This article was downloaded by: [Northwestern University]

On: 05 February 2015, At: 07:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Review of Faith & International

Affairs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfia20

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE PHILIPPINES:

FROM LEGALITIES TO LIVED EXPERIENCE
Jayeel Serrano Cornelio
Published online: 16 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Jayeel Serrano Cornelio (2013) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE PHILIPPINES: FROM
LEGALITIES TO LIVED EXPERIENCE, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 11:2, 36-45, DOI:
10.1080/15570274.2013.808036

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2013.808036

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our
agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are
not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not
be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE
PHILIPPINES: FROM LEGALITIES
TO LIVED EXPERIENCE
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015
R
eligious freedom has been a key facet
of its various Constitutions since the
day the Philippines became Asia’s
first democratic republic in 1899
(Malcolm 1921; Perdon 2008). Today, although
Catholicism remains the predominant religion
among over 92 million Filipinos (NSO 2012),
other religions have the liberty to exercise
worship and propagate their beliefs. According
to the 2007 Census, Catholicism is professed by
81 percent of the population while other
professed religions include Protestantism (7.3
percent), Iglesia ni Kristo (Church of Christ)
(2.3 percent), the Philippine Independent
Church (2 percent) and Islam (5.1 percent)
(Pangalangan 2010).
Broadly, religious freedom in the Philippines
deals with the freedom to exercise religious belief
and practice and the separation of Church and
State. Even during the American occupation and
the Martial Law of Ferdinand Marcos, these
provisions were asserted in different ways. To this
day, they serve as the cornerstone of the legal
understanding of religious freedom in the
Philippines.
The immediate context of religious freedom
in the Philippines, however, renders these
provisions difficult to uphold consistently. For
one, the Catholic Church remains influential to
politics and policy formulation (Shirley 2004;
Moreno 2006; Leviste 2011). While it is true that
Court decisions and laws are constructed using
36 | volume 11, number 2 (summer 2013)
By Jayeel Serrano Cornelio
strictly secular reasoning (see Thio 2009), the
culture in which democracy and the rule of law
operate in the Philippines is widely religious. This
explains why the Catholic Church has occupied a
pivotal role during the People Power Revolution
in 1986 and in the elections that have taken place
since (Rafael 2006). Such Catholic influence
draws from both the history of the Philippines as
a Spanish colony under clerical rule and the fact
that Catholicism remains the predominant
religion among Filipinos. Second, as will be
recounted below, the religious landscape is
increasingly diverse as brought about by
migration and the growing public presence of
other religious groups. Other non-Catholic
religious groups, for example, are becoming
politically involved as well by fielding their own
candidates (Jamon and Mirandilla 2007;
Pangalangan 2008).
Given this context, two considerations
collectively inform scholarly discussion of
religious freedom in the Philippines: its legal
understanding as enshrined in the Constitution,
and the dominance of the Catholic Church in
Philippine public affairs. In this light, the ensuing
Jayeel Serrano Cornelio is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Max Planck
Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity (Germany) and
Assistant Professor in the Development Studies Program and the Department
of Sociology and Anthropology at the Ateneo de Manila University
(Philippines). He has published in the areas of youth, religion, and education
in the Philippines. His current postdoctoral work deals with Christianity and
young adulthood in Singapore.
© 2013 Institute for Global Engagement

discussion of the state of scholarship shall proceed
in two ways.
First, I will recount the different ways in
which religious freedom in the Philippines has
been conceptualized in the academic literature.
Dominating the discussion are legal and historical
accounts of how religious freedom has been
understood and contested. These studies can be
seen as perpetuating a very specific view of
religious freedom in terms of the relationship
between two powerful institutions: religion and
the State. And on several occasions, the “Church”
in the Church–State separation clause has
implied the Catholic hierarchy (see Reuter 1982).
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015
To my mind, this limited view is explained by the
fact that academic discussion on religious
freedom in the Philippines has been mainly
among legal scholars. As will be seen below, much
attention has been given to this legal framework
justified by such historical conditions as Catholic
power during the Spanish regime and the
secularist project of the American occupation.
Second, in view of the aforementioned
limitations, I propose in this article that an
approach focused on the subjective and everyday
experience of religious freedom (or its challenges)
be adopted in the context of the Philippines. It is
in this manner that this article contributes to the
thrust of this special issue on religious freedom
and Asian Studies.
The Historical Development of
Religious Freedom in the Philippine
Constitution
In this section, I will discuss how religious
freedom has been taken in the literature as a
necessary provision that accompanied the
formation of the Philippine nation. This section
is two-pronged. On one hand, it is as an attempt
to spell out religious freedom in the form of
constitutional provisions (Sharma 2012). But on
the other, the literature also shows that religious
freedom entered and took shape in various
incarnations of the Philippine Constitution,
given the country’s history under the Spanish
Crown, the American regime, and Martial Law.1
It was then tested in different cases that both the
Court and the Presidency had to address. In what
follows, what surfaces is that religious freedom
jayeel serrano cornelio
has concerned the relationship between religion
and the State more than it did the individual’s
right to “freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion” as stipulated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (see Witte and
Green 2009).
Religious Freedom and the Philippine
Constitution(s)
Promulgated in 1899 by its legislative
assembly, the first Philippine (Malolos)
Constitution formally established the three
branches of government (executive, legislative,
and judiciary) and recognized the equality of all
religions and the separation of Church and State
(Pangalangan 2010). In this light, the first
Constitution can be seen as a reaction to Spanish
rule (1565–1898) and how the hierarchy of the
Catholic Church effectively became its
administrator (Coquia 1956). As Hernando
(1963, 218) puts it, the separation principle,
which was tied to the “Filipino struggle for liberty
and nationalism” was meant to repudiate “the
existing principle of Spanish government in the
Philippines which was the union of the church
and the state.” Indeed, the Spanish Crown had a
clear intention of governing and converting the
local inhabitants (Bautista 2011).
Interestingly though, the battle for this
separation was not won easily. During that time,
for example, there were moves to establish the
Catholic Church as the religion of the State.
Other forms of worship would have been merely
tolerated insofar as they did not pose a threat to
national security. A deadlock was reached
concerning the religious question in the first
Congress, with the freedom of worship and the
separation clause winning in the end when the
chairman intervened (Malcolm 1921).
Interestingly, the separation clause was later
suspended “in order to preserve unity in the face
of the impending war with the United States”
(Pangalangan 2010, 562).
Although short-lived in view of American
occupation two years after, the provisions
concerning freedom of belief and the separation of
Church and State would have a lasting impression
on succeeding Constitutions. What specifically
ensured this was the Treaty of Paris between Spain
the review of faith & international affairs | 37
 religious freedom in the philippines
and the United States in 1898 and the various laws
passed by the US Congress to govern the
Philippines during the American colonial period
(1898–1946) (Coquia 1956). These laws all
prohibited the establishment of any religion and
allowed for the free exercise of religious profession
and worship (Pangalangan 2010).
For the Americans, though, the main
dilemma was in fully implementing the
separation of Church and State in the
Philippines. Issues included the ownership of
agricultural land and religious buildings that friar
orders held, the administration of public schools,
and the status of Spanish friars who used to be the
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015
administrative arm of the Spanish regime (Reuter
1982). The establishment of a new secular public
school system, the purchase of religious estates,
and the replacement of Spanish priests by
American priests were instrumental to ensuring
the transition to a secular state. In this sense,
although the Malolos Constitution had
promulgated it, it was the Americans that made
religious freedom possible in the Philippines.
Coquia (1956), however, notes that religious
freedom, as it was understood during the
American period, had an absolutist view of the
separation of Church and State. This absolutist
approach was taken despite the fact that none of
the American legislations meant to govern the
Philippines contained the phrase “separation of
Church and State.” Coquia rightly points out,
too, that neither did the 1935 Constitution,
adopted while the Philippines was a
Commonwealth of the United States. He finds it
problematic, therefore, that religion could not be
taught in public schools, for example. Indeed,
Manuel Quezon, the president under the
Commonwealth, prohibited religious instruction
in public schools, even adding that “it is a very
dangerous thing to even permit the Government
to have anything to do with the Church”
(Hernando 1963, 228). Coquia (1956) then
argues that the absolutist agenda of American
administrators and the government under the
Commonwealth period overshadowed the
original intent concerning the “equal treatment of
all religious sects” (18).
Interestingly, the separation principle
officially reappeared in the 1973 Constitution
38 | volume 11, number 2 (summer 2013)
adopted during the Martial Law of President
Marcos. When Martial Law was declared in 1972,
influential segments of the Catholic Church
welcomed it and its justification that the
population must be disciplined for the purposes of
economic development (Moreno 2006; Jamon
and Mirandilla 2007). To this end, the Marcos
regime resorted to militarization to ensure and
defend its development projects, especially in rural
areas. The Catholic Church sided with the
farmers, cultural minorities, and workers who
were eventually displaced and harassed by the
military, thus straining Church–State relations.
So, although Marcos “sought to restrict the clergy
to simply preaching the gospel” (Youngblood
1990, 132), the marginalized class found its
strength and voice in the Catholic Church. Marcos
was forced to leave the Philippines during the
People Power Revolution in 1986, which saw
Cardinal Sin, then the Archbishop of Manila,
taking a pivotal political role in rallying the public.
Today, the clause remains enshrined in the
1987 Constitution (Article II Section 6), crafted
and promulgated as a post-Marcos document:
“The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable” (Lazo 2006). This is on top of the
provision on the freedom to exercise religious
belief and practice. Article III Section 5 of the
1987 Constitution (Lazo 2006) states that
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 be forever allowed. No
religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
Some other provisions within the current
Constitution stipulate that public funds may not
be given to religious organizations or individuals
and that, conversely, religious property may not
be taxed.
Freedom for Religion or Freedom from
Religion?
Two views arise concerning the fundamental
purpose of religious freedom in the Philippines:
 jayeel serrano cornelio

to protect religion from the interference of the State In addition, the flag salute is interpreted as part of
or to protect the State from the interference of
religion.
On one hand, one can argue that religious
freedom was a provision meant to protect the
right to worship from the interference of the
State. Coquia (1956), as shown above, has
cogently argued that the separation principle was
not fully articulated in the early incarnations of
the Philippine Constitution. Whether in the
Malolos Constitution or the laws promulgated
during the American period, the point that
Coquia (1956) makes is that an absolutist
rendering of the separation principle was never
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015
one’s freedom of speech, which means a person
can choose not to exercise it even if on religious
grounds. From this point of view, requiring to
salute the flag would be a “‘coercion of
conscience’ … out of place in a free society”
(Thio 2009, 76).
On the other hand, one can also argue that
the biggest consideration for the Framers of the
1987 Constitution, as in the time of the
absolutists during the American occupation, was
to ensure that religion would not interfere in the
affairs of the State. Pangalangan (2008) makes
this case by arguing that the clauses on the free

present. As a constitutional provision, religious exercise of worship and the separation principle
freedom first and foremost were “transplanted” directly
allowed for the right to from the US Constitution.
religious beliefs and practices. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT The contexts, however, as he
A similar argument is put ARTICULATED IN THEIR rightly points out, were
forward by Thio (2009) in DOCUMENTS THEN, THE different. Whereas, the
contrasting the experiences of SEPARATION PRINCIPLE freedom to exercise worship
religious freedom in the two was meant to protect
Southeast Asian countries of BECAME THE GUIDING RULE individuals from State
Singapore and the WHEN THE AMERICANS persecution as was
Philippines.2 Drawing from OCCUPIED THE PHILIPPINES experienced by many of the
Court decisions over escaping religious immigrants
particular religious from the Old World, the
controversies involving the State, Thio argues religious institution in the form of the Catholic
that even though the Philippines and Singapore Church was tied to the State in the Philippines.
share a pluralist form of democracy or Thus, Lazo (2006) maintains that in the 1987
constitutional secularism, the two differ over how Constitution the “separation principle finds its
religious freedom is treated. Singapore adopts a way from the lessons of government
statist orientation in which public order puts a mistreatments by Spanish-friars in the colonial
limit on religious rights. The Philippines, on the times.” Pangalangan (2008, 18), however, offers a
other hand, pursues a non-interventionist more blunt rendering: “The true constitutional
approach and upholds the constitutional rights of intent of the secular state in the Philippines is to
the individual above all. A classic case, for keep the modern-day friars from seizing the levers
example, concerns the treatment of Jehovah’s of state power and using the state for self-
Witness (JW) students during flag ceremonies. In aggrandizement, spiritual or otherwise.”
Singapore, a High Court decision has ruled that Indeed, this view is more acute in light of the
religious beliefs are to be subjected to the interests history of the formation of the Philippine nation
of national “sovereignty, integrity and unity,” as recounted above. Even though it was not
which are upheld by taking the national pledge articulated in their documents then, the
and saluting the flag of the Republic (2009, 74). separation principle became the guiding rule
In the Philippines, in contrast, the Supreme when the Americans occupied the Philippines.
Court has ruled that a JW student’s decision to Demonstrating this were the laws governing
not salute the flag cannot be sanctioned by religious education and property acquisition, for
expulsion because such a religious right is not example. Indeed, the immediate context was the
compellingly perceived as a threat to public order. union of Church and State during the Spanish

the review of faith & international affairs | 39

 religious freedom in the philippines
period. Even during the time of Marcos, the
separation principle was also invoked to allow the
government to proceed with its developmentalist
agenda. The Catholic hierarchy eventually
challenged this by siding with the displaced sector
and later took the lead in the People Power
Revolution of 1986. Today, the separation
principle is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
But like Thio (2009), Pangalangan (2008) draws
too from recent events and Court cases to
illustrate how such a possibility remains
imminent: the participation of ecclesiastics in
local governance, the entry of religiously
influenced party-list representatives in Congress,
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015
and even the dismissal of a government employee
on the ground of immorality.
Mainstreaming Religious Freedom in
Philippine Studies
The literature above has generally tackled
religious freedom in the Philippines as articulated
in the Constitution or carried out as Court
decisions. This legal emphasis is to be expected.
Much of the writings on religious freedom
elsewhere primarily deal with the concept as a
legal matter involving not just the secular nature
of the State but also the religious rights of the
individual (Sharma 2012). McDougal, Chen, and
Lasswell (1976), for example, have traced how
particular Court decisions concerning religious
freedom have influenced different countries to
pursue an international norm of
nondiscrimination. However, despite the wide
acceptance of human rights in the world today,
religious freedom remains under threat as several
countries in many parts of Asia, for example, have
also imposed restrictions on proselytization.
Indeed, in the neighboring countries of Indonesia
and Malaysia, conversion has been seen as a
potential threat to religious harmony (Kim 1998;
Kortteinen 2008). Witte and Green (2009)
rightly point out then that the struggle for
religious freedom “is also a legal war” (587).
Institutional Focus
This tendency has had two consequences.
First, religious freedom in the Philippines has
been discussed in the literature mainly among
legal specialists with particular interest in
40 | volume 11, number 2 (summer 2013)
Church–State relations. The notion of religious
freedom, as recounted in the writings above, is
not so much about the individual freedom to
exercise beliefs and practices as it is about
contesting the boundaries of the relationship
between the Church and the State. And in most
cases, directly implicated has been the Roman
Catholic Church. These discussions are in
contrast to how religious freedom has been
“construed largely individualistically and
voluntaristically” in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, for example (Witte and Green
2009, 606). Also, the historical accounts have
generally overlooked the presence of other
religions, which, while minorities, are supposedly
protected by the provisions.
Second, religious freedom as a concept has
not entered the empirical and social scientific
scholarship of Philippine Studies. As an
interdisciplinary endeavor, Philippine Studies has
a history of being ethnographic and at the same
time critical of Orientalist discourses concerning
Filipino culture, society, nation, and history
(Patajo-Legasto 2008). At its core, a study with
this thrust will problematize the conceptual and
practical relevance of a concept like religious
freedom to the Philippine context.
Necessity
To this end, studying religious freedom as it is
perceived, experienced, and contested at the
everyday level will generate nuances that a legal or
institutional view will not. In other words, as I
will elaborate below, religious freedom must be
understood as a reality which continues to
undergo a process of social construction and
negotiation in the Philippines.
In fact, I am convinced that pursuing
empirical studies on religious freedom has
become more pertinent now for three reasons: the
greater visibility of religious diversity in the
Philippines, the contestations against the political
hegemony of the Catholic Church, and the
arguable religious privileging by the State.
I suggest that these developments are a
consequence of the enshrinement of religious
freedom in the Philippine Constitution.
First, although Catholicism remains the
dominant religion among Filipinos, migration

and the emergence of other religions are two
processes challenging impressions of cultural
homogeneity today. And they are increasingly
visible. New Muslim communities and mosques,
for example, are emerging in Metro Manila as a
result of internal migration for work, business, or
studies (Watanabe 2008). Many Korean
immigrants are also now taking advantage of
English education in the Philippines, thus
forming their own cultural and religious (usually
Protestant) communities as well (de Guzman
et al. 2006). Cultural communities among East
Asians and Indians have also become prominent
in other parts of the country, bringing with them
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015
particular religious influences (Miralao and Makil
2007).
Second, the institutional dominance of the
Catholic Church is also being contested in ways
that assert religious freedom in different ways.
One intriguing case, for example, is the
considerable public dissatisfaction—even among
Catholics—over the interference of the Catholic
hierarchy in policy formulation (Bautista 2010).
In terms of other religious groups, the
emergence of other Christian denominations has
also been notable. Protestant churches, of
course, have a longer history as a result of
American presence in the country (Maggay
2011). In fact, Coquia (1956, 18) has argued
that the assertion of the separation principle
during the American occupation was meant to
“break the dominant position of the Catholic
Church” by allowing for the arrival of religious
missionaries.
Lately, Evangelical groups like Jesus is Lord
and the indigenous Iglesia ni Cristo (INC)
(Church of Christ), apart from witnessing
conversions, have also become influential in
national politics (Pangalangan 2010). Lim
(2009), for example, has argued that Evangelical
churches in the Philippines, influenced by
theological developments in other countries, have
become more politically active in terms of
criticizing the Marcos regime in the 1970s,
conducting their ministry among the urban poor
in the 1980s, and even calling for the resignation
of President Estrada in 2001. With 10 million
members globally, INC, which originated in the
Philippines, has asserted itself as a distinct and
jayeel serrano cornelio
even true form of Christianity. INC claims that
its founder, Felix Manalo, was the last messenger
and has adopted an Arian theology that rejects the
Trinitarian belief of Catholicism and other
Christian denominations in the country (Harper
2001). Even more interestingly, INC has played a
crucial role in electing politicians to office by
invoking the principle of the unity of the church
among its members when voting (Tolentino
2010).
Third, in spite of the separation principle in
the Constitution, the State does recognize that
there are segments of the population whose
interests are to be honored. Religious freedom is
implicated in these developments in that the
interest is in recognizing the presence of
indigenous Muslims and other cultural
communities in the Philippines. Two cases
illustrate this point: the establishment of the
Bangsamoro and the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act.
The current Philippine Constitution, for one,
recognizes the need to establish an autonomous
region in Muslim Mindanao. The State has
privileged religion in this sense (Pangalangan
2010). Attempts have been made to this end in
the form of various peace talks and the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) in the 1990s (Holbrook 2010). In late
2012, an agreement was signed between the
Government of the Philippines and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front to establish the
Bangsamoro and replace ARMM. President
Aquino has described ARMM as a “failed
experiment” due to corruption and violence
(Bengco 2012). As an expanded region with its
own Basic Law, the new Bangsamoro, which is
predominantly Muslim, will cover “the original
inhabitants of Mindanao, the Sulu archipelago,
and adjacent islands” but will not be an Islamic
state (Fernandez 2012).
To this idea of the State privileging religion
may also be added the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
Act, which recognizes the claims of indigenous
cultural communities to ancestral domains in the
Philippines. This legal recognition is the first of
its kind in Asia. The indigenous groups in the
Philippines are recognized for their distinct
traditions, customs, language, and even religion
the review of faith & international affairs | 41
 religious freedom in the philippines

with pre-Hispanic roots (Molintas 2004). In fact,
stewardship over natural resources is tied to
indigenous cosmology that treats land, for
example, as communal property. Hence,
traditional religious beliefs and practices still
prevail even if conversions to Catholicism or
other religions may have taken place. Some of
these groups include the Lumad in Mindanao,
the Igorot of Cordillera, the Mangyan of
Mindoro, and the Aeta of Central Luzon.
Potential Areas of Research
In view of the reasons above, I suggest there
are at least three possible areas of empirical
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015
religious freedom insofar as religious minorities
are concerned.
These reflections also lead to questions
concerning religious freedom and interfaith
dialogue, which is another promising area of
inquiry. This has become more urgent in view of,
as mentioned above, the increasingly visible
modes of diversity as migrants from South and
East Asia arrive in the Philippines. In a recent
article in this journal, Philpott (2013) shows that
the idea of religious freedom has not been
generally included in peacebuilding efforts.
Whereas his argument is in relation to US foreign
policy, mine is to consider the inclusion of

research concerning local views and everyday religious freedom as a potential point of
experiences of religious discussion for local interfaith
freedom. These suggestions dialogues. If religious
are drawn from existing EXISTING STUDIES HAVE minority groups feel excluded,
research in the Philippines MAINLY BEEN INSTITUTIONAL as the study above shows, can
that have relevance to IN FOCUS, THUS NEGLECTING a discussion of religious
religious freedom. THE CULTURAL DIMENSIONS freedom be a strategy for
One approach is in terms different parties to see each
of broadly understanding how OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND other at the same level? This
different religious groups PRACTICES complements Sharma’s
make sense of their presence (2012, 93) suggestion that
as minorities in the Philippines. Arguably, these world religions must be taught as part of “the
nuances shape their understandings of their own secular curriculum around the world” to
religious freedom. For example, a seminal “maximize religious freedom.” Cornelio and
quantitative study by peace psychologists Salera’s (2013) recent work on an interfaith
Macapagal and Montiel (2007, 31) shows that community in Metro Manila shows that even
among university students in Mindanao, the among young people, dialogues can foster
Muslims agree more than do the Christians that a effective interpersonal relationships among
minority group will find it “difficult to gain Muslims and Christians.
acceptance from the majority group.” In fact, The other approach I am suggesting is more
their feelings of being excluded even by the State specifically concerned with what religious
are more acute. Muslim students tend to agree freedom means to Filipinos today. To reiterate,
more that the government “has taken away the existing studies have mainly been institutional in
Muslims’ rights to freedom and self- focus, thus neglecting the cultural dimensions of
determination” (Montiel 2007, 31). The study religious beliefs and practices. This is worth
then suggests that peacemaking efforts must first mentioning because religiosity is not necessarily
recognize that these beliefs concerning their limited by Church–State boundaries. In his
exclusion may be very strong among religious commentary, sociologist Randolf David (2002,
minorities. Indeed, it is possible that these 133) notes, for one, that “Filipinos will find it
sentiments, as Thio (2010) observes among natural” to see the Philippine president kissing
countries in Southeast Asia, are the result of the ring of the Archbishop of Manila. This act
uneven economic progress and projects of embodies how religion and politics in the
assimilation such as language policies that have Philippines are in the end culturally connected
favored the ethnic and religious majority. In other (see Rafael 2006). The picture, however, is not
words, it appears that there is a negative view of entirely clear. According to a recent survey, 64

42 | volume 11, number 2 (summer 2013)


percent of Filipinos agree or strongly agree that
“religious leaders should not try to influence
government decisions” (ISSP Research Group
2008). Indeed, this became more evident with
the massive public support for the provisions of
the Reproductive Health Bill, which has been
finally passed into law recently (Mangahas 2011).
Even more interestingly, the majority of Filipinos
now seem to agree that “no one should interfere”
with their choice over the use of natural or
artificial family planning methods, a moral area
that religious leaders have been vocal against
(Social Weather Stations 2011). This is a view
that cuts across all economic classes in the
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015
Philippines.
In view of these seemingly contradicting
depictions, how then do Filipinos understand
religious freedom? Is religious freedom mainly
about the separation of Church and State as the
literature cited in the previous sections suggests?
Or does it also factor in individual liberties of
exercising beliefs, practices, and even moral
choices? And do these perceptions vary according
to religious affiliation? Answers to these questions
will help ground the arguably Western concept of
religious freedom in the context of religiosity,
diversity, and the political involvement of religion
in the Philippines.
Finally, I give attention to the recent creation
of the Bangsamoro in Mindanao which has been
internationally celebrated as a genuine effort
toward peace in the region. Predictably, the
efforts are predominantly at the level of the State.
Here, drawing from Catbagan and Tibili (2013),
I raise the need to tackle local perceptions of the
Bangsamoro. Arguably, these nuances are
informed by how communities view the
Bangsamoro as giving attention to Muslim
presence. Having asked their participants to draw
images and explain them, Catbagan and Tibili
(2013) show that perceptions of the Bangsamoro
vary across different social groups in the island of
Jolo in Mindanao. The Badjaos, an indigenous
community, perceive the Bangsamoro as causing
trouble to their fishing way of life because of their
experience with the Abu Sayyaf, an armed group
in the region. Christian respondents, while wary
of the tension it may engender against them and
the Badjaos, see the Bangsamoro as the “Muslim
jayeel serrano cornelio
people’s right to self-governance and prosperity”
(Catbagan and Tibili 2013, 6). For the Muslims,
their images of Bangsamoro include its flag, the
mosque, and a neighborhood of schools and
houses. It is a very idyllic depiction of self-
sustenance and an Islamic way of life, which they
have not necessarily enjoyed, given the area’s
poverty and history of conflict. What all these
findings suggest is that there is a need to tackle
local understandings if the Bangsamoro can ever
take off as a State project. I suggest that the same
be considered in thinking about the plight of
other indigenous groups who, while ideally
protected by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act,
are being displaced by other powerful interest
groups such as mining industries (Holden,
Nadeau, and Jacobson 2011).
Conclusion
This article has had a two-fold purpose. First, it
has recounted the different ways in which religious
freedom has been conceptualized in the
Philippines. Much of the literature has been
discussed within a legal framework that mostly
focused on the separation of Church and State. As
far as the historical context is concerned, Catholic
intervention was what the Framers were arguably
protecting the State from (Pangalangan 2008).
Case studies cited above, for example, have focused
on how the State has asserted the separation clause
and the right of the individual to religious freedom
(Thio 2009). Ironically, however, the Catholic
Church has actively participated in the political life
of the Philippines (Shirley 2004). Youngblood’s
(1990) seminal work, for example, has dealt with
the role of the Catholic Church during the
dictatorship of Marcos. The legal emphasis has
overlooked the other aspect of religious freedom
that focuses on individual right to exercise religious
beliefs and practices.
Second, as a result of the Constitutional and
legal emphasis in the literature, I have argued
that the concept of religious freedom has not
effectively entered discourses within Philippine
Studies whose interest lies in the local,
subjective, and even ethnographic experience.
The article has proposed an approach focused on
the local views and everyday experience of
religious freedom in the context of the
the review of faith & international affairs | 43
 religious freedom in the philippines

Philippines. The approach, for example, can be
in terms of studying the subjective dispositions
of religious minorities and young people in
conflict areas, say, in Muslim Mindanao
(Macapagal and Montiel 2007). Another
approach may be sociological in asking how the
public understands religious freedom and
whether this varies according to religious
affiliation. An interest in everyday experiences of
religious freedom should also be pursued among
Muslim minorities and other indigenous
cultural communities in the Philippines. v

1. For an overview of Church–State relations during the Japanese occupation (1942–1945), see Ikehata and Jose (1999).
2. Another worthwhile comparative study among Southeast Asian democracies is Thio’s (2010) work on ethnic and religious minorities.

References
Bautista, Julius. 2010. “Church and State in the Philippines: Tackling Life Issues in a ‘Culture of Death’.” SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast
Asia 25 (1): 29–53.
Bautista, Julius. 2011. Figuring Catholicism: An Ethnography of the Santo Niño De Cebu. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015

Bengco, Regina. 2012. “Aquino: ‘Bangsamoro’ Corrects ARMM Failures”. Malaya, October 18 [cited March 10, 2013]. http://malaya.com.ph/index.php/
news/nation/15637-aquino-bangsamoro-corrects-armm-failures
Catbagan, Liberty Contessa, and Puraida Tibili. 2013. “Visualizing Bangsamoro, Imagining Change.” In Meaning-Making in Mindanao: Everyday Violence,
Ordinary People, Finding Peace, edited by Charlie Inzon, Mira Alexis Ofreneo and Tesa Casal de Vela, 2–9. Jolo: Notre Dame of Jolo College.
Coquia, Jorge R. 1956. “Religious Freedom in the Philippines.” Philippine Studies 4 (1): 15–30.
Cornelio, Jayeel Serrano, and Timothy Salera. 2013. “Youth in Interfaith Dialogue: Interreligious Understanding and Its Implications on Education in the
Philippines.” Innovación Educativa 12 (60): 41–62.
David, Randolf S. 2002. Nation, Self and Citizenship: An Invitation to Philippine Sociology. Quezon City: Department of Sociology, University of the
Philippines (Diliman).
de Guzman, Allan, Emmanuel Jeric Albela, Deborah Rosalind Nieto, John Bernard Ferrer, and Rior Santos. 2006. “English Language Learning Difficulty of
Korean Students in a Philippine Multidisciplinary University.” Asia Pacific Education Review 7 (2): 152–161.
Fernandez, Amanda. 2012. “Roadmap for Peace: Highlights of the Bangsamoro Framework Agreement.” GMA News Online, October 15 [cited March 10,
2013]. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/278325/news/nation/road-map-for-peace-highlights-of-the-bangsamoro-framework-agreement
Harper, Ann. 2001. “The Iglesia Ni Cristo and Evangelical Christianity.” Journal of Asian Mission 3 (1): 101–119.
Hernando, Orlando M. 1963. “Quezon and the Rule of Law in the Philippines.” Journal of Church and State 5 (2): 214–232.
Holbrook, Justin. 2010. “Legal Hybridity in the Philippines: Lessons in Legal Pluralism from Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago.” Tulane Journal of
International and Comparative Law 18 (2): 403–451.
Holden, William, Kathleen Nadeau, and R. Daniel Jacobson. 2011. “Exemplifying Accumulation by Dispossesion: Mining and Indigenous Peoples in the
Philippines.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 93 (2): 141–161.
Ikehata, Setsuho, and Ricardo Trota Jose. 1999. The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.
ISSP Research Group. 2008. International Social Survey Programme 2008: Religion III (ISSP 2008). Za4950 Data File Vers. 2.1.0. Doi: 10.4232/1.10773.
GESIS 2008 [cited August 30, 2012]. http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/
Jamon, Grace, and Mary Grace Mirandilla. 2007. “Religion and Politics.” In Whither the Philippines in the 21st Century? edited by Rodolfo Severino and
Lorraine Carlos Salazar, 100–126. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Kim, Hyung-Jun. 1998. “The Changing Interpretation of Religious Freedom in Indonesia.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 29 (2): 357–373.
Kortteinen, Timo. 2008. “Islamic Resurgence and the Ethnicization of the Malaysian State: The Case of Lina Joy.” SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in
Southeast Asia 23 (2): 216–233.
Lazo, Ricardo Jr. 2006. Philippine Governance and the 1987 Constitution. Manila: Rex Bookstore.
Leviste, Enrique Niño. 2011. Catholic Church Hegemony Amidst Contestation: Politics and Population Policy in the Philippines. Singapore: Department of
Sociology, National University of Singapore.
Lim, David. 2009. “Consolidating Democracy: Filipino Evangelicals between People Power Events, 1986–2001.” In Evangelical Christianity and Democracy
in Asia, edited by David Lumsdaine, 235–284. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macapagal, Ma Elizabeth, and Cristina Montiel. 2007. “Comparing Social Beliefs and Values in an Intergroup Asymmetric Conflict.” Loyola Schools Review
6: 27–38.
Maggay, Melba. 2011. A Clash of Cultures: Early American Protestant Missions and Filipino Religious Consciousness. Manila: Anvil.

44 | volume 11, number 2 (summer 2013)

 jayeel serrano cornelio

Malcolm, George A. 1921. “The Malolos Constitution.” Political Science Quarterly 36 (1): 91–103.
Mangahas, Mahar. 2011. “RH and Freedom to Choose.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 12. http://opinion.inquirer.net/9859/rh-and-freedom-to-choose
McDougal, Myres, Lung-Chu Chen, and Harold Lasswell. 1976. “The Right to Religious Freedom and World Public Order: The Emerging Norm of
Nondiscrimination.” Michigan Law Review 74: 865–898.
Miralao, Virginia, and Lorna Makil. 2007. Exploring Transnational Communities in the Philippines. Quezon City: Philippine Migration Research Network and
Philippine Social Science Council.
Molintas, Jose Mencio. 2004. “The Philippine Indigenous People’s Struggle for Land and Life: Challenging Legal Texts.” Arizona Journal of International and
Comparative Law 21: 269–306.
Moreno, Antonio F. 2006. Church, State, and Civil Society in Postauthoritarian Philippines: Narratives of Engaged Citizenship. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
NSO. 2012. The 2010 Census of Population and Housing Reveals the Philippine Population at 92.34 Million. National Statistics Office 2012 [cited April 5,
2013]. http://www.census.gov.ph/content/2010-census-population-and-housing-reveals-philippine-population-9234-million
Pangalangan, Raul. 2008. “Transplanted Constitutionalism: The Philippine Debate on the Secular State and the Rule of Law.” Philippine Law Journal 82:
1–23.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 07:14 05 February 2015

Pangalangan, Raul. 2010. “Religion and the Secular State: National Report for the Philippines.” In Religion and the Secular State: Interim National Reports,
edited by Javier Martinez-Torron and W. Cole Durham, 557–568. Provo, UT: The International Center for Law and Religion Studies.
Patajo-Legasto, Priscelina. 2008. “Introduction.” In Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? edited by Priscelina Patajo-Legasto, xv–xxiii.
Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Perdon, Renato. 2008. Footnotes to Philippine History. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.
Philpott, Daniel. 2013. “Religious Freedom and Peacebuilding: May I Introduce You Two? The Review of Faith & International Affairs 11 (1): 31–37.
Rafael, Vicente. 2006. “Spectral Communities: Religiosity and Nationhood in the Contemporary Philippines.” Religion and Religiosity in the Philippines and
Indonesia: Essays on State, Society, and Public Creeds, edited by Theodore Friend, 53–62. Washington, DC: SAIS-JHU.
Reuter, Frank T. 1982. “William Howard Taft and the Separation of Church and State in the Philippines.” Journal of Church and State 24 (1): 105–117.
Sharma, Arvind. 2012. Problematizing Religious Freedom. Dordrecht: Springer.
Shirley, Steven. 2004. Guided by God: The Legacy of the Catholic Church in Philippine Politics. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
Social Weather Stations. 2011. “Family Planning Gains Favor.” BusinessWorld Online, August 8. http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=
TopStory&title=Family-planning-gains-favor&id=36176
Thio, Li-Ann. 2009. “Courting Religion: The Judge between Caesar and God in Asian Courts.” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 52–79.
Thio, Li-Ann. 2010. “Constitutional Accommodation of the Rights of Ethnic and Religious Minorities in Plural Democracies: Lessons and Cautionary Tales
from South-East Asia.” Pace International Review 22 (1): 43–101.
Tolentino, Roy Allan. 2010. “Blessed Ballots: Bloc Voting in the Iglesia Ni Cristo and the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines.” Gema Teologi 24 (1).
Watanabe, Akiko. 2008. “Migration and Mosques: The Evolution and Transformation of Muslim Communities in Manila, the Philippines.” Afrasian Centre for
Peace and Development Studies Working Paper Series (37).
Witte, John Jr., and M. Christian Green. 2009. “Religious Freedom, Democracy, and International Human Rights.” Emory International Law Review 23 (2):
583–608.
Youngblood, Robert. 1990. Marcos Against the Church: Economic Development and Political Repression in the Philippines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2013.808036

the review of faith & international affairs | 45