4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly To be sure, the ponencia recognizes the distinction between ecclesiastical and secular matters, and the corresponding exercise of jurisdiction of the civil courts. This underscores the Philippine Constitution's commitment to the separation of Church and State, as well as the preferential treatment it gives to the right to exercise one's religion. The provision on religion in Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is substantially the same as in the 1935[2] and 1973[3] Constitutions: "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." The 1934 Constitutional Convention accepted the basic provision without debate,[4] and paved the way for the adoption of interpretations of this provision from the United States (US), its country of origin. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC[5] (HossanaTabor), the US Supreme Court provided the historical backdrop for the adoption of the First Amendment's Non-Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.[6] Hossana-Tabor traced the beginnings of the Non-Establishment clause from the first clause of the Magna Carta.[7] In 1215, King John of England agreed with the Archbishop of Canterbury's proposal that the English Church shall be free, there will be no diminution of the English Church's rights nor impairment of its liberties, and there shall be freedom in the elections in the English Church. This freedom, however, existed only in theory. For example, through the First Act of Supremacy in 1534,[8] King Henry VIII declared himself "the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England." Thus, the founding generation of the US institutionalized its desire to remove the government from church matters in their Constitution: By forbidding the "establishment of religion" and guaranteeing the "free exercise thereof," the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.[9] This exclusion of government participation in church matters was subsequently challenged in court. The deference test was initially articulated by the US Supreme Court in Watson v. Jones.[10] The property dispute in Watson arose from a difference in the positions of the church authorities about slavery. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church was against slavery. Watson, on the other hand, was a member of the Walnut Street Church Session, which was the governing body of the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, and was for slavery. Majority of the members of the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church took the view of the General Assembly. The General Assembly removed Watson as an elder of the church and filed a case against Watson and his followers to prevent them from possessing church property. The US Supreme Court formulated the deference test to resolve the dispute in Watson. The Court deferred to the decision of the General Assembly when it removed Watson as https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66079 16/24