4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly any religion, in contrast with the Spanish crown which established a national religion during the colonial period. Strictly reading Article III, Section 5 ensures the inviolability of the separation of Church and State, which separation is notably unqualified and should therefore be absolute. The exclusion of Villaflor from membership in Abiko Baptist Church is clearly ecclesiastical in nature. It involves "the relationship between the church and its members and relates to matters of. . . worship and governance of the congregation."[3] The free exercise clause, in as much as it guarantees the right of individuals to freely exercise any religion of their own choosing, equally guarantees the right of religious institutions to determine who may personify their doctrines and beliefs. However, I am of the opinion that the removal of Villaflor as missionary/minister was not purely secular; rather, it was an ecclesiastical decision. It is true that employeremployee relationships are covered by the Labor Code, and that a religious institution like Abiko Baptist Church may form employer-employee relationships. Still, more than an employment decision, removing a missionary/minister inevitably involves the governance of a religious congregation. Being a minister is a position of leadership in the church, involving the teaching of religious doctrine to the faithful. Mission work requires evangelizing non-believers, equally involving matters of religious doctrine and worship. Necessarily, employment decisions of churches with respect to their ministers are ecclesiastical in nature. The State cannot compel a church to reinstate a minister that it has decided to remove, for not only will it inevitably and excessively entangle itself with matters of religion, it will be effectively dictating to a religious institution who its officials should be. I am aware of this Court's decision in Austria v. National Labor Relations Commission. [4] In that case, Dionisio V. Austria (Austria) served, first, as a literature evangelist; then, as an Assistant Publishing Director before becoming a pastor in Central Philippine Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh-Day Adventists. He served the Seventh-Day Adventists for 28 years until his services were terminated for failing to account for church tithes and offerings collected by his wife. This caused Austria to file an illegal dismissal complaint, and the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor and ordered his reinstatement. Reversing the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.[5] Austria, who appealed before this Court, and the Office of the Solicitor General, while appearing for the National Labor Relations Commission, interestingly argued that the Commission wrongly dismissed Austria's illegal dismissal complaint. According to the Office of the Solicitor General, the validity of the termination of Austria's employment was a controversy within the National Labor Relations Commission's jurisdiction, as it was secular in nature.[6] This Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General, holding that the "principle of separation of church and state finds no application in [the] case."[7] It found that "the matter of terminating an employee''[8] is "purely secular in nature"[9] and does not involve "the practice of faith, worship 9r doctrines of the church,"[10] matters traditionally regarded as ecclesiastical affairs. The Labor Code, said the Court, is https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66079 10/24