Finals

 Reading  Articles  
 
R1  
 
Separation  of  Church  and  State  
By  Archbishop  Oscar  V.  Cruz,  D.D.  
It   is   in   accord   with   the   dictate   of   reason   and   the   light   of   faith   that   the   Church   should   be  
separated   from   the   State—and   the   State   from   the   Church.   There   are   solid   arguments   in  
favor   of   this   disjunction,   some   of   which   are   rather   elementary   and   practical―such   as  
the  following:    One,  while  each  and  every  individual  is  a  citizen  of  a  State,  not  all  citizens  
are  members  of  a  Church.     Two,  while  the  basic  interest  of  the  State  is  in  the  realm  of  
the   temporal   order,   the   fundamental   concern   of   the   Church   is   in   the   spiritual  
domain.     Three,   and   while   the   State   has   and   follows   a   political   structure,   the   Church  
subscribes  to  and  acts  in  the  ecclesiastical  order.  It  is  not  hard  to  imagine  what  would  
happen  if  any  of  the  following  phenomena  were  to  take  place:  First,  if  the  Pope  runs  the  
Philippine   government   and   the   President   were   the   head   of   the   Church   in   the  
Philippines.  Second,  if  Filipino  bishops  campaign  for     election  to  public  offices  and  
public   officials   in   turn   run   for   election   to   Church   offices.   Third,   if   priests   become  
politicians   and   politicians   become   priests.    Just   the   thought   of   such   possibilities   make  
the   stomach   turn.This   is   why   only   the   Vatican   City   State,   Europe,   is   governed   by   the  
Pope.    
The  State  has  its  own  territorial  confines.  It  is  the  center  of  Catholic  Church.  It  is  the  site  
where  faith  and  morals  are  defined,  where  law  are  enacted  for  the  observance  of  the  
Church  all  over  the  globe.  It  has  its  own  coinage  and  stamps.  It  has  diplomatic  relations  
with   other   States   according   to   the   Geneva   Convention.   It   is   the   one   and   only   place  
where  there  is  a  union  between  the  Church  and  the  State.  And  that  is  enough.But  the  
mantra  of  “Separation  of  Church  and  State”  in  no  way  means  that  the  Church  should  be  
silent  and  stay  still  about  the  faith  She  professes  and/or  about  the  morals  She  spouses.  
People—even  the  so-­‐called  “Catholics”—may  not  listen  to  Her.  This  is  their  option,  their  
responsibility,  their  accountability.  After  all,  not  even  everyone  in  his  time  listened  and  
followed  what  Christ  Himself  proclaimed  and  affirmed.  This  was  precisely  why  He  was  
crucified,  He  was  killed!But  just  the  same,  the  Church  has  no  option  but  to  correct  what  
is  wrong,  to  denounce  what  is  vicious,  to  proclaim  what  is  righteous—even  in  politics,  
even   among   politicians.   The   Church   may   not   simply   waive   the   obligation   to   talk   when  
supposedly  statesmen  are  the  very  ones  destroying  the  State,  when  pretentiously  public  
officials  demean  human  life,  offend  against  human  dignity,  violate  human  rights,  bring  
the  people  to  poverty  and  misery.  It  would  not  only  be  very  convenient  but  also  quite  
profitable  if  the  Church  would  behave  like  the  famous  three  monkeys  who  hear  nothing,  
see  nothing,  say  nothing―and  do  nothing.  This  is  exactly  how  many  local  churches  and  
congregations  go  about  it.  They  simply  address  heavenly  concerns  and  thus  steps  in  no  
one’s   toes   here   on   earth.They   altogether   concentrate   addressing   the   glory   of   God   while  
forgetting   the   misery   of   man.   From   the   President   of   the   land   to   the   garbage  
collector―they   remain   covered   by   the   10   Commandments.   When   they   violate   any  
thereof,  the  Church  speaks.  The  Church  acts.  
  
R2  
 
GHOSTS  OF  MARTIAL  LAW  
By:  Ricardo  De  Los  Santos  
             On  September  23,  1972,   Philippine   President   Ferdinand   E.   Marcos   declared   martial  
law   in   response   to   country-­‐wide   bombings,   massive   social   unrest,   and   the   threat   of  
communist  insurgents.  For  more  than  eight  years,  Martial  Law  dictated  the  actions  and  
suppression   of   the   Filipino   nation   –   it   was   a   time   of   great   fear,   deception   and  
censorship,  caused  by  Marcos,  together  with  his  wife  Imelda  and  his  military.  Through  
the   leadership,   however,   of   slain   statesman   Ninoy   Aquino,   his   widow   Cory,   and  
disgruntled   Marcos   men   Juan   Ponce   Enrile   and   Fidel   V.   Ramos,   the   Filipinos   rose   up  
against  the  tyrannous  regime,  culminating  in  the  People  Power  Revolution  of  1986.  With  
peaceful   mass   uprising   paired   with   limited   armed   conflict,   the   revolution   was   successful  
in   toppling   the   regime   and   reassured   the   greatness   of   the   freedom-­‐loving   Filipino.   On  
the   other   hand,   it   seems   as   if   the   specters   of   martial   law   have   come   back   after   decades  
of   wanted   absence.   Be   it   in   the   form   of   personalities,   events   or   actions,   Martial   Law  
continues   to   haunt   today’s   society.   Therefore,   one   must   take   a   look   back   on   those   days  
of  history  and  compare  it  to  those  of  contemporary  times.  Through  this,  I  believe,  one  
can  take  proper  action  towards  these  specters,  and  maintain  the  honor  and  give  justice  
to   the   revolution   during   the   latter   days   of   February   1986.   Former   first   lady   Imelda  
Marcos,  for  instance,  is  now  back  in  the  country’s  limelight,  and  for  ostensibly  no  good  
reason.   In   fact,   after   returning   to   the   country   from   exile   in   1991,   Mrs.   Marcos   has  
garnered  needless  acclaim  and  has  evaded  much  of  the  criminal  charges  against  her.  
              After   years   of   embezzling   public   funds   for   personal   luxury   items   (more   than   1000  
pairs   of   shoes),   costly   buildings   (CCP   and   Film   Center)   and   lavish   events,   as   well   as  
holding  appointed  yet  unfitting  government  positions  (Governor  of  Metro  Manila),  she  
was   able   to   return   to   the   country   in   1991   after   the   Marcos   family’s   exile   in   Hawaii  
following   the   People   Power   Revolution.   On   her   return,   she   faced   around   900   criminal  
and  civil  cases,  but  most  have  been  dismissed  or  acquitted  Mrs.  Marcos.  She  has  yet  to  
serve  time  in  prison.  Moreover,  she  was  able  to  attain  power  as  elected  congresswoman  
of  her  native  province  Leyte  in  1995.  Recently,  she  celebrated  her  80th  birthday  in  usual  
“Imeldific”  fashion.  Mrs.  Marcos  wore  her  signature  terno  (Philippine  traditional  dress)  
and  was  decked  out  in  jewelry.  Her  posh  party,  along  with  her  high  society  guests  and  
friends   (who   according   to   her   paid   for   the   event),   was   highlighted   by   confetti   and  
fireworks.   This   is   definitely   contrary   to   her   proclaimed   struggle   to   provide   for   herself,  
together  with  her  reliance  on  her  late  husband’s  war  veteran  pension  and  her  children’s  
support.  Additionally,  generations  that  did  not  experience  the  Marcos  years  and  Martial  
Law  look  at  her  as  a  subject  of  profound  interest  and  even  symbol  of  Filipino  elegance.  
             Harrowing   events   of   the   past   couple   of   weeks   also   stir   sentiments   of   martial   law  
recurrence.   First,   there   was   the   bombing   of   the   Office   of   the   Ombudsman   in   Manila.  
Days  later,  it  was  followed  by  more  bomb  threats  and  discovery  of  unexploded  devices  
around   the   metropolis.   In   Mindanao,   bombs   in   the   central   and   western   regions  
terrorized  the  population,  leaving  at  least  8  dead  and  hundreds  more  wounded.  Just  this  
morning,  news  of  terrorists  in  the  Metro  Manila  is  putting  authorities  on  alert.  This  has  
lead   to   the   assumption   of   opposition   members,   like   Makati   Mayor   and   United  
Opposition   President   Jejomar   Binay,   that   the   Arroyo   administration   is   behind   the  
bombings  in  order  to  facilitate  emergency  rule.  Bombs  across  the  nation,  the  opposition  
suggests,   would   not   only   terrorize   the   populace,   but   also   justify   the   proclamation   of  
emergency  executive  powers  such  as  martial  law.  Even  members  of  the  administration  
further   this   assumption.   National   Security   Adviser   Norberto   Gonzales   declared   that  
these   bombings   could   very   well   result   in   the   administration   using   its   “iron   fist”.   Such  
were   the   events,   too,   of   1972,   when   Pres.   Ferdinand   Marcos   declared   martial   law.  
Bombings   around   the   metropolis   were   rampant,   whether   caused   by   communist  
elements  or  orchestrated  by  the  president  in  Malacanang.  As  it  turns  out,  the  “ambush”  
on  then  Defense  Minister  Juan  Ponce  Enrile’s  car  was  premeditated  by  the  authorities,  
and  occurred  exactly  a  day  before  the  proclamation  of  martial  law  on  September  1972.  
The  law  would  last  for  almost  9  years  and  lead  to  arrests  of  Marcos’  enemies,  censorship  
of   the   media,   and   strong   military   participation   in   stately   affairs.   Indeed,   it   is   a   valid  
impression   that   the   specters   of   old   are   re-­‐emerging.   Martial   law   is   again   audible   in  
people’s   discussions   and   concerns.   With   carelessness,   historical   amnesia   and   apathy,  
the  elements  that  caused  much  indignation  to  the  country  decades  ago  may  very  well  
do  the  same  today.  
 
R3  
 
Philippine  Congress  extends  Mindanao  martial  law  until  end-­‐2019  
MANILA  (Reuters)  -­‐  The  Philippine  Congress  approved  a  12-­‐month  extension  of  martial  
law   in   the   restive   Mindanao   region   on   Wednesday,   after   President   Rodrigo   Duterte  
argued   for   maintaining   tough   security   measures   to   stop   Muslim   extremists   from  
regrouping.  A  joint  legislative  session  voted  235-­‐28  in  favor  of  retaining  military  rule  in  
Mindanao   until   the   end   of   2019,   prolonging   what   was   already   the   country’s   longest  
period   of   martial   law   since   the   brutal   1970s   era   of   late   dictator   Ferdinand   Marcos.  
Mindanao’s   mostly   poor   Muslim   areas   have   for   decades   been   troubled   by   banditry,  
piracy  and  armed  rebellions  by  separatist  and  communist  militias,  some  of  which  have  
been  managed  by  truces  and  decentralization  moves.  However,  May  last  year  saw  the  
eruption   of   the   country’s   fiercest   conflict   since   World   War   Two,   when   an   alliance   of  
extremists   seeking   to   create   an   Islamic   State   enclave   attacked   and   held   Marawi   City  
through   five   months   of   government   air   strikes   and   ground   offensives.   “Notwithstanding  
the  substantial  gains  achieved  during  the  martial  law  period,  we  cannot  turn  a  blind  eye  
to   the   reality   that   Mindanao   is   in   the   midst   of   rebellion,”   Duterte   wrote   in   a   letter   to  
Congress.  Duterte’s  spokesman  and  the  military  thanked  lawmakers  after  the  vote,  and  
said  rights  and  civil  liberties  would  be  preserved  under  martial  law  intended  to  prevent  
radical   groups   from   expanding   beyond   Mindanao.   Opposition   lawmakers   said   the  
extension  was  unjustified  because  there  was  no  longer  a  rebellion  to  quell.  “It  makes  me  
wonder,   is   this   the   new   normal?”   Senator   Franklin   Drilon   told   the   session.  
Representative   Edcel   Lagman   said   what   remained   of   Islamic   State’s   allies   in   Mindanao  
were  “quixotic  and  phantom  fighters  who  are  unable  to  revive  a  vanquished  ‘rebellion’  
or  launch  a  new  one.”