GOOD READ FROM Fr. Joel!!!
This is my own take with the issue.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land. Thus, it accommodates the “Supreme” good, and it can commit the “Supreme” mistake. However, we cannot pinpoint which is which because we are talking about a Supreme Institution of Justice. Contrary to how the Rule of Law is upheld by this court, I see the issue in a different sense. Though the matter regarding the RH Bill is really moral by essence, the manner by which it is upheld or countered by the Church is clearly political. In a sense, it is conceivable that the Church is taking the issue not only with its moral merits, but also through means that can hamper the real values of the State. This may bring about several things.
Much as this country is democratic by form, it must be noted that mutual respect is the key element for a harmonious relationship within the society and the proper exercise of freedom is seen. In this case, the value of FREEDOM of SPEECH is clearly abused, and the value behind this freedom, mutual respect, is clearly not upheld. There are many ways for us to morally ground individuals, however, dictating their political principles is morally wrong, and is not the solution. Though I understand the dilemma of the Church and the reason for their stance, this method they adopted gives me a reason to draw back from a constricting belief system that harms my own principle, both moral and political. More so, the sentiment of the society is no longer upheld. With the clear mobilization of the Bill, the Church must not demonize individuals who are tasked to forward the goal of the most, by which I mean the clear supporters of the Bill. Rather, if they want their patrons to uphold their values, then they should work on the ground.
Secondly, since there is a non-establishment clause in the Constitution that prevents the government from supporting any religion, the action created by the supreme court hyphenates the bias it may have with moral institutions like that of the Church. My fear is the precedence it may bring about. As of the moment, there is already a form of block voting especially when we refer sects within a religion. This (the move of the Diocese) means already counters the real essence of elections. It being FREE, FULL, and INFORMED. However, if the highest court of the law allows such, it can actually foster this method of voting, which by itself reduces the dynamism of elections per se. Although the issue can revolutionize the who idea of dynamism and discourse, the other side of the coin tells and educates other religions to take their own stance. This harms both the society and the religion. First of, the society is being modeled to be mature in terms of its decisions. However, this method clearly implicates on the moral standing of a person, and thus is considered imposing which clearly backlashes on its already progressive momentum towards maturity. Secondly, and this is an even if logical analysis, it may harm the relationship between the religion and the society. With more rational people seeing the err in this action, it may tarnish the supposedly unbreakable bond between the religion and the society. This may hamper their standing and footing on the ground, and may creates repercussion towards these moral institutions themselves. But lastly, in connection with this relationship, what would it make a religion, or sets of religion, if it fails to uphold its moral standing because it is diluted by its political facade such as what is happening in Bacolod? There are many ways, and in fact many effects, in assessing this scene. However, in one way or another, at least we garnered reactions all over the Philippines. This is another step towards social evolution. Sooner or later, the law will recognize this momentum, I just hope I am not yet dead when that time comes.
<I am not good with grammar, but I hope it is still understandable.>
Originally posted on taborasj:
The Bishop of Bacolod has won the Supreme Court order restraining the Comelec from coercing the Diocese to take down its contentious poster on Team Buhay and Team Patay based on the Fair Election Act (RA 9066).
The Bishop claims the Cathedral is private property, and the right to put up the posters flows from the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. Comelec officials and many others in the country interpret that poster as election propaganda. As such, in election fairness, it ought to stay within size limitations imposed on candidates.
With all the other cases the Supreme Court has in its dockets, it must now decide this case.