This is perhaps one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood idea in the Philippine Constitution. Everyone has opinions; however, many of those views were undeniably misinformed. That was what Fr. Joaquin Bernas wanted to straighten up in his article entitled, “Sounding Board; Fundamentals of church – state relations.”
In his article, Fr. Bernas aimed at setting up a common ground in every Filipino’s perception on the underlying message of the said principle. The separation of church and state is exceedingly important to be understood so that opinions shared would be based on a common understanding of such important concept. That is probably one of the few points on which everyone on all sides of the debate can readily agree upon — their reasons for agreeing may differ, but they do concur that the separation of church and state is one of the key constitutional principles in history.
As presented, an honored principle of the Philippine Constitution is the separation of Church and State under Article 2, Section 6 of the Philippine Constitution. This has been the issue that Fr. Bernas tackled in his article especially in regards with the conditions that the said principle sets. Coming from a simple understanding of the meaning, I perceived that the separation of the Church and State means that the said organizations are two separate institutions that neither directs the affairs of the other. The State cannot aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over the other; and that every one is free to profess his belief or disbelief in any religion (De Leon, 2008). This is essentially the substance of the concept, however, Fr. Bernas further clarified the explanation by stating that the government is not involved in choosing church leaders and these leaders do not serve in government in their role as church leaders (although they may be elected or appointed to government positions in their capacity as ordinary citizens) – it is not constitutionally wrong for church leaders to be involved in politics since they are protected by the freedom of religion; freedom of speech and assembly (2010).
It is notable to mention that in the said principle, we cannot be talking about a single, literal church and a single, literal state. According to Austin Cline, those terms are metaphors, meant to point to something larger. The “church” should be construed as any organized religious body with its doctrines or teachings and “state” should be construed as any governmental body or any government-run organization (n.d).

So, with that thought in mind, why does our constitution concern itself with the separation of the church and state? I reckoned that one of the reasons why the Philippine Constitution stated such concept is because it wanted to change what had happened in the past during the time of the colonization of the Philippines under the Spanish rule. It was in the exercise of the political and economic powers of the Spanish clergy that we can perceive clearly the disunity between the Church and State (Agoncillo, 1990). There was a high influence of the church on the state that the church can meddle in civil governance which is what we’re trying to avoid.
Moreover, the separation of church and state ensures that private citizens, when acting in the role of some government official, cannot have any aspect of their private religious beliefs imposed upon others. School teachers cannot promote their religion to other people’s children. Government leaders cannot make members of other religions feel like they are unwanted nor are second-class citizens by using their position to promote particular religious beliefs (Cline, n.d.). Through this principle, every person has an equal right to freely exercise any religion; any beliefs his conscience dictates. The said principle is a key constitutional liberty which helps in avoiding some form of tyranny from any religious group, as well as, from a government that intent on dominating some or any religious groups.
Separation of church and state is a two-way street. It isn’t just about restricting what the government can do with religion, but also what religious bodies can do with the government. Religious groups cannot dictate to or control the government. They cannot cause the government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy for everyone; they cannot cause the government to restrict other groups from acting in their own rights and choosing what and whom to believe when it comes to their faith. This goes without saying that the state or anything related to it cannot punish a person for professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs different from their own; they cannot control or limit someone when it comes to exercising their religious freedom and the like.
Sources:
Agoncillo, T. (1990). History of the Filipino People. Quezon City: Garotech Publishing.
Cline, A. (n.d.). Separation of Church and State 101. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/185292/Separation-of-Church-and-State-101-from-About-com
De Leon, H. S. (2008). Texbook on the Philippine Constitution. Quezon: Rex Printing Company, Inc.