The Sacred, the Profane, and the Religious Endorsement

Transcription

1 The Sacred, the Profane, and the Religious Endorsement Clarence Rommel C. Nanquit I. INTRODUCTION... : II. THE INSTITUTIONS OF FREEDOM A. Freedom of Speech and Expression f1. Freedom of Religion C::. Intersection between Speech and Religion III. THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE A. ~paration in Philippine Context B. $eparation in American Context IV. DEFI~ING RELIGION A. Attempts to Define Religion B. Religion as the Dichotomy between the Sacred and the Profane V. TOWARDS A CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR RELIGION.2)3 VI. THE WALL OF SEPARATION AND RELIGIOUS ENDORSEMENTS 255 VII.CONCLUSION {Tjhe goj and the sodety is one and the Same. I I. INTRODUCTION It can be said that fieedo"m is arguably the central animating concept behind every. political order. 2 Since the existence of the State necessarily and essentially curtails the liberty of men, the concept of freedom should be the 'os J.D. cand., Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Member, Board of Editors, Ateneo LAw Journal. He was Lead Editor for Vol. 48, Second issue of the Ateneo LAw Journal. He is author of The Three- Term Limit Rule in Review and the Confusion between Term and Tenure, 48 ATENEO L.J. ISS (2003) and co-author of In Re Purisima: Competence and Character Requirement jot Membership in the Bar, 48 ATENEO LJ. 840 (2003) with Ms. Aimee Dabu et al. Cite as 49 ATENEO L.J. 212 (2004). I. EMILE DurumEIM, THE ELEMENTARY FORMS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE 208 (Karen E. Field trans. I995) [hereinafter DURKHEIM].... ~ -"<~~ See ]. L. Hill, The Five Faces '?[ Freed~ntin Arnerican Political ani Gonstitutivnal Thought, 45 B.C. L. REv. 499 (2004) [hereinafter J. L. Hill]. RELIGIOUS ENDORSEMENT 213 core value that statesmen should always consider. Beneath every political and social structure lies a particular, sometimes inchoate, conception of freedom.3 According to Aristotle, the State exists for an end - the supreme good of man, his moral and intellectual life. 4 Aristotle believed that society is a natural creature because man is by nature a political being.s.& such, the existence of society and its infringement on the freedom of man should be considered as a necessary evil. For this reason, freedom as an individual, might mean freedom to live as one may wish; and as an active participant in the political sphere, the freedom to take part in self-government. Following the lead of Aristotle, a commentator noted that in order to understand the concept of freedom in a democratic society, one should first distinguish the different kinds of freedom: the positive freedom and the negative freedom. This is similar to Aristotle's view that freedom means freedom to live as one may wish and the. freedom to take part in selfgovernment. Positive freedom means the capacity of the individual to exercise his or her right to take part in the political process. 6 Negative freedom, on the other hand, "connects liberty to the idea of limited government and, more generally, to the philosophical conviction thatfieedom is none other than the absence of constraint. "7 These concepts of freedom can be seen to animate the Philippine constitutional system. In fuct, to be more precise, it can be said that the philosophy by which the constitutional system has been written is a philosophy etched in these freedoms. The individual's positive freedom to exercise his or her right to take part in the political process or the right to vote and be elected to public office, are sacredly protected by the Constitution since upon these rights hinge upon the manner of enjoying political and civil liberties. 8 Meanwhile, negative freedom is also seen as a philosophical foundation in the constitutional system since the Constitution provides a framework for a limited government. The Constitution considers certain inalienable rights - qualities inherent in man which the State has a duty to protect - which are higher than the government. These inalienable rights ::~re generally considered tc' be beyond the scope of governmental power to control or the 3. Id. at I frederick COPPLESTONE, S.J., A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 35I (I993 ed.). 5 Id. 6. J. L. Hill, supra note 2, at 5 I 1. 7 ld. at 524 (emphasis supplied). 8. See Clarence Rommel Nanquil, Comment, The Three- Term Limit Rule in Review and the Confusion between Term and Tenure, 48 ATENEO L.J. ISS. I 57 (2003).

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23