Case Study - Justice in the World/Social SinA. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago made her comment after ranking members of the CBCP, including its incoming President Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, said that the dismissal of the impeachment case against Ms. Arroyo did not signal the end of the political crisis and of the people’s search for truth. Her comments are the following:
(a.) the role of the church is to guide the morality of its flock, not to meddle in politics; (b.) the CBCP or even the individual bishops should consider what is the implication of Pope Benedict’s advocacy that the church should keep itself insulated from domestic politics; (c.) if the church comes in and tries to pressure or to advocate among Catholics that there should be disrespect or disregard for the judgment of the house, under the guise of calling for the so-called truth… she feared a possible “violation of the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state”; (d.) the function of the church is to guide the morality of its parishioners. The function of the State is to ensure that there is peace and order, and for this reason, it has the exclusive jurisdiction over legal, political and judicial issues; (e.) it would be “acceptable” if a single priest or a nun expressed an opinion on whether the dismissal of the impeachment case was proper or not, given that all citizens were entitled to express their opinions on national policy issues. But the moment the church uses its institutional power to try and instigate people to disrespect the Houses’ judgment, then it might be guilty of violating the principle; (f.) the Catholic Church should not join the divisions in society by taking one position or other in a political issue… if the church takes a definite position on who is right and who is wrong, then it is possible that it will be contributing to the divisions in society. The church should focus, not on politics, but on guiding the morality of its flock. (PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, September 9, 2005). Do you agree with what the senator said? Why? B. In reaction to what the senator said, individual bishop expressed the following comments as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer dated September 10, 2005: “The CBCP could not divorce itself from moral issues. We cannot confine ourselves to the sacristy. We also have to involve ourselves in moral issues affecting our people” (Msgr. Hernando Coronel, CBCP secretary general). “Keeping silent on the immoral acts of politicians would be tantamount to betraying the task given by Christ to the bishops to teach gospel lessons. The principle of right and wrong, bad and good, applies to politics and politicians. Bishops always speak on the basis of Gospel truth and moral principles. If the CBCP speaks about lying, cheating and stealing – though this can be done by political figure – they remain moral issues and, consequently, the CBCP has to address them.” (Msgr. Oscar Cruz) “… it is impossible to truly love one’s neighbor without engaging in politics. When CBCP confronts concrete cases of cruel injustice being inflicted on men and women, our commitment to love inevitably leads us to confrontations with those who control our politics” (Msgr. Leonardo Legaspi). Questions: 1.) Do you agree with what the individual bishop said about the issue? Why? 2.) Why does the Church in the Philippines involve itself today in politics more than it has done perhaps in the recent past? 3.) Are there teachings in the Church like Vatican ll, PCP ll, or Social Encyclicals and teachings of the Scripture that mandate the Philippine Church to involve in Politics? What are their directives? C. Centuries ago, the Spaniards came and conquered the Philippines. As conquerors they of course wanted to live in all comfort and wealth. To accomplish this, the Spaniards made servants of the natives through forced labor, and took off their wealth through the encomienda and the hacienda systems. Today, the Philippines is still under foreign powers. The Filipino government officials are but servants, as it were, of those who really rule these lands, the foreign powers. There is the International Monetary Fund, dictating to the Pilippine government the economic policies it has to follow. It is enough to look at the corporations that dominate Philippine businesses. Practically all are foreign corporations or joint ventures with foreigners. Caltex, Colgate-Palmolive, Procter and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, Avon, Parke-Davis, Del Monte, Dole Swift, Nestle, Philip Morris, Marlboro, Kodak, Kimberly Clark, General Electric, Philips, Olympia, IBM, Levi, Adidas, Nike, Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, McDonald, Kentucky Chicken, Firestone, Goodyear, Isuzu, Sony, Seiko, Sanyo. These and so many other foreign companies or joint ventures suck the wealth of the Philippines. D. On tax privileges for agriculture: The basic policy on taxation is that taxes be in accordance with the capabilities of people. Richer people should be taxed more, while the poor should be taxed less, if at all. Since agriculture lags far behind industry, its taxes as a rule should be less. Furthermore, in agriculture the returns for one’s capital comes long after the investment, at harvest time namely, some five months after planting, depending on the kind of crops. The product is also subject to so much risks. Floods or typhoons or pests could ruin the whole investment in so short a time. All these factors call for tax incentives for agriculture. But what happen is the contrary, industry receives more tax privileges than agriculture; tax incentives in agriculture are generally given to the rich investors, not to the ordinary peasants. While investors both local and foreign are given many tax incentives and privileges, the peasants together with the common people are burdened with the taxes. And there is no relief in sight. With billions of dollars of still unpaid debt, the rich industrial countries through its agency, the International Monetary Fund, pressure the Philippine government to raise more taxes with which it could pay foreign debts. And the government obeys. And since taxes in the Philippines are generally indirect, the common people, of whom the peasants constitute the majority, shoulder the burden. So big are the taxes borne by them, that an economic research group estimates: “at least 27% of the income of poor families goes to taxes while higher income families pay only 18% of their income. The hardest hit group appears to be middle-income families who pay 32.11% of their income to taxes."(Ibon: Facts and Figures, March 15, 1990) |
|