Taxing benevolence

Freedom of religion is probably the most complex of protected rights. Ironically, the Philippine Constitution capsulated the issue into one strong, loaded short sentence: “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable”.

The Church should not have a say in government or meddle in government affairs. Tough, because public welfare is a government function. But what good is a Church if it preaches faith yet is indifferent to the plight of people and what happens on the ground?

Government may not restrict even indirectly, but on the other hand, laws and rules should shy from being religion-specific as it could mean favoring having a religion, or worse, favoring a specific religion. Tough, because people in government have religion, too. And how can you ensure free exercise without granting any concessions?

Take this landmark case involving a school in Cebu which expelled its student because the student refused to join the flag ceremony and refused to salute the Philippine flag. The student, a Jehovah’s Witness, claimed that he is prevented from doing any other form of worship. And the entire flag ceremony is a type of worship. The Supreme Court protected the refusal as part of religious freedom. Apart from, maybe, lack of respect for the symbol of one’s own country, the court saw no “clear and present danger” from this refusal to conform. The case also implies that if times were different, such as if the country is at war, such refusal to salute the flag or join the national anthem would be an issue of loyalty to the country. Hence, the claim of free exercise may not survive then. But the country is not at war, and the government can afford the policy of “benevolent accommodation”.

Benevolent accommodation recognizes that there can be no perfect law in the sense that every law may potentially impact on a religious practice or freedom. Thus, it is better to have some exemption rather than no law at all. It is the same policy that justifies the grant of tax exemptions to religious organizations. And this would also be an apt discussion because of the forthcoming visit mid-January next year of Pope Francis.

Donations to religious organizations are not subject to donor’s tax because they need to be self-sustaining. All their funds must come from donations of the faithful. While they cannot be subsidized by government, they are given exemptions so that their funds will not be burdened by taxes. In a way, tax could make the free exercise of religion more burdensome and thus result to a constitutionally invalid restriction. Donors are even incentivized in that their donations can be availed as a fully deductible expense. Note however that the donation should either be to a duly accredited or locally registered organization, or should be made to an international organization like the Roman Catholic church, governmentalized through the Vatican State, personalized through the Pope. For obvious reasons, international organizations in this case need not be accredited locally because their international prominence is equivalent to registration.

There is in fact complexity in the personalities of the Pope. He is the head of State, of the Vatican. He is the head of the Catholic Church. But more so, the Pope as a function and as a person is a historical figure. Which brings us to the inconvenient but necessary question of whether the government can spend, or how much can the government spend, for the Papal visit without infringing on the wall the separates Church and State. Or in legal parlance, without resulting to establishing or favoring a religion.

For me, the answer is slightly simpler, and should be the same answer to the question: Will spending for the Pope favor the country and the Filipino in general? With the eyes of the world all in the Philippines alone, the answer will be a resounding yes. More than a religious event, this is a historical event.

The policy of austerity that Pope Francis has displayed thus far should also be the guideline on how much the government can spend. Apart from security and convenience, little else more can be rationalized outside of his own desire of dodging political receptions. He wants to go straight to Tacloban and be with people still affected by, and recovering from Typhoon Haiyan. And the government will really do well in redirecting funds for more relief and rehabilitation as in fact every peso spent on a delicious plate of reception dinner is peso taken away from the survivors.

For the Pope with the most inclusive perspective, and who wields a gentle sword to uplift lives, bring hope and inspiration, for a moment, all must concede that our laws and rules were made by the mere minds of men.