56. Religious Freedom and Illegal Detention

In paragraph 42, we explained Freedom of Religion and discussed some decided and hypothetical freedom of religion issues. After talking to some friends from the Iglesia ni Cristo, I've come across a potential landmark jurisprudence on this matter. Say a minister takes a vow of obedience to his religious superior. Then, the religious superior enforces this vow by telling the minister to stay in a guarded home. The issue then would be whether the superior is  liable for Illegal Detention or whether he can raise as a defense that he is merely enforcing the congregation's religious code, whIch the minister consented to when he made his sacred vows. The answer can be more discussed without religious bias if we change  the characters and assume that the religion concerned is the Catholic religion and the superior concerned is the Jesuit Provincial. What I would like to underscore is the unfair comment that this matter is not a legitimate grievance worthy of making one traffic mess for or maybe a revolution. The key essence of Illegal Detention is the prohibition on any one restraining one's freedom of movement with malicious intent.   The question may be approached whether the minister consents to the detention as his religious vow includes the vow to obey the rules  of the congregation, including any disciplinary measure of detention. Yet, I think the more fundamental issue is whether detention was ordered by the religious superior with malice. In other words, the detention may only amount to a crime if there was no religious reason for it. If it were detention for ransom money or for any selfish motive, then it would not fall under the ambit of religious freedom. Yet, the definition of a religious purpose is the tricky part. If, for example, a minister is detained by the superior, because the minister has been instigating sedition in the populace or in the congregation, and the superior decides to detain him to protect the congregation or government, that might not be a religious reason, but it doesn't appear to be malicious either. I don't have the answer. For this reason, it is indeed alarming for the ordinary members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo that the Secretary of Justice, knowing how difficult the issues are at hand, decided to give the case some special attention, made a few comments in a press conference while receiving the case file, and created a special panel of investigators, especially so that every time she did this, i.e., PDAF cases and the PAGCOR cases, the cases ended up in court which issued warrants of arrest.   She could have at least skipped the press conference; but she had to do it, because she wants to run for senator. Now, with all this mess, the real issue has been drowned out by the murmurs and the catcalls.

41. Freedom of Assembly

Time was when Illegal Assembly was a cool crime, a badge of honor, a solid proof that not all criminals are crooks. As a high school student studying in San Beda near the fabled Mendiola Bridge, I once saw Senator Lorenzo Tanada being hauled off in a police van for holding a rally without a permit. Tanada even brandished his fist in defiance of the police as the old man got sped off to prison. He got rescued by his lawyers, posted bail, and then prepared for the next rally. As I got older,  I participated in rallies myself: in 1986 EDSA One,  in the late 80's against the US bases, in the 90's against the Ramos planned constitutional amendment, in 2001 EDSA Dos, and then in 2006 at the Black and White Movement's photo ops at Luneta where I met Edwin Lacierda. My protest resume is rather thin, compared to veteran street parliamentarians like Argee Gueverra who even got jailed for it. But this constitutional right to free assembly is something I use for good measure. When I resolve to go to the streets, I don't care about the traffic we're going to cause. The goal is to get noticed, and causing traffic is one of the ways to get noticed. When you're out there, you're telling the people, things are not normal, something is wrong, so stop whatever you're doing, and join us. Now, it's almost ten years since I've attended my last rally. I looked at the  Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) mass actions in EDSA recently and analyzed the grievance. Leila de Lima's actions as Secretary of Justice were perceived as bias against the INC, because she received the complaint for Illegal Detention against the INC's central committee personally, and she created a special panel to investigate the case. If the case prospered, it would be like the entire cabinet going to jail. So, the implications to the INC's followers may be alarming. Well, as a lawyer, I would have to admit that most of my cases never received that kind of special treatment and attention -- not from this current Secretary of Justice or from the others before her. And I have yet to see any rule from the Department of Justice that provides this kind of special procedure for special circumstances, which have also been undefined. Thing is she's been doing this in the hot items in her checklist, like the PAGCOR cases and PDAF cases, and all of them went unfavorably against the respondents. Thus, we now have the INC flock at EDSA, telling us things are not normal. The Secretary is acting as if she's going to send their central committee to jail. Well, I'm not inclined to join them. But, I'm not going to heckle them either.  Max Ehrman's Desiderata, which we memorized in San Beda High, had special lines for these circumstances, "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story." The INC's reputation among the Catholic elite is not very good, principally because of their bloc voting schemes. They have been depicted as mindless minions obeying the command of their leaders, which is inaccurate and unkind. Yet, I have to concede, regardless of who sent them to EDSA, the INC flock has a story here, which might even be a good one.