By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
The Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo was reported last July 20 saying that the Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines criticizing the Anti-Terrorism Act “appears to have violated the doctrine of separation of Church and State.” He accused the CBCP of “pressuring the Supreme Court to vote against the anti-terror law”. That was a veiled threat, though cautious.
Several organizations have filed a case challenging the constitutionality of the Act before the High Court.
Panelo criticized the CBCP pastoral letter that condemned the Duterte administration’s “pattern of intimidation”. Several other bishops have issued similar criticisms as did many prominent lawyers and institutions.
On the other hand, Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque said that Malacañang does not share the opinion of Panelo about the separation of Church and State enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
The CBCP had issued a strongly-worded pastoral letter denouncing the passage of the contentious Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which is feared to be used as a weapon to suppress legitimate dissent.
Responding to the Panelo accusation, the CBCP refuted on July 20 the charge that the CBCP is meddling in state affairs or pressuring the high court to rule against the controversial anti-terrorism law.
Bishop Pablo Virgilio David of Kalookan, the CBCP acting president said the Church does not meddle in politics but speaks out when the common good is being threatened.
“We do not have political influence over the country’s judiciary, nor do we interfere in the operations of government. Our only influence is on conscience, because it is our duty to form consciences, and we are accountable to God for this,” he said.
Bishop David insisted that the CBCP respects the SC, which “is supposed to function independently of the other branches of government, if we are to continue to function as a democracy. What we hope and pray for is that both our legislature and judiciary remain truly independent and continue to function as designed by our Constitution.”
Bishop Broderick Pabillo, the administrator of the Manila archdiocese, dared Malacañang to charge them if they indeed violated the law. “I challenge them! They could sue us if we really violated the Constitution.”
The government may just do that. Last year four Catholic bishops were charged for sedition based on claims in a video. The charges were dropped last February. The government might do Bishop Pabillo a favor by charging him again.
Bishop Pabillo denied the bishops are meddling in political affairs but speak out in support of social justice which is the teaching of the Church. “Precisely, we are doing that to awaken the consciousness of the people.”
Threats against the Church for speaking out is not new. That had been done for ages by governments that cannot accept criticisms. Although Bishop David said that they have no influence in government but only on the conscience of people, that influence cannot be ignored. In fact, the attempts of the government to silence the Church are based on the fear that the words of the Church carry a tremendous impact on people.
The Church does not mingle in partisan politics even if politicians usually take time to be photographed with a bishop or go to religious activities “to be seen.”
The conflict of government with the Church is precisely on the matter of conscience. The justices of the Supreme Court, for instance, are learned in law but they are also conscious that over the law that men enact there is a Higher Law that will in the end demand accountability for their actions. How just the judges and justices are, is a matter of conscience and not of law.
Those who sit in judgment carry a heavy burden because they must comply with the laws crafted by men but are accountable to the Final Judge that their decisions are “right and just” and not used to serve the ends of injustice.
The CBCP presents the dangers of the law and reminds the judges of their duty and we believe that they will rise above the partisan and the temporal.
At the same time, the Church reminds the faithful of their duty to oppose any unjust laws. The bishops are saying nothing new, but their collective voices carry a stronger weight because they address the conscience based on a higher law that cannot be ignored.
