59th Church Anniversary

BBC Sta. Mesa celebrated its 59th anniversary with Dr. Mickey P. Carter, Landmark Baptist Church, Haines City, Florida, USA as speaker. Ptr. Frank Hooge was the founding pastor, while Dr. Joseph Boyd Lyons is the present pastor and also president of Asia Baptist Bible College (a church ministry). Among the highlights of the anniversary was the recognition of the charter members.





















Rev. Joseph Boyd Lyons, pastor (BBC Sta. Mesa) and president of Asia Baptist Bible College (a church ministry)
Dr. Mickey P. Carter, Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, Florida, USA

Our Community (news, history, activities)

under construction

The need for SEC registration of churches

By Atty. Gerry T. Galacio, faculty member, Asia Baptist Bible College (first published in Legal Updates, November 2005)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

If a church is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, is it really an illegal church? A veteran pastor I talked to several months ago had problems with some members who eventually left and formed their own group. When these members found out that their original church was not registered with the SEC, they claimed that the church was an illegal church. Not true ... Registration with the SEC gives the church a legal personality, but a church can exist and function even without such registration. We will discuss more about the freedom of religion and non-establishment clauses of the 1987 Constitution later on.

The essential provisions of the Corporation Code relevant to churches are Section 2 (definition of corporation), Section 36 (corporate powers and capacity), Section 91 (termination of membership), and Sections 109 up to 116 (religious corporations.

Basically, the steps in registering a church with the SEC are the following:

1. Name verification and reservation - you have to find out either through the SEC’s website or through its Public Research Unit/Name Verification office at EDSA whether the proposed name for your church is still available, that is, it is not already being used by another registered church. For example, there are already a lot of churches carrying the name “Faith Baptist Church.” What you can do if you still want to use that name is to add something else to the name, for example, “Faith Baptist Church of bgy. Diliman, Quezon City.”

If the church name you applied for is available, you can have the name reserved from 30 to 90 days; the longer the reservation period, the higher the fee. During that period, when you are working on the documents required for the registration, no one else can apply for registration with that proposed name.

2. The SEC has ready made forms for a Constitution and By-Laws (the last time I asked, these forms cost about four hundred pesos). After submitting all the requirements and paying all the fees, the certificate of registration will subsequently be issued by the Corporate and Legal Department of the SEC. (Please surf to my Baptist Churches blog for samples of constitutions and bylaws of some Baptist churches).

3. The SEC also asks certain reportorial requirements to be submitted to it on a periodic basis.

As you can see from the provisions of the Corporation Code cited above, you can register your church either as a corporation sole or as a religious society/religious aggregate. But the important thing is, the ready made Constitution and By-Laws provided by the SEC are not really suitable for local Baptist churches. (About two years ago, I urged the Asia Baptist Bible College Alumni Association during its meeting at San Mateo Bible Baptist Church to draft a Constitution and By-Laws appropriate for local Baptist churches.)

If you use the Constitution and By-Laws provided by the SEC, one good practice is to attach to the said documents a copy of your church’s Articles of Faith.

Related issues

1. The church should submit to the SEC at least twice a year an updated list of members. This is done through a General Information Sheet (GIS).

There are only a few churches which keep an updated list of their members. One church in Marikina I attended in the 1980’s, besides keeping its membership list updated, also issues to its members identification cards renewable every six months.

2. The property of the church should not be titled in the name of the pastor or of any church member, but in the name of the church itself. That’s what SEC registration does, that is, it gives the church a legal personality. What’s an even worse practice is titling the church property in the name of pastor and his wife. In this case, the property will be considered as community property or of the conjugal partnership.

(Under the Family Code, any property acquired during the marriage is presumed part of the community property, unless there is clear proof that the property was acquired through the separate means of either the husband or wife.)

This practice of titling the church property in the name of the pastor or of some church members will give rise to a lot of problems later on. For example, one church in the Albay area had its property titled in the name of the pastor. When the pastor died, his children claimed that they were the owners of the land by right of succession (or “inheritance” in layman’s terms), and they demanded that the church vacate the premises.

Another church in the Bicol area had its property titled in the name of three pastors recommended by the mother church. The mother church thought (commendably, I might add) that if only one name appeared in the title, that person could possibly claim the land for himself later on. But the problem is, two of the pastors have died, and the only way the property can be transferred to the church is by way of donation or sale. But the heirs of the two deceased pastors can now claim that they are part owners of the property by right of succession (inheritance).

One church in the Metro Manila area had its property titled in the name of its two pastoral staff. But one of the pastors is already in the province, and the other pastor had to leave the church under unfavorable circumstances. There is now a brewing legal controversy among several parties over the ownership of the land and the church building.

3. Depending upon the policies, practices and beliefs of the sending/mother church, the mission work should be incorporated, either as corporation sole or religious society, as soon as possible.

4. If the mission work has not yet been incorporated, its properties should be titled in the name of the sending/mother church. Later on, the mother church can transfer the title either by way of donation or sale.

5. If the money used for the purchase of the property came from the sending/mother church, it is a good idea to impose certain conditions if the property will be donated to the mission work upon its incorporation. For example, the sending/mother church can impose the condition that if the daughter- or granddaughter-church strays from its doctrinal position as contained in the Articles of Faith attached to the SEC documents, the mother church can rescind the donation.

(Speaking of donation, the Civil Code requires that for donations worth more than five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance of such donation must be in writing.)

Also, the sending/mother church can impose the condition that in case of a split in the daughter- or granddaughter-church, the opposing parties must agree not to sue each other in court, and agree to a mediation or conciliation of the matter by the mother church or by a group of selected pastors. In case the opposing parties do not comply with this condition, the mother church can then rescind the donation.

Admittedly, this suggestion is difficult to implement or even to accept, since most Baptist churches in the Philippines subscribe to the doctrine of the autonomy of the local church. But until and unless we formulate a way to mediate or conciliate church splits, we will have the tragic spectacle of Christians suing ach other in court, in total contravention of 1 Corinthians 6: 1-7, which state,

1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6. But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8. Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

I welcome your ideas as to how we can mediate and conciliate church splits. Incidentally, under the Securities Regulation Code, church splits would fall under “intra-corporate controversies” and are under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

I was told of one church split in the southern part of our country, where criminal cases have been filed by the former pastor against the incumbent pastor and some members. I do not know all the facts, and I do not wish to exacerbate the situation by needless speculation. But the problems could possibly have been avoided if the Constitution and By-Laws of that church had provided for a procedure or mechanism in the succession to the office of the pastor in case of death, disability or resignation.

Also, the problem could have been avoided if the mother church had retained some form of control by imposing certain conditions in its donation (if any) of the property to the daughter- or granddaughter church, as I explained above.

6. There is a definite need to educate the members on the Constitution and By-Laws of the church. This necessity will become more apparent to you as we discuss the 2001 Supreme Court decision in the case of “The Church in Quezon City.”

I have handled some cases involving homeowners associations, and it is amazing that the only time the members take time to read and study their Constitution and By-Laws is when there is already a brewing controversy or when cases have already filed by one party against another.

We cannot also claim that the Constitution and By-Laws submitted to the SEC are merely pro forma, and that our only rule for faith and practice is the Bible. By registering with the SEC, churches in a way are giving up some of their autonomy by agreeing to be bound by the laws of our country. In case of disputes or disagreements that eventually reach our judicial system, the courts will refer to the Constitution and By-Laws for the resolution of the case. (In cases of disputes regarding doctrine however, there is a US Supreme Court ruling which states that such are beyond the jurisdiction of secular courts.) Romans chapter 13 is very instructive:

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Discussion on right of church to discipline its members and its limitations

[A] The Marian Guinn case: improper use of church discipline

[B] The Marian Guinn Case, part 2: right of church discipline ends upon withdrawal of membership

By Atty. Gerry T. Galacio, faculty member, Asia Baptist Bible College (first published in Legal Updates, November 2005)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The process of church discipline is clearly spelled out in Matthew chapter 18. In a previous post, I gave you the complete text of a Supreme Court decision on the issue of church discipline (expulsion of members) in a case involving "The Church in Quezon City." Our discussion on the improper use of church displine will now focus on the American case of "Marian Guinn versus the Church of Christ of Collinsville."

Briefly, after being disciplined by her church, Marian Guinn sued her church. She won around four hundred thousand dollars in damages from the trial court. (The church budget was only around sixty five thousand dollars a year.) The church appealed to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the trial court. The State Supreme Court ruled that

• All actions of the church in disciplining Guinn while she was still a church member fell under the mantle of freedom of religion and therefore were beyond the jurisdiction of secular courts.
  
• All actions of the church after Guinn had withdrawn her membership from the church was no longer protected by freedom of religion, and the church could therefore be held accountable for damages. Reportedly, the church settled out of court with Guinn rather than go through a new trial.

The question is, Why did the church continue with the imposition of discipline when Guinn had already withdrawn her membership from the church? Well, the church did not have a provision in its Constitution for a member withdrawing membership. The church also did not have a tradition of a member withdrawing her membership; in cases of discipline, it was the church which withdrew fellowship with the erring church member.

Below are the facts of the case as taken from the decision of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. I will discuss later on the ramifications of the said decision.

MARIAN GUINN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,v. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE, OKLAHOMA, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION; ALLEN CASH, TED MOODY AND RON WITTEN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

On appeal from the District Court, 0 In an action for damages from invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, brought by a former parishioner against the congregation and its leadership, judgment was rendered on a jury verdict for the plaintiff. On appeal by the defendants, JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED.

[775 P.2d 767]

1 The dispositive first-impression question presented is whether a state forensic inquiry into an alleged tortious act by a religious body against its former member is an unconstitutional usurpation of the church's prerogatives by a secular court and hence prohibited by the First Amendment. We answer in the negative.

I FACTS

2 The plaintiff-appellee, Marian Guinn [Parishioner], and her children moved to Collinsville, Oklahoma in 1974. While staying with her sister, Parishioner became acquainted with the defendants-appellants, Ron Whitten, Ted Moody and Allen Cash [collectively referred to as the "Elders"] in their capacities as Elders of the Collinsville Church of Christ. A few weeks later, Parishioner became a member of that congregation. Both Parishioner and the Elders agree that the first few years of Parishioner's membership reflected the mutual support inherent in a relationship between a religious organization and one of its members. Parishioner attended services and the congregation extended to her a financial and emotional helping hand.

3 In 1980 the Elders confronted Parishioner with a rumor that she was having sexual relations with a male Collinsville resident [companion], who was not a member of the Church of Christ. According to the Elders, they pursued this rumor in order to uphold their doctrinal commands which require that they, as church leaders, monitor the congregation members' actions, as well as confront and discuss [775 P.2d 768] problems with any one who is "having trouble." The Church of Christ follows a literal interpretation of the Bible which serves as the church's sole source of moral, religious and ethical guidance. When confronted with the allegation, Parishioner admitted violating the Church of Christ's prohibition against fornication. As a transgressor of the denomination's code of ethics, Parishioner became subject to the disciplinary procedure set forth in Matthew 18:13-17.1

4 The Elders carried out the biblically-mandated disciplinary procedure in three stages, with the entire process lasting more than a year. First, the Elders approached Parishioner and her children in a laundromat and requested that she appear before the church and repent of the fornication sin. They also suggested that Parishioner refrain from seeing her companion.

5 The second of the three "meetings" was held at the church. According to the Parishioner, her attendance dropped considerably after the Elders initially confronted her in the laundromat. The Elders had called Parishioner and told her that if she did not come to church to discuss her continuing relationship with her companion they would come to her house. Although the bad weather that night made the Parishioner anxious about leaving her children alone, she decided to meet with the Elders at the church. They instructed her to stop seeing her companion. Parishioner agreed this was the best solution because her relationship with him was deteriorating.

6 The third and final meeting took place on the driveway outside the Parishioner's home when she was under suspicion of having been with her companion. The Elders parked near Parishioner's house and awaited her arrival. When Parishioner's car pulled into the driveway, the Elders approached it and told Parishioner and her companion that if she did not appear before the congregation and repent of her fornication sin, the members would "withdraw fellowship"2 from her.

7 On September 21, 1981, a few days after the third meeting, the Elders sent Parishioner a letter warning her that if she did not repent, the withdrawal of fellowship process would be commenced. At this point Parishioner realized the Elders intended to inform the congregation of her sexual involvement with the companion. She sought legal advice in an effort to ascertain her rights. On September 24 her lawyer sent the Elders a letter and advised them not to expose Parishioner's private life to the Collinsville congregation which comprised approximately five percent of the town's population. The Elders did not heed her lawyer's advice.

8 On September 25, 1981 Parishioner wrote the Elders a letter imploring them not to mention her name in church except to tell the congregation that she had withdrawn from membership. The Elders ignored Parishioner's requests. On September 27 [775 P.2d 769] they read to the congregation the September 21 letter they had sent to Parishioner. During the same service the Elders advised the congregation to contact Parishioner and to encourage her to repent and return to the Church. The Elders also told the congregation that should their attempts fail, the scriptures Parishioner had violated would be read aloud at the next service and the withdrawal of fellowship proceeding would begin.

9 Parishioner met with one of the Elders personally and again attempted to dissuade him from divulging her private life to the congregation. The Elder told her that withdrawing membership from the Church of Christ was not only doctrinally impossible but it could not halt the disciplinary sanction being carried out against her. The Church of Christ believes that all its members are a family; one can be born into a family but can never truly withdraw from it. A Church of Christ member can voluntarily join the church's flock but cannot then disassociate oneself from it.

10 According to one of the Elders, Parishioner was publicly branded a fornicator when the scriptures she had violated were recited to the Collinsville Church of Christ congregation on October 4. As part of the disciplinary process the same information about Parishioner's transgressions was sent to four other area Church of Christ congregations to be read aloud during services.

11 For the torts of outrage and invasion of privacy Parishioner recovered actual and punitive damages from the three Elders and from the Collinsville Church of Christ.3 Parishioner alleged in her claim of outrage that when disciplining her the Elders employed methods which caused her emotional anguish. Her claim of invasion of privacy was cast in two theories. Firstly, Parishioner asserted the Elders intruded upon her seclusion by carrying out against her religious disciplinary measures which were highly offensive, unreasonable and intrusive. Secondly, Parishioner claimed the Elders unreasonably publicized private facts about her life by communicating her transgressions to the Collinsville and the four other area Church of Christ congregations. After overruling the Elders' demurrers and their motion for summary judgment, the trial court submitted the case to the jury; its verdict was in favor of Parishioner and against each of the three individual Elders. The parties stipulated the Elders were at all times acting as agents of the Church of Christ corporation and thus the trial court found the judgment against the Elders also was a judgment against the Collinsville Church of Christ. The jury awarded $205,000 in actual and $185,000 in punitive damages; the trial court then added $44,737 in prejudgment interest.

The Marian Guinn Case [2]: the right of church discipline ends upon withdrawal of membership

As I mentioned previously, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled that:

[1] All actions of the church in disciplining Guinn before she withdrew her membership were protected by the First Amendment and thus outside of the purview of secular courts; and

[2] After Guinn withdrew her membership, the church no longer had the right to discipline her and was thus liable to Guinn for damages.

Respect given by secular courts to decisions of church disciplining authorities

The religion clauses of the First Amendment, which prohibit both state and federal governments from inhibiting or supporting citizens’ religious interests, were written in an effort to create an environment in which “many types of life, character, opinion and belief . . . [could] develop unmolested and unobstructed.”

Whenever the questions of discipline or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them.

If members of religious organizations could freely pursue their doctrinal grievances in civil courts, or legislatures could pass laws to inhibit or enhance religious activities, ecclesiastical liberty would be subjected to governmental interference and the ‘unmolested and unobstructed’ development of opinion and belief which the First Amendment shield was designed to foster could be secularly undermined.

The disciplinary actions taken by the Elders against Guinn before she withdrew her membership from the Church of Christ did not constitute a threat to public safety, peace or order and hence did not justify state interference.

Right of people to freely choose and join religious organizations

When people voluntarily join together in pursuit of spiritual fulfillment, the First Amendment requires that the government respect their decision and not impose its own ideas on the religious organization. Under the First Amendment people may freely consent to being spiritually governed by an established set of ecclesiastical tenets defined and carried out by those chosen to interpret and impose them.

A person who joins a church voluntarily submits himself to the authority of that church and is therefor bound by its rules

The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it.

Under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, Guinn had the right to consent as a participant in the practices and beliefs of the Church of Christ without fear of governmental interference. As the Church’s chosen spiritual leaders, the Elders were responsible for providing guidance to all those who, like Guinn, had chosen to follow. Under the Free Exercise Clause the Elders had the right to rely on Parishioner’s consensual participation in the congregation when they disciplined her as one who had voluntarily elected to adhere to their doctrinal precepts.

Guinn’s willing submission to the Church of Christ’s dogma, and the Elders’ reliance on that submission, collectively shielded the church’s prewithdrawal, religiously-motivated discipline from scrutiny through secular judicature.

A person has the unqualified right to withdraw his membership from a church

The right to withdraw one’s implied consent to submit to the disciplinary decisions of a church is constitutionally unqualified; its relinquishment requires a knowing and intelligent waiver.

Guinn asserts that her withdrawal of membership from the Collinsville Church of Christ was also effective as a withdrawal of her consent to submit to that church’s beliefs and ecclesiastical disciplinary procedures. Upon her withdrawal, Guinn urges, the church was precluded from sanctioning her as if she were a current member. By continuing to discipline her as though she were a practicing Church of Christ member, the Elders are alleged to have invaded her privacy and caused her emotional distress.

In defense of their actions the Elders claim that the Church of Christ has no doctrinal provision for withdrawal of membership. According to their beliefs, a member remains a part of the congregation for life. Like those who are born into a family, they may leave but they can never really sever the familial bond. A court’s determination that Guinn effectively withdrew her membership and thus her consent to submit to church doctrine would, according to the Elders, be a constitutionally impermissible state usurpation of religious discipline accomplished through judicial interference.

The Elders had never been confronted with a member who chose to withdraw from the church. Because disciplinary proceedings against Guinn had already commenced when she withdrew her membership, the Elders concluded their actions could not be hindered by her withdrawal and would be protected by the First Amendment. Guinn relies on her September 24, 1981 handwritten letter to the Elders in which she unequivocally stated that she withdrew her membership and terminated her consent to being treated as a member of the Church of Christ communion. By common-law standards we find her communication was an effective withdrawal of her membership and of her consent to religious discipline.

Just as freedom to worship is protected by the First Amendment, so also is the liberty to recede from one’s religious allegiance

In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court reaffirmed that neither a state nor the federal government can force or influence a person to go or to remain away from church against one’s will or to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. The First Amendment clearly safeguards the freedom to worship as well as the freedom not to worship.

When Guinn withdrew her membership from the Church of Christ and thereby withdrew her consent to participate in a spiritual relationship in which she had implicitly agreed to submit to ecclesiastical supervision, those disciplinary actions thereafter taken by the Elders against Guinn, which actively involved her in the church's will and command, were outside the purview of the First Amendment protection and were the proper subject of state regulation.

The church’s right to discipline ends when the person withdraws his membership

Disciplinary practices involving members of an ecclesiastical association, which do not pose a substantial threat to public safety, peace or order, are unquestionably among those hallowed First Amendment rights with which the government cannot interfere. If these sectarian matters were easily subject to civil adjudication and liability by secular judicature, the First Amendment shield under which “many types of life, character, opinion and belief can develop unmolested and unobstructed” would be rendered impotent.

First Amendment protection does not extend to all religiously-motivated disciplinary practices in which ecclesiastical organizations might engage. By its very nature, ecclesiastical discipline involves both church and member. It is a means of religious expression as well as a means of ecclesiastically judging one who transgresses a church law which one has consented to obey. The right to express dissatisfaction with the disobedience of those who have promised to adhere to doctrinal precepts and to take ecclesiastically-mandated measures to bring wayward members back within the bounds of accepted behavior, are forms of religious expression and association which the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause was designed to protect and preserve. And yet the constitutionally protected freedom to impose even the most deeply felt, spiritually-inspired disciplinary measure is forfeited when the object of “benevolent” concern is one who has terminated voluntary submission to another’s supervision and command.

After Guinn withdrew her membership from the Collinsville Church of Christ, the Elders were neither absolutely nor conditionally privileged to publicize private facts about her life.

Department of Education regulations on the teaching of religion in public schools

By Atty. Gerry T. Galacio, faculty member, Asia Baptist Bible College (first published in Baptist Churches in the Philippines)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The 1987 Constitution (Paragraph 8, Sec. 8, Article XV) provides the governing principle and law on the teaching of religion in public schools. The said provision states, to wit,

“At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, and without cost to them and the government, religion shall be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools as may be provided by law.”

In keeping with this Constitutional mandate, the Department of Education has issued several orders on the mechanics of the teaching of religion in public elementary and high schools. These are DepEd Order No. 26, s. 2002 and DECS Order No. 120. s. 1999 amending certain provisions of DECS Order No. 13, s. 1999. (Special thanks to Bro. George Meris of Christ Baptist Church, Soldiers Hill, Muntinlupa for bringing these DepEd regulations to my attention.)

The provisions of DepEd Order No. 26 (available in PDF format from the DepEd website) which enjoin compliance with the earlier DECS Order No. 120 are the following:

1. Declaration of Policy – The State shall, in conformity with the mandate of the Constitution, encourage and promote the teaching of religion to children in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours. The State is cognizant of the vital role that the teaching of religion assumes in citizen formation, particularly the modeling of our youth. Hence, the State recognizes the necessity of religious instruction not only in the private schools but also in public schools. For these purposes, the Department hereby provides the mechanics to enable the teaching of religion in all public elementary and high schools in the country, fully aware that the Constitution prohibits the government from favoring a particular establishment or religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Furthermore, the implementation of this Order should not entail additional cost to the government.

2. Coverage – This Order shall apply to all public elementary and high schools in the Philippines.

3. Definition of terms – As used in this Order, the following terms shall mean:

a. Religion – an institutionalized system of beliefs, attitudes and practices.

b. Values Education – the integration into the school curriculum of universally accepted as well as Filipino human, social, moral, political, economic and cultural values.

c. Optional Religious Instruction – refers to the religion classes conducted in the public elementary and high schools for students or pupils whose parents opted to exercise their rights to request religious instruction in public schools for their children or wards. The optional character of religious instruction in public schools is a prerogative or choice of the parents or guardians, who are free to request or not to request that the children under their care be instructed in the religion of their choice.

d. Regular class hours – refers to the regular or normal scheduled periods of instruction or laboratory work for a student.

e. Class period – the average length of time scheduled for one session or instructional period in a course.

4. The Teachers/Instructors – The religious teachers/instructors who teach religion classes in the public elementary and high schools shall be formally sourced or recruited by the respective principal or school heads in accordance with the corresponding request for optional religious instruction. After their designation or nomination by their respective religious authorities, said teachers/instructors shall submit to the principal or school head their proper authorization papers and request for time allocation and schedule for the optional religious instruction. Ordinary teachers teaching in a particular school may also teach their religion in the same or another school during the periods when they are free from their ordinary teaching loads, and provided they are authorized to do so by the competent religious authority of their denomination.

5. Recipient of Religious Instruction – The teachers/instructors of religion as referred to in Paragraph 4 shall be allowed to teach those pupils/students whose parents or guardians have opted to request that their children or wards be taught the religion of their choice. The option to request that their children or wards learn religion in school shall be expressed in writing by the parent or guardian who shall likewise accomplish in full the necessary application form. No student/pupil shall be allowed to attend religious instruction classes without the said written application and duly accomplished request of his/her parent or guardian.

6. The Application – The application referred to in the preceding paragraph shall clearly indicate the faith or religious instruction the student/pupil should receiver from the authorized religion teachers/instructors, and the preferred schedule for religious instruction.

7. Non-recipient of Religious Instruction – Students not receiving religious instruction or those with request but without available teacher/instructors for the particular denomination requested should be under the supervision of their respective class advisers during the time religion classes are going on.

8. Size and Scheduling of Religious Classes – The optional religious instruction shall be taught during regular class hours only and not before and after class time, nor during recess time. Religious classes should not number more than forty students of the same level and of the same religion, except where the religious authority certifies that his teacher/instructor can allow for a bigger number due to its practicality, availability of time slot/schedule, instructors/teachers, classroom materials and related matters.

The principal or school head shall fix the schedule of the religion class hours taking into account the number of the religion teachers/instructors that can be fielded by the different denominations at one time.

9. Duration of Religion Classes – The optional instruction shall be allotted at least ninety minutes a week, spread over at least two (2) but not more than three (3) meetings in one week. In no case shall the class periods be allotted less than ninety (90) minutes per week.

10. Optional Religious Instruction and Values Education – The optional religious instruction and values education of this Department are separate, different and distinct subjects. As such, religious instruction shall be allotted separate class hours. Available time slot for religious instruction should be arranged with the principal.

11. Administrative Sanctions – Any principal, school head or teacher who violates any provision of this Order shall, after due process, be subjected to appropriate disciplinary sanctions.

US Supreme Court rulings on freedom of religion

The freedom of religion clause of our Constitution is of American origin. Thus decisions of the US Supreme Court are applicable to Philippine situations. In terms of discrimination against any religion, the US Supreme Court has ruled the following:

(1) Lamb’s Chapel et al. v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993) - Court said that school districts cannot deny churches access to school premises after-hours, if the district allowed the use of its building to other groups.

(2) Good News Club v. Milford Central School, (2001) - Court ruled that Milford Central School cannot keep Good News Club from using its facilities because the school had created a limited public forum and prohibiting the religious club was viewpoint discrimination.

(3) Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) - Court ruled that a state university cannot refuse to grant a student religious group “equal access” to facilities that are open to other student groups.

(4) Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953) - Court overturned conviction of a Jehovah's Witness who gave a religious address in a public park without permission of Pawtuckett, Rhode Island city officials. Pawtuckett officials had allowed other religous groups to speak in the park

Miss, Ms, or Mrs: Why should a woman use her husband's surname?

By Atty. Gerry T. Galacio, faculty member, Aisa Baptist Bible College (first published in Salt and Light)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Four years ago, during a Mandatory Continuing Legal Education seminar, I met a former student from high school. She had attended several of the Mini Press Conferences I organized from 1984 up to 1991 for Rizal High School in Pasig and ten other public and private high schools from Metro Manila. We immediately recognized each other and had a good time remembering the good old days of the Mini Press Con.

When I asked her why she had not stopped using her maiden surname despite being married, she answered, “Pwede naman di ba?” I did not remind her of the legal provisions on surnames for married women since she defintely knew them; she graduated from a top law school and was a magna cum laude in her pre-law course. Her refusal to use her husband's surname was emotional rather than legal in nature. She said that she did not want her father's surname to disappear. (The Chinese have a saying that if you want your name to live forever, you should write a book, plant a tree or sire a son.)

Philippine law on surnames for married women

Article 370 of the New Civil Code is our country’s primary law on what surname a married can use. The said article states that a married woman may use:

(1) Her maiden first name and surname and add her husband’s surname, or
(2) Her maiden first name and her husband’s surname, or
(3) Her husband’s full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such as Mrs.”

Please take note that under the Family Code provisions on legal separation, a woman is still obligated to use her husband’s surname since the marriage bonds are not severed. It is only in cases of annulment of a voidable marriage or declaration of nullity of a void marriage that a woman can regain the use of her maiden surname.

Sen. Santiago’s bill allowing a woman to use her maiden surname after marriage or legal separation

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago has filed Senate Bill 1302 which seeks to amend Articles 370 and 372 of the NCC and Article 63 of the Family Code. You can read the complete text of SB 1302 in my Legal Updates blog. Essentially, Sen. Santiago wants a woman to have the right to continue using her maiden name and surname after marriage or legal separation. In her bill’s Explanatory Note, Sen. Santiago stated,

The Constitutional right to equal treatment of both men and women is one which the State endeavors to uphold. Pursuant to this, efforts have been exerted to eliminate vestiges of inequalities found in existing laws.

In Republic Act No. 386, also known as the Civil Code of the Philippines and Executive Order 209, also known as the Family Code of the Philippines, a married woman continues to be treated as a mere appendage of her husband. She is not specifically granted the option to use her maiden name and surname.

The principle of fundamental equality between men and women requires the passage of a bill of this nature. By allowing Filipino women to retain their surnames as part of their individuality, even after marriage or legal separation, we shall be eliminating yet another vestige of inequality found in our laws, and translating the constitutional edict into a tangible reality.

I’m sure a lot of women are nodding their heads enthusiastically and expressing 110% agreement with Sen. Santiago’s bill. If you ask me however, I will not marry a woman who will refuse to carry my surname.

Reasons why a married woman should use her husband’s surname

In an article entitled “What’s Your Name?” published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, University of Chicago professors Leon and Amy Kass (husband and wife!) explain in a very scholarly and closely reasoned manner why a married woman should use her husband’s surname. Among other things, they say,

The husband who gives his name to his bride in marriage is thus not just keeping his own; he is owning up to what it means to have been given a family and a family name by his own father - he is living out his destiny to be a father by saying yes to it in advance. And the wife does not so much surrender her name as she accepts the gift of his, given and received as a pledge of (among other things) loyal and responsible fatherhood for her children. A woman who refuses this gift is, whether she knows it or not, tacitly refusing the promised devotion or, worse, expressing her suspicions about her groom’s trustworthiness as a husband and prospective father.

Patrilineal surnames are, in truth, less a sign of paternal prerogative than of paternal duty and professed commitment, reinforced psychologically by gratifying the father’s vanity in the perpetuation of his name and by offering this nominal incentive to do his duty both to mother and child. Such human speech and naming enables the father explicitly to choose to become the parent-by-choice that he, more than the mother, must necessarily be.

Fathers who will not own up to their paternity, who will not “legitimize” their offspring, and who will not name themselves responsible for child-rearing by giving their children their name are, paradoxically, not real fathers at all, and their wives and especially their children suffer. The former stigmatization of bastardy was, in fact, meant to protect women and children from such irresponsible behavior of self-indulgent men (behavior probably naturally rooted in mammalian male psychosexual tendencies), men who would take their sexual pleasures and walk away from their consequences. The removal of the stigma, prompted by a humane concern not to penalize innocent children by calling them “illegitimate,” has, paradoxically but absolutely predictably, contributed mightily to an increase in such fatherless children.

The advantage a woman and her children gain from the commitment of the man to take responsibility and to stay the course - the commitment implied in his embracing the woman and her prospective children with his family name, now newly understood - is by itself sufficient reason why it is in a woman’s interest as a married-woman-and-mother-to-be to readily take the bridegroom’s name.

But there is a deeper reason why this makes sense. The change of the woman’s name, from family of origin to family of perpetuation, is the perfect emblem for the desired exogamy of human sexuality and generation. The woman in marriage not only expresses her humanity in love (as does the man); she also embraces the meaning of marriage by accepting the meaning of her womanly nature as generative. In shedding the name of her family of origin, she tacitly affirms that children of her womb can be legitimated only exogamously. Her children will not bear the same name as-will not "belong to"-her father; moreover, her new name allows also her father to recognize formally the mature woman his daughter has become. Whereas the man needs convention to make up-by expansion-for his natural deficiency, the woman needs convention to humanize-by restriction-the result of her natural prowess. By anticipating necessity and by thus choosing to accept the gift of her husband’s name, the woman affirms the meaning of her own humanity by saying yes to customizing her given nature.

(emphasis by boldfacing supplied)

The Biblical view on a wife’s use of her husband’s surname

The Biblical concept of marriage is found in the Old Testament book of Genesis, chapter 2, verses 20 to 25. Please take note especially of verse 24:

20. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Ephesians 5:21 up to 33 outline the rights and obligations of husbands and wives:

21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

I Peter 3: 1-12 also state the rights and duties of husbands and wives toward each other:

1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
8. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9. Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
11. Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
12. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

A wife expresses her Biblical submission by using her husband’s surname

In the area of relationships and marriage, there cannot be a more explosive and divisive issue than that of the headship of men and the submission of women. Sometime in the late 1990’s, I think, the Southern Baptist Convention issued an official statement asking women to “graciously submit” to their husbands. Needless to say, that statement was greeted with controversy, scorn and ridicule from different sectors and even from within the Convention itself. Feminist groups have been saying all these time that the Biblical injunction for women to submit to their husbands is an open invitation for spousal abuse.

If you want a thorough discussion of the Biblical doctrines of the headship of men and the submission of women, I recommend the following books to you:

[1] “Strike the Original Match” by Chuck Swindoll; Multnomah Press © 1980; specifically the chapters entitled “Let’s Repair the Foundation” and “Bricks that Build a Marriage.”

[2] “The Grace Awakening” also by Chuck Swindoll; Word Publishing, ©1996; specifically the chapter entitled “A Marriage Oiled by Grace”

[3] “Together Forever” by Anne Kristin Caroll; Zondervan, © 1982 by Barbara J. Denis); specifically the chapter entitled “Who Wears the Pants?”

[4] “Rocking the Roles” by Robert Lewis and William Hendricks; NavPress, ©1991; specifically the chapters entitled “The ‘S’ Word” and “The Masculine Counterpart to the ‘S’ Word.”

“Being a spiritually submissive wife doesn’t mean being a doormat”

It might interest you to know that in the New Testament, whenever husband and wife Aquila and Priscilla were mentioned after Acts 18:2 (five times in all), Priscilla was always mentioned first. Bible scholars say that it was probably because Priscilla had the higher social standing, or had the stronger personality and thus was more well-known than her husband.

I have previously written about the headship of men and the submission of women, and you might want to re-read it. Part of that article reads as follows:

Lewis and Hendricks, while maintaining the traditional view of the headship of men and the submission of women, clarify however that submission is not a wife’s role. Rather, they say, submission is the wife’s loving response to her husband’s loving and sacrificial headship.

“Roles” and ‘responses” may sound like only semantics to you, but I encourage you to read “Rocking the Roles.” The most striking statement in this book about submission is found in page 135: “A biblically submissive wife’s focus is not on enabling wrong behavior, but in empowering her husband to pursue right behavior – to become the man God wants him to be, and the leader God wants him to be.”

I remember something Dr. James Dobson wrote in his classic book (highly recommended!) “Love Must Be Tough” about submission. Dobson said, “Being a spiritually submissive wife doesn’t mean being a doormat.”

Caroll, who writes her book out of the crucible of the pain of her divorce (and remarriage to the same guy) says on page 126, “Submission is freedom.”

During the wedding reception of a Filipino missionary couple bound for a Creative Access Nation, the groom wished out loud that his wife would submit to him. That brought about a lot of laughter among the guests. Well, Sir, please do keep in mind Lewis and Hendricks’ definition of submission and I’m sure your marriage will turn out okay. What’s their definition again? “A biblically submissive wife’s focus is not on enabling wrong behavior, but in empowering her husband to pursue right behavior – to become the man God wants him to be, and the leader God wants him to be.”

Weddings

[1] Ptr. Allen Agbisit and Sis. Ruth Gallo wedding, May 5, 2006; Faith Baptist Church, Pasig City (Ruth attended Sunday School in BBC Sta. Mesa during her childhood years)

[2] Bro. Robert Questadio and Sis. Ellenor Flores wedding, July 29, 2006, Bethel Baptist Church, Quezon City (Ela is an ABBC graduate)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ptr. Allen leads the Balikatan Bible Baptist Mission in Nagpayong, Bgy. Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. Sis. Ruth, a graduate of Landmark Baptist College, attended Sunday School in BBC Sta. Mesa during her childhood years.

Bro. Robert Questadio and Sis. Ellenor Flores wedding, July 2, 2006, Bethel Baptist Church, Quezon City


Some jitters before the big moment

Making sure the veil's right

Robert with parents and parents-in-law waiting for the processional

Ptr. and Mrs. Gary Philipps
Bridesmaids galore



A picture of serenity
Sharing a secret at the altar

Getting married? Take a look at what “covenant marriage” is

“Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman who agree to live together as husband and wife for as long as they both live. We have chosen each other carefully and have received premarital counseling on the nature, purposes and responsibilities of marriage. We understand that a covenant marriage is for life.”