MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that religious masses can be held inside trial courts without it being construed as a violation of the principle of the separation of Church and State.

With a lone dissent from Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC en banc voted to deny a 2009 petition to prohibit the holding of religious masses inside courts in the Philippines.

The High Court decided that holding a Mass inside court premises does not amount to a union of Church and State, and does not signify that Catholic litigants will be favored by the judges.

It all started in 2009 when Tony Valenciano wrote letters to then-Chief Justice Reynato Puno complaining about the supposed impropriety of holding a Catholic Mass at the basement of the Quezon City (QC) Hall of Justice.

“(Valenciano) believed that the practice violated the constitutional prohibition against the appropriation of public money or property for the benefit of a sect, church, denomination or any other system of religion,” reads part of the decision promulgated on March 7.

Valenciano also said that the practice “showed that (the court) tended to favor Catholic litigants.”

The letters were referred to to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) until it reached the sala of the en banc.

He wanted to implement a nationwide ban on the holding of any religious mass or rituals inside halls of justices.

The OCA has earlier denied Valenciano’s request which was then upheld by the en banc.

The SC noted that while there is a separation of Church and State, it is a Filipino’s constitutional right to practice any religion.

“Allowing citizens to practice their religion is not equivalent to a fusion of Church and State,” the decision said.

The SC said there was no compelling state interest to prohibit masses inside the courts.

The High Court said that our government has always had a policy of accommodating religion.

Religious exemptions

It is why members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) are exempt from joining unions because of their church teaching of not affiliating with a labor organization. It is also why members of the Jehovah’s Witness are exempt from observing flag ceremonies because they are taught to worship only God, and saluting to a flag would be a violation of that teaching.

Most notably, the accommodation of religion has allowed presidential decrees to be passed to respect Islam teachings.

Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1083 allows a Muslim to have one more wife and therefore exempts him from the criminal liability of bigamy.

PD No. 322 allows Muslims to enjoy flexible working hours during Ramadan without having their salaries slashed due to undertime.

Non-establishment

The SC recognizes that there is a non-establishment clause which prohibits the State to make an active move to favor or sponsor a religion.

Section 29 (2), Article VI of the Constitution also says that “no public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination.”

But the High Court makes a distinction between establishment and simple accommodation.

In this case, according to the SC, that the QC Hall of Justice did not pass a memorandum or circular that pertains to the holding of Mass inside the basement, and that the room where masses are held is used as a waiting and general area the rest of the time is proof that this is a case of simple acommodation.

“No government funds are being spent because the lightings and airconditioning continue to be operational even if there are no religious rituals there,” the decision reads.

It added: “A public street may be used for a religious procession even as it is available for a civic parade, in the same way that a public plaza is not barred to a religious rally if it may also be used for political assemblage.”

To the eyes of the High Court, if masses cannot be held inside court premises then all other laws and policies that accommodate other religions should be scrapped.

Does holding a Mass inside the court mean Catholic litigants will be favored? The SC says this thinking would also violate the freedom of religion. It quotes former Justice Isagani Cruz: “It is error to think that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare.”

Leonen’s dissent

Justice Leonen, however, disagrees.

In his dissenting opinion, Leonen said that holding a Mass inside the court “has an effect of imposing an insidious cultural discrimination against those whose beliefs may be different.”

He also believes that there is an impression of partiality in the justices allowing masses inside courts.

“It weakens our commitment to protect all religious beliefs,” he wrote.

Leonen also believes that it goes beyond simple accommodation to allow masses inside courts – he says it is already showing favoring towards the catholic religion which is prohibited by law.

He noted that there are many venues for Catholic masses, there are always churches nearby, and that there “is no urgency for a mass to be held inside the Hall of Justice.”

Leonen also believes that allowing a mass inside the court premises is equivalent to “employing public property for the benefit and support of the Catholic religion.”

In its decision, the en banc also orders the court officials to closely monitor the masses so they ensure that they do not disturb the work of others.

Leonen said that to have court officials monitor religious conduct would be an uncomfortable entanglement of the Church and State.

“There is no reason for the Holy Eucharist to be celebrated in our halls of justice… Should the faithful among our judges and employees find the need to worship… they should muster the patience to walk to the closest Church and there to fervently pray for more humility and a socially just and tolerant society.” – Rappler.com