By Perla Aragon-Choudhury

The May 10 elections are crucial for a variety of reasons.

Edna Estifania Co, Ph. D., professor of public administration at the University of the Philippines and lecturer at the Ateneo de Manila University, explains why: “After a long time, after more than the usual presidential terms of six years, we will be electing a national leader, a change people have been waiting for.”

Relative to the Asian region, the 2010 polls are also crucial, she adds. “If we don’t change in, say, eight years, we’ll be very much left behind Malaysia, Singapore or Indonesia where there is movement and some headway despite problems. We should move. Otherwise super, super mapag-iiwananan tayo.”

Dr. Co heads the Philippine Democracy Audit Team of the International Democratic Assessment (IDEA) which brought together in 2005 scholars to assess democracy indicators in the country.

“It is crucial that leaders change, crucial for poverty and the way we run our institutions,” explains Co, author of the Free and Fair Elections and the Democratic Role of Political Parties, and of the IDEA Managing Corruption.

Choosing the leaders

Just what kind of leaders can, in the words of Co, unleash a new life for the Philippines?

Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Cruz says their attributes depend on the situation in the country.

“The traits I recommend are one, integrity; two, competence and three, character,” says the now retired 75-year-old former bishop of Dagupan-Lingayen.

He elaborates: “Integrity, because there is a culture of graft and corruption from the national to the local level. After integrity, competence, because we vote for one who is an actor and rides a horse all the time but is a senator. We are still star-struck. Actors win because they are popular.

“Character, as shown by political will. I’ve been in the hearings on jueteng and am told by the witnesses that they fear for their safety. I for one would not trust the Witness Protection Program because it is run by those who know where the witnesses are hiding.”

Cruz asks: “And is there anyone who has my vote? Secret!”

Now that he is retired, the outspoken prelate says he is free to engage in socio-political work and to write.

“One tiny voice – and of course, nobody listens,” he chuckles as he chats with Planet Philippines.

Religion and politics

As has been the usual practice of politicians every election time, aspirants for various posts seek the support of every group, bloc or party. Among the most sought-after is the endorsement of religious sects, which are presumed to carry a sizable “command vote.”

History, however, shows that it is only the Iglesia Ni Cristo that is able to muster a solid vote for its preferred candidates. The other religious denominations have not been shown to deliver one single voting bloc in spite of the political posturing of their leaders. Just the same, many politicians continue to seek the blessings of religious leaders who claim they speak in His name, prompting Cruz to say that God must be having fun but is also probably confused.

“I am very happy I’m not God because if I were God, I would not know what to do,” Cruz said in a forum. “Here is the son of God endorsing this, and here is the leader endorsing this. I think God must be having fun.”

Among those being wooed are El Shaddai leader Bro. Mariano “Mike” Velarde; Davao-based Christian sect Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the Name Above Every Name Pastor Apollo Quiboloy; and the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC).

Take two for JIL

For the second straight presidential election, JIL is fielding its head, Bro. Eddie Villanueva, for president in the May 10 polls. As for the other sects, so far it is only Velarde who has insinuated his presidential candidate. Without explicitly naming his choice, Velarde merely points to his favorite color, orange, which is the campaign color of Manny Villar. The INC and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ have yet to announce their endorsements.

Cruz adds: “The head of El Shaddai put up a big church,” he says of the sect’s leader, Mike Velarde. “And the big thing is, he has built an astrodome, an amphitheater, on his land. They hold events there, especially now that it’s rainy season. He has never built a church – a simbahan – and so he can say, `God told me I have served enough’, and he can just leave. Ang galing ng mamang ito – ganyan din ang gagawin ko, I have thought to myself.”

Separation of Church & State

Some sectors do not see the political endorsements of these sects in a favorable light. But Professor Co points out that the 1987 Constitution has no explicit provision on the separation of Church and State.

“But because of the influence of the Catholic Church, its leaders can say something and it can gain importance as when Cardinal Sin called for support for the group who broke away from Marcos. Also, they issue statements when they see something that is not moral and is against Church dogma.”

She believes that in People Power II, the Church did not have a role as big in People Power I.

“But its leaders still spoke out as part of their right to express their opinion, just like any other group in national society. And this is why it is difficult to totally separate the church from the state. The situation is fluid.”

This partly explains why some sects endorse candidates who may adhere to the religious principles of these groups or who may grant these sects political favors in exchange for their endorsement.

Cruz, however, frowns on it. “What is wrong is wrong and what is right is right,” he says. This is not `Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ and this is not transactional politics.”

CBCP position

In an ironic twist, six Catholic bishops have come out in support of presidential hopeful John Carlos de los Reyes of Ang Kapatiran party. The endorsement came as a total surprise in the face of the long-standing position Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) against non-involvement in partisan politics.

Reacting to the bishops’ endorsement, CBCP president, Bishop Nereo Ochdimar, issued a circular to his subordinates in the Diocese of Tandag (Surigao del Sur) to avoid engaging in partisan politics.

“The Church must refrain from partisan politics, avoiding especially the use of the pulpit for particular purposes, to avoid division among the flock they shepherd,” he said. “In case, a member or leader of such association decides otherwise, and be a candidate or openly campaign for a candidate or party, he or she has to resign temporarily.”

The Church has been ambivalent about its position on partisan politics. It will be recalled that the CBCP has threatened to campaign against candidates who endorse any form of family planning, forcing presidential candidates Benigno Aquino III and Gilbert Teodor to backtrack from their support to the Reproductive Health Bill pending in Congress.

By Martin Benedict Perez

Towards the end of 2009 the debate on the controversial Reproductive Health Bill pending in the two houses of Congress registered several decibels higher when two presidential candidates voiced support for the measure. For a while supporters of the bill thought the endorsement by Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III and former Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro would finally give the bill the focus and attention needed to get the nod of lawmakers.

The RH bill was still up for plenary debate for second and third reading in the House of Representatives. The Senate has not even started its floor deliberations and debate on its counterpart bill. But less than two months later, Aquino and Teodoro backtracked from their initial position. And then Congress adjourned without any action on the bill. In short, the measure is now dead. The simple explanation: it’s a highly charged issue that politicians dreaded to tackle.

The Reproductive Health Bill, or House Bill 5043, seeks to provide education about reproductive health, facilities to improve maternal health, and essential medicines and supplies to couples raising their own family. Nowhere is abortion legalized, supported, or mandated in the bill. Neither does the bill promote promiscuity or make pornography more widely available. Completely absent in the bill – in both spirit and form – are additional powers for the state that would infringe on a person’s right to freely practice religion or live out virtues such as abstinence and chastity.

‘Election catechism’

And yet, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) asserts — through an “election catechism” in the form of 20 pages of “election guidelines” –  that “it would not be morally permissible to vote candidates who support anti-family policies, including reproductive health, or any other moral evil such as abortion, divorce, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Otherwise one becomes an accomplice to the moral evil in question.”

A candidate’s position on the RH bill is thus the basis on how a Catholic should vote, the CBCP suggests. CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life Executive Secretary Fr. Melvin Castro would further suggest that when casting their votes, Filipinos must consider social interest over self-interest, and decide guided by moral principles.

The suggestions, however, come somewhat forcefully. With these come the threat of a candidate losing a sizeable number of votes due to their support for the bill, and the attendant promise of the Church endorsing candidates who oppose the bill. .

The veiled threat obviously paid off. Speaker Prospero Nograles on Feb. 2 said the measure would not be discussed in the last two session days of the House as it was too contentious and had little chance of being voted on. Feb. 3 was the last session day at the House.

Turnaround

In explaining his turnaround, Teodoro said the debate over the measure had become so “acrimonious” that the stakeholders totally forgot about the problem of population.

“The big debate is whether or not the government can shape a moral choice. And that is the argument of the Church. That the government should not actively advocate for making a moral choice. The debate stopped there,” he said.

Teodoro indicated that he agreed with the Church position, and said that the government should be “neutral” but should support the “moral choice” of every individual with resources. “I’d rather have resources to support a moral choice rather than fight over a bill,” he said.

For his part, Aquino pointed out, “There are provisions that I cannot support.” After saying last October that he was in favor of making contraceptives available in all government hospitals, Aquino later said he now believes the RH bill must be amended. And like the other presidential hopefuls, Aquino would now leave it to parents to plan the number of children they want and to educate them on the issue.

Constitutional separation

By its involvement in the electoral process, specifically in how voters choose and what side of the issue one must side on, isn’t the Church in violation of the constitution separation of Church and State? How decisive is the Catholic vote really, and is marching lock-step with the Catholic Church the politically safe thing to do?

The first question can be answered most easily from a legal standpoint. Both University of the Philippines sociologist Randy David and constitutional law expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas are in agreement that when it comes to the constitutional provision of the separation of the Church and State, only the state can be a violator.

Sec. 5 of the Bill of Rights states, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of a 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 text shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

These commands can be interpreted to mean that our political system will not allow the adoption of an official state religion, nor the banning of any religion or sect. Every citizen is free to choose and worship as he pleases, and that belief in a Supreme God is not required to enjoy one’s political and civil rights. Moreover, Sec. 28 of Article 6 provides tax exemptions to all charitable institutions, churches, convents, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and lands and buildings used exclusively for religious, charitable, and educational purposes.

Only State can violate

Fr. Bernas concludes that only the State can be in violation of the separation of Church and State either by prohibition or compulsion. In an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, he wrote, “Thus only the State can violate it. As far as the churches are concerned, they can be beneficiaries of the State’s violation of the non-establishment clause but they cannot be the violators. Thus when politicians decry a violation by the Church and churchmen of the Church and State separation principle, what they are really doing is violating not only free exercise but also freedom of speech and expression.”

But this will not suffice. Even Fr. Bernas would admit that the real question whenever we feel uneasy about the Church’s advocacy against the RH Bill or about priests who endorse politicians in their homilies is not one about legality, but about propriety.

This unease is best explained by the sociologist David who often argues that our country is in a state of transition from one that is traditional – relying on forces such as family honor, clan loyalty, and the power of the pulpit – to one that is more modern, where society is further subdivided into spheres with their own set of norms and laws. Hence, modernity recognizes the bonds of family, the truth of the Bible, the power of the constitution, and the judgment of the individual.

Hence, he sees the Catholic Church as a traditional force that is trying to make its way into the modern world. It is still grasping for its place – at times thinking that it still has the power to make kings – and it is still in denial about the harsh reality of our times: 78% of Filipino adults support the Reproductive Health Bill and, if we aggregate the survey results of the leading candidates supporting the RH Bill, more than 60% are inclined to vote a candidate that supports the controversial legislation.

Thus, politicians who try to curry favor with voters by falling in lockstep with the Church are equally confused. If their plan is to secure the Catholic voting bloc, there is none; or if they fear a Catholic backlash if they support the bill, there isn’t one either. They will neither gain nor lose votes, but their positions can suggest how they intend to move our country forward, or whether they are transformational or traditional politicians.

Hence the irony of a democracy is that the Catholic Church too can have its say, but its voice is a dwindling one, lost in the wilderness and tempted by its own power.