On the first aspect, Leonen says the State is prohibited to meddle in matters of opinion and faith, while the second has to do with the prohibition on the State to pass laws which aid one or all religions, or prefer one religion over another — like tax levied to support religious activities.

Saying that the principle of Church-State separation is “not some nebulous, theoretical thing,” Christian Monsod, former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chair and a member of the Constitutional Commission that crafted the 1987 Constitution, also points to specific provisions that give life to the principle — defining and clarifying the relationships between the Church and State — aside from the ones already mentioned by Leonen.

These are:

Article VI (Legislative Department)

Section 28. (3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

Section 29. (2) 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 sytem of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or 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.

Article IX (Constitutional Commissions)

C. Commission on Elections

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:

(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.

Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports)

Section 3. (3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.

Putting the principle in the context of Bishop Iñiguez’s filing of an impeachment complaint against Arroyo, Monsod asserts there is nothing in the Constitution that deals with any prohibition on the exercise of citizenship with respect to one’s religion. “The Constitution clearly states that there is no religious test on the exercise of civil or political rights. (Bishop) Iñiguez is not less of a citizen just because he happens to be a priest,” he says.

Indeed, for the government to invoke the principle of Church-State separation, Leonen says such is tantamount to disenfranchising him as a Filipino citizen on the basis of his religion.

“Iñiguez’s religion should not matter. He didn’t file the complaint as a Catholic bishop. And even his being a bishop should not be the basis for denying him his right,” claims Leonen.

“It’s like saying let’s kill the Christians like in the time of the Romans when they persecuted Christians because they were Christians,” he says.

The CBCP likewise maintains Iñiguez has done nothing wrong or anything violative of Church doctrines for him to be sanctioned as suggested by Malacañang.

“He is just exercising his right as a citizen,” says Monsignor Pedro Quitorio, CBCP spokesperson, adding that the bishop’s decision was in consonance with the CBCP pastoral statement issued in January that prescribed ways to end Arroyo’s crisis of legitimacy. Titled “Renewing our Public Life through Moral Values,” the document called for a “relentless” pursuit of the truth about allegations that Arroyo manipulated the 2004 elections.

Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo, CBCP president, likewise points to the fact that Iñiguez quoted from the “Deus Caritas Est” encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XVI in explaining why he joined in his personal capacity the multisectoral Kilusan ng Makabansang Ekonomiya (KME) — a group advocating for a shift to a nationalist economic policy — in filing the impeachment complaint.

As the Pope wrote in the encyclical, Iñiguez said that “(t)he just ordering of society and the state is a central responsibility of politics. As St. Augustine once said, a state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.”

Lagdameo says the CBCP respects Bishop Iñiguez’s personal option because this also conforms with CBCP statements on politics and moral values.

Yet the same encyclical, a copy of which Arroyo received from the Pope during her recent state visit, is being bandied about by Malacañang as proof that Vatican does not look kindly upon priests who are engaged in politics.

But an encyclical is not a law, points out Leonen. For the government to use it as an argument against the Church’s political engagement, he says, is actually interfering in the free exercise of a religion.

“While politically, the government can always say that, such pronouncements however can assume the form of a State-sanctioned policy. It borders on intrusion into affairs of the religion. It’s a threat to the exercise of that freedom,” Leonen says.

Besides, Malacañang’s claims also appear to be based on a misreading, if not a selective interpretation, of the encyclical.

To quote from the Deus Caritas Est (No. 28):

In order to define more accurately the relationship between the necessary commitment to justice and the ministry of charity, two fundamental situations need to be considered:

a) The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves: “Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?“.[18] Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.[19] The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.

Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

The Church’s social teaching argues on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which will always demand sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet promotion of justice through the efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

Too often, notes Lagdameo, that the separation of the Church and the State is invoked. “This should not be used as an argument against the participation and involvement of the Church in shaping the politics of our country. Concretely this means that the Bishops, Clergy and Laity must be involved in the area of politics when moral and Gospel values are at stake.”

The CBCP leader says that part of the Church’s mission is to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, “whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”

Though he concedes that the Catholic Church does exert considerable influence in the political life of the nation as evidenced by enacted laws with obviously strong Catholic overtones, Leonen believes the government is also not being consistent.

“Malacañang didn’t invoke the separation of Church and State when the bishops issued a statement in July last year that did not call for her resignation. They didn’t invoke the principle when the CBCP called for the abolition of the death penalty,” he says, anticipating the same silence on the part of the government on current proposed bills tackling issues that the CBCP strongly opposes, like abortion and divorce.

26 Responses to Invoking the Church-State separation principle


Another Angle » Blog Archive » To invoke or not to invoke the “separation between church and state”

July 2nd, 2006 at 4:10 pm

[…] Certainly the good bishop of Caloocan has passed a moral judgment and it is his right to do so, and therefore we need to respect his filing of impeachment complaints against the president.  The same catechesis even states “the Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.” (n. 2245) […]



July 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm

So much have been said and written about this subject; but until today, only in this country that the debate is still raging on. And I can somehow figure why. Whoever affected by the Meddling of either the State or Religion against each other can always suddenly become an overnight expert on constitutional matters. But only depending on which side of the issue his or her interest lie.

This case is a classic example. The Religious Experts, believe that the bishop acted properly as a citizen to lead an impeachment proceeding (forgetting that he is still an active religious leader and has not relinquish his religious influence yet) and the State Experts, believe otherwise.

The State Experts always believe that the doctrine of Religious Freedom means that all Religions are just free to worships which ever God they wish and forget and ignore the Corruptions, the impropriety of Governance, and also “hub hub” with them religious leaders for the “block” votes during elections, and the Religious Experts will say Got You…



July 2nd, 2006 at 5:36 pm

ang pagkaka-intindi ko sa separation of church and state ay hindi dapat maging theocracy ang gobierno natin. like iran, for example.

so i don’t think what bishop yniguez did violates separation of church and state. he doesn’t lose some of his rights as a citizen just because he’s a priest of bishop.



July 2nd, 2006 at 5:40 pm

ang pagkaka-intindi ko sa separation of church and state ay hindi dapat maging theocracy ang gobierno natin. like iran, for example. simple as that.

so i don’t think what bishop yniguez did violates separation of church and state. he doesn’t lose some of his rights as a citizen just because he’s a priest of bishop.


Juan Makabayan

July 2nd, 2006 at 6:09 pm

“Separation of Church & State Homepage”


Juan Makabayan

July 2nd, 2006 at 6:19 pm

Interesting readings on:

The Constitutional Principle:
Separation of Church and State

Clearly, GMA is again twisting the interpretation very deceitfully. There’s nothing wrong with a Bishop filing a complaint against a president. GMA is cornered. She has three options. One, let the impeachment through; Two, junk it again; Three, go on an extended leave in exile.



July 2nd, 2006 at 8:22 pm

more to read:

just a quick copy-paste from the cbcp’s Catechism on the Church and Politics i’ve cited in previous blogpost:

11. What does “separation of Church and State” mean?

Separation of Church and State is strictly defined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution to refer to two points: (1) that no religion may be established as the official religion of the State; and (2) that the State may not favor one religion over others. At the same time, the State shall forever allow the free exercise and enjoyment of religion and shall not require any religious test for the exercise of civil or political rights (see 1987 Philippine Constitution). The first point above is called the “non-establishment” clause.

To be noted is the fact that nowhere does the Constitution prohibit Clergy and Religious from partisan politics. What prohibits them from active involvement in partisan politics is the Church’s own laws and traditional wisdom.

22. Why should priests, religious men and women refrain from involvement in partisan politics?

As we have seen, the prohibition is not because of any Philippine constitutional provision. But the Church prohibits Clergy and Religious from involvement in partisan politics because they are considered the symbols of unity in the Church community. For them to take an active part in partisan politics, with its wheeling and dealing, compromises, confrontational and adversarial positions, would be to weaken their teaching authority and destroy the unity they represent and protect. Still, it must be admitted that sometimes even the teaching of moral principles is actually interpreted by some as partisan politics, because of actual circumstances (PCP-II, 343-344). An example was the Bishops’ post-election statement in 1986 when they taught that a government that has assumed power by fraud had no moral right to govern. This teaching was considered partisan for the opposition presidential candidate and against the winner proclaimed by a subservient parliament.



July 2nd, 2006 at 10:42 pm

I tend to agree with naykika on her observation (sorry I presume you to be a lady because of your pseudonym). Its really boils down to who needed who when it comes to interpreting the separation of Church and State.

Bishop Yniquez had clearly stated that his action represents his personal action and is not dictated by the church. It has always been a gray area whether the stand taken by the church as a whole is regarded as wisdom of the populace or interferring in the affair of the State.

The action of Bishop Yniquez is in support of ferreting out the truth that GMA cheated in the last election. Moreover, the action taken by the Bishop is not against the State but more in support of the impeachment proceeding against GMA that every citizens have a right to participate.



July 2nd, 2006 at 10:49 pm

My apology to Bishop Iñguez in mispelling his surname with Yniquez…



July 3rd, 2006 at 1:52 am

Birthright, Filipino right, moral obligation, blah blah blah. Here’s what I have to say to the CBCP:



tongue in, anew

July 3rd, 2006 at 7:29 am

Isn’t Gloria the one violating the separation principle? Was it not Gloria who even brought with her, to “submit” to the Pope, the fresh law against death penalty? Did she not do the same when she visited the Moslems in the past? Isn’t that favoring one religion?

Isn’t she interfering with the CBCP when she ordered Ermita to make representations with them to punish Iñiguez? If you answer no to all these, then I keep my peace.

It seems though that the little girl cannot have her way with CBCP. What she does next to further push her luck is one that I have yet to see. Taxes? No way. If she does that, she will have to tax Muslims, too, who will surely raise hell even among moderates. It wouldn’t be far when all of them will be packing their jackets with dynamites ready to blow themselves up in her presence and in the name of allah.



July 3rd, 2006 at 8:16 am

The separation of church and state is primarily for the protection of our religious liberty. Just think what a repressive and powerful govt would have done to control our religious beliefs like those in communist countries. A religious organization, without arms and political power, would be helpless against a powerful govt. In other words, the church and the state are supposed to stand on its own – walang pakialaman.

I laugh when I hear any one say there must be a separation of church and state. How much our politicos love to invoke it everytime religious interference becomes an issue in their political plans. But is this true? No, it is not. Separation of Church and State is a myth in this country. It is a myth because the citizens and people in govt defy it for their personal purpose and convenience. People seek help from the religious whenever govt policies become untenable. When all else fail people use the Church as a shield for their protection. Cory sought the help of the late Cardinal Sin to bring down a dictator as Imelda begged the Cardinal to reconsider. The Church with the support of civil society groups spearheaded the downfall of Erap. Bishop Cruz thought he could stop jueteng and tried to be a policeman and put pressure on the govt. Jueteng stopped for a while, but came back with a vengeance. Brother Eddie Villanueva’s huge ego made him ambitious that he thought his hugely popular Jesus Is Lord Movement would catapult him to the presidency. He failed miserably. Brother Mike has gathered a huge throng of followers that have made him a multi-millionaire and now uses his religious influence to dictate on presidents and get political concessions. How many candidates have become presidents, senators, congressmen, mayors, etc. with the blessings of the Iglesia ni Kristo. Bishop Iniguez played politics by filing an impeachment, then hypocritically excused himself as exercising the right of a citizen, disregarding the oath he gave to his religious Order to uphold the vow of obedience.

The principle of Church and State is not abused, Alecks. It is violated with impunity. What is the sense of invoking the separation of Church and State when it is the citizens and people in govt that violate this principle? If this is not sheer hypocrisy I don’t know what.



July 3rd, 2006 at 3:48 pm



July 3rd, 2006 at 3:50 pm

somehow, there was a violation of the “nonestablishment” clause (which prohibits the state to pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another).

the state’s concerted efforts to abolish death penalty (which senator joker arroyo finds to be consistent with the Philippines’ standing as a Christian country and which gloria also has affirmed) and gloria’s ultimate speech on the day of the abolition tell it all:

We have taken a strong hand against the threats to the law and the republic, but at the same time we yield to the high moral imperatives dictated by God to walk away from capital punishment.

…and the coup de grâce of offering a copy of the abolition law as a gift to the Pope may show preference to Christian views on the matter.

how about the non-believers’ (of God) views on this…were they given consideration? were those actions committed (the abolition and its justification) in conformity with a neutral state?



July 3rd, 2006 at 5:48 pm

“Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law”. >>> Preamble to Constitution Acts of l982.
Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Now if you look at the Preamble and the Fundamental Freedoms, there seem to be a very serious conflict between them.
How could you have a freedom of conscience if the constitution says that the country is founded upon recognition of God? I think if a case ever come up for the Supreme Court to resolve, the “rule of law” will take precedence.
The Parliament Abolished the Death Penalty (by hanging) in mid-70s for crimes of premeditated murder, rape and murder of minors, and murdering of law enforcement officers and a few more serious crimes, not because of any religious consideration, but the Government of Day believed it doesn’t deter crime. And 30 years or more have prooved them right. Life without a chance of Parole for 25 years is more of deterent than death, which most psycopaths welcome anyways, and the probability of being caught and metted the punishment, whatever the law decrees..



July 3rd, 2006 at 8:41 pm

From the Tribune editorial:

But isn’t this so ridiculous a call from her, considering the indisputable fact that she, along the late Jaime Cardinal Sin and the Catholic bishops, with her military generals, the chief justice and his judicial clique, conspired to oust a legitimately elected President of the Republic through mob rule, discarding the constitutional processes and the rule of law?

What she, her bishops, the elite and the military generals did was certainly an unpardonable breach of the Constitution and if the religious flavor must be injected, that was a breach of Catholicism, on grounds that the voice of the people is the voice of God — a voice that they had thwarted, not once, but twice, through a naked power grab in 2001 and again, through massive poll cheating in 2004, which electoral fraud these bishops even blessed by claiming that while there was cheating, the vote still reflected the people’s will.

It is also to be recalled that in 2000, when an impeachment complaint was filed against then sitting President Joseph Estrada, this was signed by a priest, Robert Reyes, then the attack dog of Jaime Sin. And there is no denying that the bishops were behind her in a staged “people power” revolt, but there was no objection from Gloria and her coup plotters on such disgraceful behavior of the church leaders.

But now that a bishop files an impeachment complaint against her, she now wants his actions probed? Just who does she think she is? Hell, she is not even the legitimately elected President of the Republic!

I agree.

UPDATE: And wasn’t Fr. Joe Dizon also one of the signatories on Erap’s impeachment complaint back in 2000? Didn’t hear much complaints about re “separation of church and state” from the pro-Arroyo’s back then either.

Militant groups have condemned the Macapagal-Arroyo government’s granting of Estrada’s request to be allowed to travel abroad. “This is yet another proof of Arroyo’s treachery to the cause and ideals of People Power 2,” said Fr. Joe Dizon, spokesperson of Plunder Watch which filed the plunder case against the deposed president, in a statement to the media last week. “She has again abetted corruption by allowing Estrada to flee from justice.”

Fr. Dizon is one of the signatories to the impeachment case filed against Estrada in 2000. The impeachment trial was aborted through a maneuver by senator-judges partial to Estrada on Jan. 16, 2001, leading to the People Power 2 revolt that ousted him four days later.



July 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 pm

the question here is why is it right then and wrong now? As we know Glueria was installed with the help of the Catholic Church back in 2001. Her allies never told them to stay out of politics, in fact they even defended the Church establishment against criticism of engaging in politics. They said it was the “moral obligation” of the church to guide their flocks to better leaders. But fast forward to present day, they are engaging the church into a showdown and under the guise of “seperation of church and state”, they try to downplay the role of the church people who woked up from their stupid mistake back then.



July 3rd, 2006 at 9:13 pm

It took me a long time, (about half my life) to understand the Principle of Separation of Church and State. But here are the things that I am no longer confused about:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise THEREOF.

The greatest common misconception about the Principle of Separation of Church and State that I also used to believe, is that it commands the Church and State not to meddle in each other’s business. This is only half true, because strictly speaking, all of the the prohibitions contained in the principle are directed entirely at the State, namely:

(1) The State may not promote Religion; and
(2) The State may not prohibit Religion.

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise THEREOF.

The way to really understand the above sentence, semantically, is to see that the word RELIGION and the word THEREOF refer to one and the exactly the same thing. What this means is that the Constitution actually gives us a clever way of defining the demanded neutrality of the State towards “Religion”–by insisting that what it cannot promote it cannot also prohibit!

Thus for example, the State is clearly prohibited from establishing a “State sponsored religion” and requiring everyone to practice Roman Catholicism. Yet the State cannot do the opposite, which is to forbid everyone from practicing the same.

Notice however that the provision itself does not qualify the word RELIGION which means that it is not only the establishment of an outright official State religion, such as prevailed under the Spanish Taliban, that is prohibited of the State. An “establishment of religion” is really an archaic American expression which means anything that promotes Religion.

The Principle contains a third prohibition directed entirely at the State also:

(3) The State may not impose any kind of “religious test” on any citizen’s ability to exercise civil and political rights.

The Palace has wantonly and culpably violated this prohibition today by attempting to use the fact that Citizen Domingo Iniguez happens to be a Catholic and a bishop in order to curtail and question his civil and political right to file and sign an impeachment complaint, if his conscience so urges him.

And that of course is where the word “separation” is truly irrelevant and immaterial to this discussion. For there is no “separation” — no possible contradiction — between a man’s moral conscience and his social duty.

You know who said this? Why, Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est.

I hope the Palace continues to distribute “God Is Love” far and wide, to every citizen, village and town. Benedict gave it to Gloria for that purpose, knowing she doesn’t understand either the Constitution or the the Church’s teachings on this.

But I think the Bishops finally comprehended it, perhaps as we did, only very recently. It’s as subversive to tyranny as anything Thomas Jefferson ever wrote, or his tokayo, Benjamin Franklin!

The ground is shifting under the Palace, because the Church has found its voice–in Rome!


INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » More on the separation of Church and State

July 4th, 2006 at 12:16 pm

[…] FORMER U.P. College of Law Dean Raul Pangalangan weighs in on the separation of Church and State principle. Here I quote from his email reply after I sought him for his views on the matter, which, if viewed from a distance, he says, is a sound, solid doctrine that upholds serious policy concerns: 1. It is sheer hypocrisy for Malacañang now to raise the issue of the separation of Church and State. Did Malacañang feel this way when the CBCP declared that the May 2004 presidential elections were sufficiently clean and credible, and that GMA (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) had therefore received a clean mandate? Did GMA feel this way when Cardinal Sin appeared on stage at Edsa 2? The Church-State issue is a false issue. Malacañang thinks we have a terribly short memory if it thinks we have forgotten all those other times when it lauded the bishops (”wise and blessed”) when they acted or spoke as GMA had wished. […]



July 5th, 2006 at 12:16 am

Re this “separation” issue, if our present Constitution so states the above articles, then I don’t find anything wrong with the Bishop’s actions. This was what people during Cory’s term wanted and subsequently wrote in our constitution.

We now have 84 million mouths to feed in this country. Still, there exists so much grey areas in our laws. Our congressmen and senators (both pro and more for the opposition) are focused too much on grandstanding. You can’t fault ryebosco for his comments as there’s so much truth to it. Congress, amendments please.

By the way, here’s a site I found which helps enlighten my day and have a positive outlook for our “ONLY” country. Hope you guys visit it –>



July 5th, 2006 at 8:27 am

The Separation of Church and State has been explained and interpreted many times by many knowledgeable and pretending-to-be knowledgeable minds. My nose bleeds and my head wants to break every time this is brought up where the welfare of the country is concerned.

Gloria didn’t have problems in 2004 when the Church intervened so she could be president. At that time, there was no mention of “partisan politics” being committed. She’s all for the Church. She delighted in its support, and even praised it for recognizing and exercising democracy. I don’t understand why she and her mad dogs are now barking aggressively against Bishop Iñiguez’ actions.

This is absurd and laughable. If Gloria isn’t guilty, why is she afraid?


Juan Makabayan

July 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pm


re gma’s culpable violation of the non-establishment clause,
1) somebody should file a test case;
2) complainant can be pastor Rep Abante who is in favor of the DP or Atty Jimenez of the anti-crime & now pro-gun group;

GMA’s tricks and gimmicks obviously circumvents the intent of the law.



July 5th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

although the post above explicitly explained this much abused principle of the separation of Church and State, i think no one could have explained it better and more plainly than rizalist’s comment above. i am as ignorant as the others (clearly even the witty ones) in my previous interpretation of the doctrine thinking that indeed this refers to the church being prevented from meddling in the state’s affairs (and vice versa) but it’s very clear to me now that it’s not the case. politicians have just been giving slanted interpretation and simply using it to favor them whenever it’s necessary while in truth as what rizalist has pointed out, all of the prohibitions contained in the principle are directed entirely at the State.
it’s crystal clear those people in the govt. are the ones violating the principle w/ impunity and not the ordinary citizens.

“No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”


INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » CBCP: Impeachment not the means for establishing the truth

July 10th, 2006 at 4:45 pm

[…] One of its bishops, Deogracias Iniguez, filed the third impeachment complaint against the President last month. This move earned the ire of Malacanang and its allies, criticizing the bishop for “engaging in partisan politics.” […]


Patricia Perez

July 12th, 2006 at 5:07 am

There is only one solution to all the problems: PEOPLE POWER!!!



December 5th, 2006 at 7:17 am

Bishop Iniquez should first look into the internal problems of the Church.

Comment Form