The Eligibility of Religious Leaders to Run for Public Office in Elections to Philippine Laws A Study on the Ecclesiastics who Ran in Philippine Elections and the Interpretation of Laws and Constitutional Policies on its Legality

Abstract

The church has been an influential force in the Philippines during Spanish times. Its influence declined in the American period. During this time, the American introduced the principle of separation of church and state to Philippine laws. Whereas during the American period it rarely reared its head in influencing Philippine policies, in the post independence period the Catholic Church begun to take a different path. Encouraged by its initial successes in promoting candidates it deemed would better served its interests. it continued the practice today. Many Christian sects like the Iglesia ni Cristo, El Shaddai. took the same path of giving the “unified vote” to their approved candidates. The problem of defining and establishing the separation of Church and State tuned to the worse when ecclesiastics begun to run for public office. One of these is a religious leader in the person of Jesus is Lord Movement’s Bro. Eddie Villanueva, who was allowed by the Comelec to join the 2004 presidential race. Though he has failed in his bid, his participation in the election has made more people aware on how the government defined the line between separation of church and state. Ecclesiastics could also run for public office through the party-list system. Republic Act 7941 as interpreted by Comelec does not hinder ecclesiastics to represent a party-list. That despite the constitutional provision on the inviolability of the separation between Church and State, there is no law specifically disqualifying priests, pastors, preachers and the like from seeking public office. Though in the judicial case of Pamil vs. Toleron, the Supreme Court Justices annulled the mayorship of Fr. Gonzaga due to Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code Comelec today argued that it has been repealed with the establishment of the 1987 Constitution. While as may be seen, the constitution guarantees freedom of worship and enjoins the state from encroaching into it, it does not, on the other hand, enjoin a powerful church, the number whose faithful constitute four-fifths of the nation’s population and of its electorate, from interfering in the affairs of the state. The constitutional injunction is, in effect unilateral in favor of the Catholic Church. It is addressed solely to the state for the protection and the benefit of the church. The Constitution commands further that the state must not require religious test for the exercise of political and civil rights but does not extend that injunction to the church.