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.

42. Freedom of Religion

In 1633, Pope Urban VIII had Galileo declared a heretic and imprisoned for professing that the world revolves around the sun. Today in the Philippines, considering that we have the Freedom of Religion clause in the Constitution, Galileo could profess his view or even the opposite view, i. e., it's the sun revolving around the world, and the State could care less. Galileo would be a free man. The Freedom of Religion Clause in the Constitution guarantees two things: 1) The State will not establish a religion; and 2) The State will not interfere in the practice of any religion. In Galileo's era, Catholicism was a state religion. Thus, if one professed a belief contrary to  Catholic doctrines, it was equivalent to a crime against the State, for which one could be punished and sent to jail. This would not work today, because under the first guarantee, Freedom of Religion ensures that there is no state religion, and no religion can receive special favors, funding, or endorsements from the State. Neither can any religion receive any burden or punishment from the State for being a religion. Galileo could even believe that there is no god, and the State wouldn't mind. To the State, what Galileo does with his soul, is his business, and the State has no business with souls. I don't know if Galileo kept his Catholic faith, but he if did not, and instead he established for himself the Church of the Sun Worshippers that would have been fine with modern day Philippines. This is the second guarantee under the Freedom of Religion, known as the Free Exercise Clause. Galileo could propagate his view, write his bible, develop his church rituals, and create a code of conduct. The State would not touch him. Galileo could even refuse to salute the flag if that was contrary to his religion, and the Supreme Court would be constrained to uphold his right to do so, as it did in one case, known as Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (GR No. 95770, March 1, 1993). Yet, if you're wondering whether the Free Exercise Clause would protect a religion that uses kidnapping and violence against church members and non-church members, the answer is of course not. Freedom of Religion is not a license to trample with the law.  The limits and bounds of this Free Exercise Clause are defined by its effect on other people's rights. Accordingly, if Galileo's theoretical Church of the Sun Worshippers would require human sacrifice as a ritual, Galileo is going to jail. Yet, the Supreme Court would swing in favor of upholding the right when balanced with some other value. In a relatively recent case (Estrada vs. Escritor, AM No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006) the Supreme Court said that living-in with a married man, if it is sanctioned by one's faith, would not amount to immorality, and consequently not a ground for dismissal from government service. So, if the Church of the Sun Worshippers profess the doctrine of free love, regardless of marital status, the Supreme Court would not find that immoral. I don't know if Galileo would have welcomed that too. Yet, one thing is for sure,  if Galileo were alive today and living in this country, he would have been a happy man. With our Freedom of Religion and other freedoms, he could be our ambassador to all the people in the world today persecuted for their religious beliefs, saying come all ye faithful and ye faithless, it's more fun ..!