Uphold Our "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM." [ Itaguyod Ang Ating “KALAYAAN SA RELIHIYON”]
This petition made change with 30,324 supporters!
WE INVOKE THE SEPARATION OF THE STATE AND RELIGION, AS MANDATED BY THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.
This is based on the following facts:
- THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL DETENTION CASE BASED ON LIES AND HEARSAY.
- THE CLAIM THAT MINISTERS WERE ABDUCTED AND TORTURED BY THE SANGGUNIAN IS ALSO A LIE.
- ALL OF THEIR CASES IS BASED ON HERESAY WITHOUT FACTS.
- "SELECTIVE JUSTICE" IS INJUSTICE.
- THE STATE SHOULD PROTECT OUR "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM". WE INVOKE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
- - - - - Translation sa Tagalog - - - - -
HINIHILING NAMIN [NA IGALANG AT SUNDIN] ANG PAGHIHIWALAY NG ESTADO AT RELIHIYON, TULAD NG SINASABI NG SALIGANG-BATAS NG PILIPINAS.
[Ang kahilingang ito] ay batay sa mga sumusunod na mga katotohanan:
- ANG ALEGASYON NG KASONG “ILLEGAL DETENTION” AY BATAY SA MGA KASINUNGALINGAN AT SABI-SABI.
- ANG PARATANG NA MAY MGA MINISTRONG DINUKOT AT PINAHIRAPAN NG SANGGUNIAN AY ISA RIN KASINUNGALINGAN.
- LAHAT NG MGA KASO AY BATAY SA SABI-SABI AT WALANG KATOTOHANAN.
- ANG “SELECTIVE JUSTICE” [pamimili kung sino lamang ang bibigyan ng katarungan] AY KAWALAN NG KATARUNGAN.
- DAPAT PROTEKTAHAN NG ESTADO ANG ATING “KALAYAAN SA RELIHIYON.” HINIHILING NAMIN NA IGALANG AT SUNDIN ANG PAGHIHIWALAY NG ESTADO AT RELIHIYON.
---- Discussion ----
1. THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL DETENTION CASE BASED ON LIES AND HEARSAY.
On July 23, 2015, Isaias Samson Jr. alleged illegal detention against ministers of Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) who are some of the members of its council of Leaders (Sanggunian). Isaias Samson Jr, together with their other "minions" and now expelled members of the church, intends to disrupt and cause factions inside the church. It is but right and holy, that the SANGGUNIAN, in its pure intent to place Mr. Samson and his family under preventive suspension. The said suspension is, like in any other organization and corporation that intends to protect its rights and well-being. But No illegal detention or alleged abduction had occured, as what they have claimed in other reports. Samson claimed that he was on house arrest for 9 days and he was fully guarded. He was able to escape when he said he was reasoned out that they are going to church.
THIS IS A LIE: Each member of the church understands that there are two worship services in a week: Wednesday/Thursday and Saturday/Sunday, and this is a basic knowledge to all brethren because the doctrine on the importance of worship is important. For 9 days, there will be two worship servince and therefore, they are readily allowed to go to church anytime. This proves that there was no-house arrest or illegal detention.
2. THE CLAIM THAT MINISTERS WERE ABDUCTED AND TORTURED BY THE SANGGUNIAN IS ALSO A LIE.
All of the "ministers" had testified against the claims of Mr. Samson and his cohorts. Despite the fact that National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has declared the case closed, Secretary Leila De Lima had open the case. Here are the references: Rappler.com, GMANetwork.com, Inquirer.com
3. ALL OF THEIR CASES IS BASED ON HERESAY WITHOUT FACTS.
As far as facts are concerns, all the cohorts of Mr. Samson are testimonies from them, their cohorts and heresays. And, according to Department of Justice, these are enough to file a case against the members of the Sanggunian? In the Revised Rules On Evidence Number 5, Section 36, state:
"Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. (30a)"
4. "SELECTIVE JUSTICE" IS INJUSTICE.
The members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo lost two brothers during the Mamasapano Massacre on January 25, 2015. We have waited for justice to roll and be served to the culprits and after 7 months no case has been served despite the fact that 44 were dead in the incident.
And here comes a case filed by an expelled member, who was personally assisted by the office of the Department of Justice and personally by Secretary De Lima.
What are the reasons for their special interest on this? We, as members of the Church of Christ (Iglesia Ni Cristo) questions the sincerity of this gestures since there are far more important cases which they can prioritize instead of entertaining a case based on "hearsay".
5. THE STATE SHOULD PROTECT OUR "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM". WE INVOKE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
We, the Iglesia Ni Cristo members, value our membership to the church as much as we value our citizenship as Filipinos. What we see now is a movement from the ranks of the government to harass our church and influence our vote in the upcoming 2016 election.
We invoke our rights to "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM". Qouting the decision of the Supreme Court [Estrada Vs Escritor, Philippine Supreme Court Decision, A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4, 2003]:
“The case at bar takes us to a MOST DIFFICULT AREA OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WHERE MAN STANDS ACCOUNTABLE TO AN AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN THE STATE. To be held on balance are the states interest and the respondents religious freedom. In this highly sensitive area of law, the task of balancing between authority and liberty is most delicate because to the person invoking religious freedom, the consequences of the case are not only temporal. The task is not made easier by the American origin of our religion clauses and the wealth of U.S. jurisprudence on these clauses for in the United States, there is probably no more intensely controverted area of constitutional interpretation than the religion clauses. The U.S. Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that in this constitutional area, there is considerable internal inconsistency in the opinions of the Court. As stated by a professor of law, (i)t is by now notorious that legal doctrines and judicial decisions in the area of religious freedom are in serious disarray. In perhaps no other area of constitutional law have confusion and inconsistency achieved such undisputed sovereignty. Nevertheless, this thicket is the only path to take to conquer the mountain of a legal problem the case at bar presents. Both the penetrating and panoramic view this climb would provide will largely chart the course of religious freedom in Philippine jurisdiction. That the religious freedom question arose in an administrative case involving only one person does not alter the paramount importance of the question for THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THE POSITIVE PROTECTION BY GOVERNMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM -NOT ONLY FOR A MINORITY, HOWEVER SMALL- NOT ONLY FOR A MAJORITY, HOWEVER LARGE- BUT FOR EACH OF US.”
STOP THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO HARRASSMENT!
UPHOLD OUR "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
Today: INC is counting on you
INC Defenders needs your help with “Uphold Our "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM." [ Itaguyod Ang Ating “KALAYAAN SA RELIHIYON”]”. Join INC and 30,323 supporters today.