“While INC’s freedom of expression and religious exercise are protected, these rights must be balanced against the principle of a secular government”
HOW far should religion influence politics? This question looms large as the Iglesia ni Cristo announces rallies to support President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s stance against Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment.
With legal and ethical concerns at the forefront, the events challenge the delicate balance between church and state in the Philippines.
A contextual overview
The controversy involves the INC, a religious organization known for its bloc-voting power, organizing rallies to support Marcos’ stance.
This occurs amidst allegations against Vice President Duterte, including her alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds and public statements implicating her in controversial actions.
Progressive groups have filed impeachment complaints, citing betrayal of public trust, culpable violations of the Constitution, and corruption. President Marcos has dismissed the impeachment move as a distraction from more pressing national concerns.
The legal basis for INC rallies
Freedom of Expression and Assembly
The Philippine Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under Article III, Section 4. The INC’s rallies are a form of political expression and advocacy, a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Precedent: Gonzales v. Comelec (1969) underscores that freedom of expression is fundamental in a democratic society.
Religious Freedom
Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. The INC’s actions can be seen as rooted in its religious values and organizational mission, aligning with its right to participate in civic matters without state interference.
Precedent: Estrada v. Escritor (2003) emphasized that religious freedom includes actions motivated by religious beliefs, even when intersecting with public life.
Non-Interference in Political Processes
The rallies do not constitute direct interference in legislative or judicial processes related to impeachment. The INC’s actions are limited to public advocacy, leaving the ultimate decision to Congress.
The legal challenge to INC rallies
Separation of Church and State
Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. The INC’s overt political endorsement may blur these boundaries, raising concerns about undue influence on governance.
Precedent: Aglipay v. Ruiz (1937) highlighted the need to prevent religious groups from exerting influence over state decisions.
Potential Coercion and Bloc Voting
The INC’s history of bloc voting could pressure members to support a political stance, undermining individual autonomy. This may violate Article II, Section 11, which upholds the dignity of every human person.
Ethical Standards: Such actions may breach the Code of Conduct for Political Parties (adopted principles), which discourages undue influence by non-political entities.
Perception of Bias
Public rallies by a religious group supporting a political figure might erode trust in a secular government. The rallies could be perceived as using religious influence to shield public officials from accountability, undermining the principle of public trust in governance.
Balancing the arguments
The INC’s rallies exist in a constitutional gray area. While their freedom of expression and religious exercise are protected, these rights must be balanced against the principle of a secular government.
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining the separation of church and state to prevent undue influence and preserve democratic integrity.
Recommendations for the INC
Focus on Ethical Engagement: Frame rallies as expressions of general support for due process rather than specific political figures to avoid perceptions of partisanship.
Promote Member Autonomy: Ensure that participation in rallies is voluntary and respects individual political beliefs.
For the Philippine government
Clarify Legal Boundaries: Issue guidelines to ensure that public advocacy by religious groups aligns with the Constitution’s mandate for secular governance.
Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Address the allegations against Vice President Duterte transparently to maintain public trust.
For Filipinos
Engage in Critical Analysis: Assess the motivations behind both the impeachment complaints and the rallies. Public discourse should prioritize national welfare and adherence to democratic principles.
Advocate for Institutional Integrity: Support initiatives that uphold the rule of law and prevent undue influence in governance.
Conclusion
Do the INC rallies represent the strength of our democracy—or its fragility?
As religious groups wade deeper into political waters, the Philippines faces a pivotal question:
How do we protect democratic values without compromising constitutional freedoms?
The answer will shape not only this moment but the future of governance in our nation.
