Recently, we heard reports regarding the Socorro Bayanihan Services, Incorporated or SBSI, its alleged violations of Republic Act No. 9208, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, and its alleged human rights abuses. The reports were specific in that they involved instances of forced child marriage and sexual abuse.

I am in no position to condemn SBSI or to side with the alleged victims. While its leaders have been arrested and charges have been filed, this matter will still undergo the proper procedures of the criminal justice system. However, due to the comments of some people, such as those who point to the doctrine of the separation of church and state, I feel this may be an opportune time to discuss the doctrine.

The 1987 Constitution expressly provides for the following provisions that give life to the policy of the separation of the Church and the State:

Section 6, Article II of the Declaration of Principles and State Policies states, "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable."

Section 5, Article III of the Bill of Rights states, "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 tests shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."

Jurisprudence tells us that the right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect: freedom to believe and to act on one's beliefs. The first is absolute if the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation, where the belief is translated into external acts affecting public welfare.

The first aspect is the Freedom to Believe. The individual is free to believe (or disbelieve) as he pleases concerning the hereafter. He may indulge his own theories about life and death; worship any god he chooses or none; embrace or reject any religion; acknowledge the divinity of God or of any being that appeals to his imagination; recognize or deny the immortality of his soul — in fact, hold on to any religious conviction as he and he alone sees fit.

Consequently, however absurd or bizarre his beliefs may be to others, even if they are hostile and heretical to the majority, he has full freedom to believe as he pleases. He may not be required to prove his beliefs. He may not be punished for his inability to do so. Religion, after all, is a matter of faith. Men may believe in what they cannot prove.

The second aspect is the Freedom to Act on One's Beliefs. This means that where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the State. As great as this liberty may be, religious freedom, like all the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, can be enjoyed only with a proper regard for the rights of others.

It is an error to think that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare. The inherent police power of the State can be exercised to prevent religious practices damaging to society. This is true even if such practices are pursued out of sincere religious conviction and not merely to evade the reasonable requirements or prohibitions of the law.

If the allegations and charges against SBSI and its leaders later prove to be true, then we should applaud the officials who brought this matter to the public's attention, as the proper resolution of the charges will protect Filipinos from possible human rights abuses.

It is also not farfetched to say that the mere coverage of this matter by the media — permissible coverage, that is — may already serve as a warning for our fellow citizens to be more vigilant in protecting their rights against human trafficking and sexual abuse.

Remember that no law, more so the Constitution, shall be used to commit offenses or abuses. Laws are meant to protect and should not be used to commit illegal, detrimental, or exploitative acts.

The freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act is not.