Tag Archives: 1987 Constitution

Constitution’s Preamble not a license for a theocracy

Opinion, , , , ,

Ask any lawyer, law student or anyone who has attended Consti 101 classes, the Preamble DOES NOT grant substantive legal rights or expand government authority. The phrase “imploring the aid of Almighty God” is merely a recognition of the religious identity of Filipinos. It refrains from endorsing any specific dogma, church, or institutional religion. The Constitutional Commission intended the phrase to embrace diverse faith traditions across the country—including Christianity, Islam, and indigenous beliefs—without creating a state religion or infringing upon the Non-Establishment Clause (Article III, Section 5)

In other words, one cannot invoke the Preamble to justify imposing or objecting to a government policy simply because one’s religious beliefs do not align with it.

So for anyone harboring ideas or delusions, that the Philippines is a “Christian nation”, Article III, Section 5 squarely disagrees:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.“

While it is fair to say that “Faith is Constitutional” it does not mean that the State bears the responsibility to ‘teach’ or ‘nurture’ one’s “faith” because to do so violates the separation of Church and State, even if the majority of Filipinos belong to one of the Christian denominations.

The Supreme Court in Estrada v. Escritor (2003 & 2006), formally adopted benevolent neutrality as the constitutional framework for Philippine religious freedom. Under this approach, the State is not hostile to religion; rather, it actively accommodates religious practice unless an overriding public interest requires otherwise.

That overriding public interest is the protection of LGBTQ Filipinos, especially the youth, who are subjected to discrimination, bullying, violence and marginalization. To carry this out, various state policies are being implemented like the Gender and Development programs, DepEd Child Protection Policy, DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012 – protects children from many forms of abuse like bullying, Gender-Responsive Basic Education Policy, DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2017 – a framework fffor gender-responsive education grounded in the Constitution, Enhanced Basic Education Act, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW, and other human-rights commitments of the Philippines.

Such policies are based on evidence, advances in child development, and the lived realities of Filipino children.

Objections and opposition to these state policies based on religious dogma deserves recognition as it is your right to express such views, but like any other views in a free and democratic society, it needs to be addressed, tested and opposed especially if such views promote harm, hate and suffering.

Support the Anti-Dynasty Network

Daily dose, , ,

For decades since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the public has been waiting for Congress to enact a law that gives life to the constitutional prohibition on political dynasties. With Congress dominated by politicians from political dynasties, it’s been near impossible for such a law to be enacted. Nonetheless, it shouldn’t stop the people from demanding and campaigning for it.

Enter the Anti-Dynasty Network – a non-profit organization composed of ‘reform-minded dynasts, academics, public servants, and citizens committed to ending political dynasties and advancing inclusive, accountable governance.’

They are currently gathering signatures in support of the effort to enact an anti-dynasty law with the following features:

We would like to see the following in an anti-dynasty law:

  1. No family member must immediately succeed an incumbent in any elective office.
  2. The ban must extend to relatives up to the fourth (4th) civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; this covers grandparents, parents, spouses, in-laws, children, siblings, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and first cousins.
  3. The ban must cover overlapping constituencies.
    i. No two members of the same family within the fourth (4th) degree can run for and hold the offices of President, Vice President, or Senator at the same time.
    ii. No two members of the same family within the fourth (4th) degree can run for and hold office in the same province and/or city or municipality at the same time.
    iii. No local official may be related to the district representative of the same area.
    iv. No relative of an incumbent national or local official may be fielded as a nominee of a party-list organization.

Clear. Reasonable. Long overdue. If you’re looking for a cause or effort that would bring meaningful change to our country, this would be one of it. Express your support here. Together we can do this.