Panelo shrugs off call to sue bishops over anti-terror law

Panelo said he would not fall prey to Pabillo’s call that would merely put the government at a disadvantage. (File photo: Office of the Presidential Spokesperson/Facebook)

MANILA – Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo on Tuesday turned down the call of a Catholic bishop to file a case against religious leaders who expressed opposition to Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

In a press statement, Panelo said it is “amusing and disturbing” that Bishop Broderick Pabillo, apostolic administrator of Manila Archdiocese, is challenging him to sue church leaders for criticizing the passage of the country’s new anti-terrorism law.

Panelo said he would not fall prey to Pabillo’s call that would merely put the government at a disadvantage.

“We will simply shrug off such challenge. Pursuing such an action would only give them the excuse to decry government suppression, silencing of voices, and weaponization of the law, similar to what detractors and critics recite when they are hailed to court for their transgressions,” he said.

On Monday, Pabillo said Panelo may file a case against members of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), if the Palace official thinks they commit a violation for writing a letter which questions the controversial anti-terror law.

Pabillo issued the call after Panelo on Sunday accused the CBCP of using its religious influence to pressure the Supreme Court (SC) to decide against RA 11479.

The CBCP, in its pastoral letter, backed the petitions challenging the Anti-Terror Act as it expressed disbelief as to how it was “fast-tracked” in Congress while the country is grappling with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

On Sunday, Panelo said the bishops’ letter seemed to have violated the doctrine on the separation of Church and State as mandated by the 1987 Constitution.

Panelo, in his latest remarks, clarified that he did not make a “categorical nor a conclusive” assertion that the pastoral letter violated the constitutional principle on the separation of the Church and State.

“The constitutional provision was quoted as an admonition on the separation of the Church and State in view of the CBCP’s unequivocal attempt at influencing the Supreme Court to decide against the [Anti-Terror Act] in relation to the pending cases before it,” he said.

Panelo also stressed that the government acknowledges the right of members of the clergy to express their advocacy or dissent on certain issues.

“However, when members of their top ranks, collectively, in the name of their religion, exert pressure and influence on a purely governmental process by publicly posting a powerful rhetorical question such as: ‘Will the highest level of our Judiciary assert its independence, or will they, too, succumb to political pressure?’, they cross the line that separates the church and state,” he said.

Stop interfering

Panelo said the CBCP “surrendered its independence and succumbed to political pressure” when it “recklessly and unfairly” creates a perception that SC should ultimately decide against the anti-terror law.

He said the Church’s influence on the decision-making process of the country’s leaders cannot be ignored.

“History teaches us how our leaders refuse to take positions against the contemporary beliefs of the Church on public policy due to the latter’s clout in our country and citizenry,” Panelo said.

Panelo added that religious leaders should stop meddling in “purely political or temporal matters.”

“It is for this reason that the Church should not attempt to interfere in purely political or temporal matters; otherwise, with its strong persuasion, they are to dictate how the nation should run its earthly affairs — a clear derogation of the separation principle,” he said.

RA 11479, signed by President Rodrigo Duterte on July 3, repeals RA 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007 to boost the government’s fight against terrorism.

Under the law, any person who threatens or proposes to commit terror acts will face the penalty of 12-year imprisonment.

At least 10 petitions have been lodged against RA 11479 before the Supreme Court.