IT WAS reported that Senator Manny Pacquiao has pushed to expedite the Senate’s approval to re-impose death penalty. His remark came after the Catholic Church changed an item in its universal catechism, thus emphasizing the “inadmissibility” of death penalty.
Pacquiao, a Born-again christian, argued that death penalty is justifiable because it is in the bible. He insists on the authority of the government to enforce death penalty because scripture says so.
In all honesty, I do not see anything admirable with the boxer-turned-senator’s way of thinking. Simply, he has gone beyond his job description. The senator has perhaps forgotten that he is a legislator and not a Sunday school teacher. If Pacquiao were Archbishop Soc Villegas or Mike Velarde, I would not mind him quoting scripture even a million times. Others may say that he has every right to speak. As a senator though, he should know when he should be judicious when speaking as a lawmaker, and when he can plainly invoke freedom of expression and thus be entitled to his “wrong opinion.”
We need not delve into the soundness of his biblical hermeneutics. After all, biblical exegesis is not his turf. So the main issue is this: lawmaking is a secular process and as such it must be done in a manner that is reflective of non-sectarian reason. As a senator he should adhere to the principle of the separation of church and state. Someone should advise him that in a democracy legislation should be a reflection of rational consensus. Therefore, legislation is the state’s approximate expression of its democratic philosophy. Laws are created for the common good, thus they cannot be decided mainly and primarily on sectarian or religious leanings.
The state allows the free exercise of religion but it does not and cannot support any religion or belief at the expense of the marginalization of other beliefs. Through time, the defenders of the separation of the church and state have spoken loudly against the interference of religion in the secular realm. In fact, it was during the deliberations of the controversial RH Bill, that the Philippines has asserted and advanced its ability to create legislation, which no matter how morally controversial, are reasonably for the benefit of the people.
Does this mean that Pacquiao, as a senator, cannot or should not put forward morality-based arguments given that death penalty apparently has an ethical dimension? Certainly not! But as a lawmaker, he must be very well aware what the Philippine Supreme Court said of the distinction between religious morality and secular morality (Estrada v. Escritor).
In recent times, much criticism has been said against the political participation of religious groups, the catholic church specifically in the Philippine context, and its impact on the public lives of Filipinos. NEDA Director General Pernia said in one of his talks that the church should not say anything about matters where it has no competence. Precisely, Pacquiao, an ally of the Duterte administration should also be told of the same.
If the senator from General Santos is truly convinced of the timeliness and necessity of death penalty, then he should argue on the basis of non-biblical sources. Leave it to the priests and pastors to debate among themselves biblical basis of death penalty, if any. Evangelization belongs to the pulpit and not in the legislative chamber. Manny Pacquiao should do his homework and research very well.