The Iglesia ni Cristo and the game of politics

I seldom talk about politics. Let us just say I have given up on Philippine politics after becoming a lawyer and realizing the political immaturity of the Filipino voter. My experiences as a lawyer in recent political scandals just fortified my disdain for politics and everything it stands for today.
 
The past week was like an eye-opener for me. No matter how I avoided politics, the sad reality is that: Filipinos breathe, think, sleep and even, pray politics. It is like a drug to every Filipino and after a long time cold turkey, I had a relapse.
 
The premise of the conflict is simple. The SOJ de Lima called for a preliminary investigation of several INC church leaders based on the testimony of Mr. Isias Samson, a former-minister-turned-nemesis with allegations of serious illegal detention. Let me start by saying that while Pinoy telenovelas usually end with serious illegal detention, Pinoy political scandals usually begin with serious illegal detention. Coincidence or not, but makes me wonder if this is God’s way of telling us that we have to stop getting too involved with telenovelas or politics, I just do not know which is which.
 
The response of the INC was swift. Indignation rallies against de Lima in Padre Faura and in EDSA calling for her resignation and branding the investigation as persecution and meddling by the state in an internal squabble in the INC. The infamous “separation of Church and State” tagline now becomes as popular as AlDub and the Pabebe Girls.
 
The problem with instant rallies is that it will cause inconvenience especially if you manage to block traffic in two major thoroughfares, EDSA and Taft Avenue. Many wondered why rally in EDSA when Commonwealth Avenue is much wider and within view of the mother-ship church or the Philippine Arena which has better acoustic support for more dramatic shout-outs. As a result, a crippling traffic situation, an angry mob directed against the INC calling the latter as “bullies” and the chance of politicians to show their real colors.
 
Let me get this off my chest, and I know a lot of my INC friends will not be happy with this, but the law is not on their side with this one. First of all, the anger is premature. Sec. de Lima merely called out for a preliminary investigation.

Every lawyer knows that in a preliminary investigation, there are no accusations yet. It is a proceeding that would allow several INC leaders to answer their accusers, in this case, Samson. The State has not taken a side in this case yet because no criminal complaint was ever filed at this point.

Many INC protestors are saying that what Samson is saying is a lie and I will not even rebut that. However, that is precisely the purpose of a preliminary investigation. To ferret out some facts to determine if an actual case should be filed. If there is no truth to the allegations, I am sure it will be dismissed. And if there are facts that may lead the DOJ to believe that there is some probable cause, then a case will be filed where there is a court that will determine if the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And if the trial court errs, the higher courts will always be an option through appeal.

See, it is still a very long process and being agitated at the beginning of the process courted more suspicion than support.

As a professor of Constitutional Law, the separation of Church and State has been used and often abused in this case. The more precise description of this state principle is that the State cannot interfere in purely religious matter and the Church cannot also interfere in matters of the State. Easier said than done. But our Constitution makes it a point to highlight this separation by exempting the Church from taxation, establishing the non-establishment clause in the Bill of Rights preventing the state from establishing a state religion or discriminating a citizen based on his religious beliefs among other things.
 
This rule, however is not iron-clad because when it pertains to commission of crime, it becomes a matter of state and the same can be justified in having jurisdiction. Furthermore, a crime is a prosecution against persons and not against the church. It is different when the government through the Office of Muslim Affairs decides to take-over the classification of halal from the Islamic Da’wah Council because in this case, there is really an intrusion of religious affairs. Lastly, defining a crime has always been the domain of state and no church can make its own penal code much less impose it.
 
While the reason d’etre of the INC rally may have been flawed from a legal standpoint, it does not discount the right of every INC member, as a citizen, to express his opinion and to assemble peacefully to redress a grievance. However, like every exercise of a right, it is not without limitation or effect. While you have the right to voice out your opinion, there is a chance that others will voice out a contrary view and if it happens to be a majority view, the backlash is expected. The inconvenience the rallies created added to the backlash because normally nonchalant citizens suddenly became active participants in the movement.
 
Normally, when it is just a battle of legal viewpoints, the impasse ends with a court of law deciding the verdict. But it turns ugly when it becomes a religious bickering. When people resort to name-calling, sending pictures of “dinuguan” or bashing, that is where I draw the line.

I am with the Catholic Church in calling for sobriety and understanding for the INC despite differences in opinion. Religions will always differ in beliefs and that is the reason why many Catholics will never understand the matter from the perspective of the INC. So, if you base your reasons on the premise “kung nangyari sa pari namin iyan, hindi ako magre-react nang ganyan,” you will only invite more argument.

We just have to accept the fact that the INC is different. They have been indoctrinated in a manner that is beyond our understanding; in the same breath why they will not understand why some Catholics give up their lives just to touch the Black Nazarene on a specific day or our self-mutilation during Holy Week as penance. We can complain without being insensitive. And this also goes to some INC members whose rebuttal to our woes was the Papal Visit. Which makes me laugh because I know that to non-Catholics, it was really an inconvenience, albeit planned. In the free market of ideas, it pays to argue with class.
 
The real revelation about the INC debacle is hanging over our heads and no one dares to ask the question. So, I will ask the question and pray to my God that I will not be crucified like him: Who gave a minority religious group like the Iglesia Ni Kristo, not even one-tenth as many as the Catholic Church, so much power and influence that it has the confidence (audacity, to some) to stage a protest and expect the State to kowtow in fear? The Catholic Church did it in the past but with 80% of the population, it is a mystery why we have not elected a priest as President. It is amazing why election after election, presidentiables and senatoriables have to make a courtesy call to INC leadership like their political lives depended on it. It is mind-boggling how the announcement of INC-supported candidates get more media mileage than the CBCP list.
 
With all honesty, this is testament to how powerful its indoctrination is; that its leadership wields so much power over the flock, it can sway all if not most of its members to vote as a bloc. There is nothing wrong with that. Every religion has the right to preach its dogmas and doctrines and the way they have preached to their flock is just so effective, it blows me to pieces.
 
The problem starts when people who want to control the State are willing to use the Church to get elected. Then, the separation becomes blurry. If the State allows the Church to dictate election results by allowing open endorsement of candidates, then it will give religious groups like (INC, El Shaddai, etc) enough concessions to wield influence in the matters of State because patronage politics is still a reality in this country. That is the reason why some politicians are willing to prostitute convictions and the rule of law so they will not earn the ire of the INC and others who may already know their fate with the INC to readily criticize it.
 
And in my book, there is a worse politician than a thief: it is a sell-out.