1st Negative Speakers Constructive Speech

Effective change is almost impossible without collaboration, cooperation and consensus.

- Simon Mainwaring

Therefore, there must be collaboration, cooperation and consensus between the Church and the
State so to achieve effective change and the same common goal of providing the best for the
people, physically and spiritually.

Highly esteemed adjudicators, Prof. Anne Mariquit Oppus, fellow debaters of the
negative side and our dear opponents ladies and gentlemen Good Morning!

The proposition of this debate, Is the separation between the Church and the State be
absolute. We, on the negative side do believe that there should be no absolute separation between
the Church and the State.

As the first speaker of the negative side, I will be talking to you about the necessity of
why there should be no absolute separation between the Church and the State. Our second
negative speaker will be talking about its beneficiality, our third negative speaker on its
practicability and our last speaker will provide the summation of the negative sides arguments
on why there should be no absolute separation between the Church and the State.

Why is it necessary for the separation between the Church and the State to be not
absolute? Let me point out my arguments.

First, even the president of the Republic of the Philippines conferred that he is a stickler for the
principle of separation between church and state and strongly believed that there should be no
separation between the Church and the State. From the statement we can imply that the president
conforms to the principle however he acknowledges the importance that there should be no
absolute separation. This just proves that the separation between the Church and the State will
never and shall never be absolute. We can uphold the doctrine of the separation between the
Church and the State but no absolute separation should be adopted.

Second, According to Aristotle man as a social being is endowed with reasoning soul. In
addition, Soul and body were understood dualistically. Man is Homo Religiusos. Therefore, we
cannot separate mans social being from its spiritual nature. Man is given every right to exercise
his Homo Religiusos being. It has been said that the religion clauses of the Constitution are all
designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as
his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent
with the liberty of others and with the common good. I think the issue on the separation between
the church and the state is focused on the idea that many church personalities are alleged to have
been encroaching the separation between the church and the state doctrine. But, the truth is they
are just exercising their rights of free exercise of religion and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship. As illustrated in the American Bible Society case, religious speech comes within
the pale of the Free Exercise Clause. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the church
from expressing its views or stand on public issues. The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides
that the separation between the Church and the State shall be inviolable, it is implied from the
constitutional prohibition that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. So
there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the Church from expressing its views or stand on
public issues. In addition, the doctrine means that the Church is not to interfere in purely political
matters or temporal aspects of mans life and the State, in purely matters of religion and morals,
which are exclusive concerns of the other. Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar and give to God
what is due to God, a famous line to describe the separation between the church and the state but
is something that is a subject of disagreement and confusion. Thus, it is very hard to impose that
there should be absolute separation between the church and the state.

Third, why is it necessary to have no absolute separation between the Church and the State? To
give way to the system of check and balance. The Philippine is adopting the system of check and
balance wherein the different branches of the government can oversight the conduct of the other
whether it is still on the bounds of the Constitution. But if we are to apply this outside the
government structure we can say that the way the church expresses its views or stands on highly
political matters does not violate the doctrine of the separation between the church and the state,
it is a way of over sighting the conduct of the government if it is on the bound of the Constitution
and if the government is doing its responsibility of promoting common good. One element of
good governance is participation this means that all citizens are given opportunity to participate
and involve themselves in the conduct of the government. As Filipinos, the priests and all the
churchmen have the rights to be involved in government or to speak on secular matters including
politics from a spiritual and moral point of view as provided on the free exercise of religion and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship.

Fourth, the US Constitution on which the Philippine Constitution is based strictly observed
separation and benevolent neutrality, the Philippines is for the most part, benevolent neutrality
which gives room for accommodation. Impliedly, in the Philippine setting the doctrine of the
separation between the church and the state is not absolute.

In a speech before the Manila Rotarians on July 24, 1979, Jaime Cardinal Sin said: the
Church and the State are two entities that play an important role in our life let us keep them
separate by all means but let us not interpret separation from segregation. Let us believe that they
can work hand in hand, separate but parallel like the two tracks on the railroad leading to the
same destination.

So, honorable adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion we on the negative side firmly
believe that there should be no absolute separation between the church and the state.