The separation of state and power shall be inviolable.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 requires for the exercise of civil or political rights. Article III, Section 5

Religious denominations or sects shall not be registered (as political party, organization or coalition, by the Comelec.) Art IX, C, Section 2(5)Comment by John Icalia:

One-half of the seats allocated to the party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from labor, peasant, urban poor indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. Art VI, Section 5(2)- Sec 29, Art VI which states in part "No public money or property shall be appropriated... directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion..."- Sec 29, Art VI which states in part "No public money or property shall be appropriated... directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion..."

The prohibition herein expressed is a direct corollary of the principle of separation of church and state. Without the necessity of adverting to the historical background of this principle in our country, it is sufficient to say that our history, not to speak of the history of mankind, has taught us that the union of church and state is prejudicial to both, for occasions might arise when the state will use the church, and the church the state, as a weapon in the furtherance of their respective ends and aims . . . It is almost trite to say now that in this country we enjoy both religious and civil freedom. All the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, in taking their oath to support and defend the Constitution, bind themselves to recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, with its inherent limitations and recognized implications. It should be stated that what is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere toleration.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Justice Laurel, Aglipay vs ruiz, GR No. L-45459]

Had we adopted American constitutional law doctrine on Church-State relations, many things about Pope Francis visit to the Philippines and the governments involvement in according him welcome would be legally amiss. Fortunately, we are wiser, in that we courageously crafted an indigenous construal of the state policy that ordains that the separation of both be inviolate! It is jurisprudence as unique as our Constitution that, in many places, reads like a textbook in moral theology. And we are not necessarily worse off because of that!All stops are pulled. For the past days, before the Popes arrival, PSG has been going through the procedure of securing the person of the Pope, supervised by no less than Malacanans representatives and even by President Aquino no less! Troops more numerous than the contingent we sent to Iraq have been detailed in Manila to protect Pope Francis and to secure the safety of the millions who, it is anticipated, will like to catch at least a glimpse of one the most beloved figures in the world today. And we Filipinos tend to be disorderly when we are excited! Quirino Grandstand has been refurbished and government has reportedly spent a handsome sum just putting up the barricades that, we hope, will somehow keep the exuberance of the crowds within reasonable bounds.Separation of Church and State then, as a constitutional prescription, has many meanings and even if, in Philippine jurisprudence, we have fallen back on familiar juridical labels such as benevolent neutrality, we have construed the precept of separation in a way uniquely ours (in many ways), thanks in large measure to cerebral jurists who have graced the Supreme Court, the likes of Chief Justice Reynato Puno in Estrada v. Escritor. That is as it should be. A constitution that grants tax exemption to churches, that allows religious societies to operate schools, that provides for the possibility of religious instruction in public schools, that echoes teaching like the primacy of the authority of parents in regard to childrens education and the beginning of human life from conception so fundamental to moral theology cannot engender that kind of jurisprudence that outlaws prayer in public ceremonies and religious symbols in public spaces, and proscribes the excessive entanglement of the State in affairs of religion!One will always hear of course perpetual malcontents who never seem to be able to move on from the abuses of some of the Spanish friars, conveniently forgetting of course that the defense of natives against the abuse of Spanish overlords, the authorship of the first lexicons and grammars of our languages, and genuine obras pias in difficult times, we owe to the much-maligned frailes.And Pope Francis shows us just how meaningfully and promisingly the head of an institutional faith can be the champion of the values that separation of Church and State is supposed to safeguard and to juridify. Separation is not an end in itself, but is called for by a society that has become pluralistic, with citizens maintaining beliefs not always compatible with each other. His gestures of openness and inclusiveness, his insistent demand that we be charitable and compassionate, and his willingness to throw open not only the windows but also the doors of the Church, and probably even knock down some of its wallsall these make clear the fallacy of equating zeal for liberty with antipathy towards religion![footnoteRef:2] [2: http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/01/16/church-state-and-francis/]

he government should spend money on the papal visit only to achieve the secular purpose, i.e. to welcome the head of another state. The spending and preparation by the government should then be in the same level as that of the Obama visit. To do more would be to endorse a specific religion and would certainly violate the Constitution.

Let me just add some points on the separation of church and state mandated by our Constitution. Some of these I got from reading; some are my own.

1. The following are provisions mandating the separation of church and state: - The provision quoted in the article, which is found in the declaration of state policies. - The bill of rights provision stating in part "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion" - Sec 29, Art VI which states in part "No public money or property shall be appropriated... directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion..."

2. On the other hand, these provisions run counter to the principle of separation of church and state:- Sec 28, Art VI states in part "Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto... actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious... purposes shall be exempt from taxation." - The exception in Sec 29, Art Vi which allows the appropriation of public money for religion purpose "when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium."- Sec 3, Art XIV which states in part "At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools"

3. We also have the preamble which states in part "We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God... do ordain and promulgate this Constitution."

4. Based on the following, we can see that the Constitution does not mandate a strict separation of church and state. And this was the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in the case of Estrada vs Escritor. It stated that our Constitution gives room for the accommodation of religion. It should be noted, however, that the decision in the said case was reached by a slim majority.

5. In principle, however, I tend to be on the side of strict or absolute separation. However, since admittedly there are constitutional provision which run counter to strict separation, my view is that separation should be the rule, while those stated in point #2 are the only exceptions.

6. As to the Preamble of the Constitution, we can see that the Filipino people - at least the majority of whom - are theistic. But it should be noted that it is the people who are theistic. As pointed out by a blog a read a few months ago, the Preamble shows that Filipinos are religious, but it does not mean that the government should also be religious.

7. With regard to the constitutional provision mandating the separation of church and state, an argument can be made that since it is found in the declaration of state principles and policies, it is not a self-executing provision. This means that it only serves as a guide for the Legislative on the laws it creates, but it does not constitute enforceable rights which are judicially enforceable, i.e. no one can go to court to enjoin the government from spending money on the papal visit on the basis of this constitutional provision alone. On the other hand, there is jurisprudence which states that "unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law." I prefer the latter the latter view.