Archive for the ‘Iglesis ni Cristo’ Category

Warrant of Arrest Menorca

[NOTE: The one they arrested for libel (1/ 19/2016) is Lowell Menorca II, former INC minister, but the one on warrant of arrest is Lowell Menorca III. Below is ABS-CBN”s Ted Failon interviewing].

Ted Failon: Pwede bang makuha yung pangalan ng … yung pangalan ng pulis ngayon diyan. Ano ang pangalan niya, ano ang rango niya, anong presinto siya.

On Phone: Sir ano po ang pangalan nyo sir? Ano pong pangalan po ninyo?

 Supt. Ed Leonardo.

Ted Failon: Anong istasyon? Anong presinto?

On phone: Ano daw pong istasyon? Presinto?

Supt. Ed Leonardo: Police Station 10 po.

Ted Failon: Police Station 10. Pwede bang matanong si Police superintendent? Ano ang hawak niyang papel ngayon para arestuhin ka?

On phone: Ito po, sandali po.

Supt. Ed Leonardo: Opo sir.

Ted Failon: Magandang umaga po sir, Superintendent. Ano po ang inyong basehan para po arestuhin si Lowell Menorca?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Meron po kaming warrant galing po ng Marawi City.

Ted Failon: Marawi City?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Opo.

Ted Failon: Ano pong paglabag?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Libel lang naman po ang kaso niya at bailable naman. Kaya lang, nung sine-serve eh nagkaroon po ng commotion dahil nanlaban po yung mga kasama niya pati siya.

Ted Failon: Opo. Kasi po, ang clain po ni Lowell, eh meron pong mga hindi naka unipormeng pulis na sumunggab sa kanya. Siguro naman po natakot yung tao.

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Para lang po iyon makalapit pero nakapalibot po yung mga naka unipormeng pulis. Meron pong mga body guard siya.

Ted Failon: Pero sandali lang, bakit ho kayo magpapalapit ng hindi naka uniporme. Di ho ba mas tama, mas dapat o tama na ang lalapit ay naka uniporme?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Hindi po. Ang pag monitor po sa kanya ay naka civilian po na mga pulis natin para po hindi siya makahalata na merong pulis dahil po may warrant siya. Baka maaaring mag i-wave siya ng arrest o [Not audible]. Nung inaresto na po siya eh puro naka uniporme na po ang nakapalibot sa kanya. At nung binabasa po yung warrant na sini-serve sa kanya, inagaw po nung babae at sinampal pa yung pulis. Yun ang masaklap dito. Tapos gumawa po sila ng commotion para hindi siya mahuli.

Ted Failon: Sinampal ho yung pulis?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Opo. Sinampal po nung babae na matanda.

Ted Failon: Yung naka unipormeng pulis, sinampal?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Hindi po naka uniporme yung pulis.

Ted Failon: Yun nga po, kasi kung ikaw man din, di ba, kung ikaw man din po kasi ang may mga pagbabanta sa buhay, susunggaban ka ng mga naka civilian na tao, palagay ko naman, mauunawaan naman po ninyo, supt, di ba, matatakot ka rin?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Opo naintindihan po namin yun. Kaya naman po nagpakilala agad. At nung lumapit ay naka palibot naman po ang mga pulis nan aka uniporme na katunayan na mga legal po na mga awtoridad ang dumadakip sa kanya.

Ted Failon: Sige po. Ngayon po, supt, kayo ho ba ay sumisiguro ho ng kaniyang seguridad?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Opo. Ako po mismo ang sasama sa kanya, dadalhin po namin siya sa istasyon para po idokumento. At kung gusto niyang mag piyansa, eh right po niya yan, eh sasamahan pa rin po namin siya para makapag piyansa. Yun lang po. Wala pong masamang plano sa kanya kundi mai-serve lang po yung warrant. Yun lamang po.

Ted Failon: Kayo ho ba ay miyembro ng Iglesia din, spt.?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Opo. Opo. Ako’y tinawag lang para sumunod dito.

Ted Failon: Kayo po’y miyembro din ng Iglesia ni Cristo?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Opo. Opo. Member po ako.

Ted Failon: Opo, kasi po, I hope you don’t mind me saying this, siyempre po, di ho ba, alam po naman ninyo ang nangyayari po sa inyong simbahan, may away. Hindi ho ba? So…

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Yun pong mga bagay na yun, eh… hindi ko na po pupuwedeng makipag discuss sa inyo yung mga bagay na yan.

Ted Failon: Kaya nga po, kaya nga po, but with all due respect, Supt., siguro nauunawaan naman din po ninyo, yung hinuhuli po, itiniwalag ninyo – ng inyo pong simbahan, meron po silang alitan po sa inyong mga pinuno, kayo po ay miyembro ng Iglesiang aktibo, but… you know what I am saying, right?

Spt. Ed Leonardo: Naiintindihan ko po yung iniisip ninyo. Pero nandito para po i-serve lang po yung warrant.

Ted Failon: Yes sir, opo, opo. Opo, sige po, Supt. , ang atin lang po lamang yung safety ni G. Menorca at mabigyan po ng siguridad po yung tao at yun pong kanyang karapatan po naman ay mabigyan po ng proteksiyon. Salamat po, Supt.

 Spt. Ed Leonardo: Maraming salamat po, Sir Ted.

 

Source: ABS-CBN News 
Published on January 19, 2016
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3awSlZo4RE&feature=youtu.be
[Interview by Ted Failon]
Transcribed by Florafe Corotan
Advertisements

Screen Shot 2015-01-16 at 20.00.52

 

 

 

 

 

Nikko Galicia

[FEU Law Legal Writing], December 5, 2014

WON: Church and State

Philippines is known for being a Christian nation in Asia, majority of people (90%) being of the Christian faith. [1] Our country is also known as a secular nation with a constitutional separation of church and state. [2] This separation is stated in our Constitution, under the Declaration of Principles, Bill of Rights, even in the Legislative Department. [3] Although, until now, the separation between the Church and State is still not clearly defined.

Earlier this year, a legal action has been filed against the Philippine Postal Corporation, for its issuance of postage stamps commemorating the 100th founding anniversary of Iglesia ni Cristo, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution on sponsorship of the religious activity. [4] The provision he raised reads:

“Article VI, Section 29. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher xxx”

Government officials commented on the matter, and both former Governor Dela Cruz and Presidential Spokesman Lacierda believes that the stamps are not unconstitutional, as they are only commemorative. [5]

A similar case has already been decided way back 1937 in Aglipay v. Ruiz, in issuance of postage stamp in commemorating the Eucharistic Assembly in Manila. [6] It was ruled in favor of the Government, explaining that the purpose and intent of the issuance was not for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Government was only taking advantage of the event to raise funds as authorized by the law.

In a 1971 case decided by the US Supreme Court, it is where the “Lemon” test was introduced to determine the involvement of the Church in any Government activities. [7] Although the case has been decided in the US, it could be used as a guideline in Philippine courts. Lemon test have these points to answer; Purpose, Effect, Entanglement. On these three points, courts can determine if the intent of the law or government activity does support any system of religion. [8]

Given these laws, cases, and guidelines, Philippine government may say that there is indeed a separation of the Church and State, however, it is not clear where does the line that separates them reside, and we can only rely on the adversarial system to set that line for us.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Philippines

[2] Id.
[3] 1987 Philippine Constitution,
Article II, Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
Article III, Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI, Section 29. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

[4] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/615126/taxpayer-sues-phlpost-over-iglesia-ni-cristo-postage-stamp
[5] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/610819/is-phlposts-iglesia-ni-cristo-stamp-unconstitutional
[6] Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, 64 Phil. 206, March 13, 1937
[7] http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2011/0713_santiago1.asp
[8] Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602, June 28, 1971

By BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ JR.

June 2, 2014

Posted on Philippine Daily Inquirer

I am intrigued by recent news reports disclosing that the government, through the Philippine Postal Corp., has authorized a special issue of commemorative postage stamps to mark the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC). The design of the stamp shows a portrait of Felix Y. Manalo and the main temple building of the INC in Quezon City with the words “Iglesia ni Cristo Centennial and First Executive Minister” inscribed thereon.

An interesting constitutional question that is provoked is whether or not the issuing of said stamps violates the constitutional ban against the appropriation and payment of public funds for the benefit or support of any sect, church, sectarian institution or system of religion (Section  29(2), Article VI, 1987 Constitution) which is a direct corollary of the principle of separation of church and state (Section 6, Article II, 1987 Constitution).

The INC is unquestionably a religious sect, church or sectarian institution. As I see it, the issuance of the stamps in question is assailable on constitutional grounds insofar as it entails the appropriation and payment of public money that redound to the benefit and support of the INC. It is evidently the purpose of the stamp issue to focus attention on the INC religion. The publicity engendered and the resulting propaganda received by the INC are quite obvious.

I see no legitimate secular objective of the appropriation of public funds for issuing the stamps in question. Nor am I aware of any government event, occasion or activity of public interest or significance to be commemorated thereby. There is, in fact, every reason to assume that the issuance of the INC stamp is per se inspired by a sectarian feeling to favor or benefit the INC.

In all candor, I am intolerant of any attempt, such as the issuance of the stamps in question, to infringe a constitutional inhibition. I cannot relish the idea of our government undertaking an activity that may trigger the belief that it is taking sides or favoring a particular religious sect. I am even tempted to assume that the functionaries concerned made use of poor judgment or were ill-advised in issuing the stamps in question.

INC dapat makipagdebate kay Bro. Eli Soriano

Old post, Standing issue. The challenge of Bro. Eli Soriano to the INC. Reporter Bening Batuigas said>>

Kung ako ang tatanungin parang nakikinikinita ko na sa susunod na mga araw, itong si Soriano ay sa kalaboso ang babagsakan. Hindi biro ang impluwensiya ng INC, di ba mga suki? Dapat sigurong tanggapin na ng INC itong hamon na debate ni Soriano para matapos na ang sigalot na namamagitan sa kanila.

(TRANS: If I would be asked, as if I can see that in the coming days, this Soriano will be imprisoned as his fate. The influence of the INC is not a joke, right? Perhaps the INC should accept now the debate challenge of Soriano to settle the differences between them.)