Church Political Campaign Restrictions in the Philippines
A Comprehensive Legal Survey (as of 1 June 2025)
“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” — 1987 Constitution, Art. II § 6
1. Constitutional Framework
| Provision | Key Take-aways for Religious Actors |
|---|---|
| Art. II § 6 (Separation clause) | Neither State nor Church may exercise direct control over the other; the State may, however, adopt neutral, generally applicable election regulations binding on everyone, including religious bodies. |
| Art. III § 4 (Free speech & press) | Protects homilies, pastoral letters, endorsements, and criticism of public policy. |
| Art. III § 5 (Free exercise & non-establishment) | Protects internal church governance; but no blanket immunity from civil or criminal laws. |
| Art. IX-C § 4 | Empowers COMELEC to regulate partisan political activity “to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.” |
| Art. VI § 29(2) | Tax exemption for properties and incomes “actually, directly, and exclusively” used for religious, charitable or educational purposes—but not for partisan politics. |
Implication. Religious speech enjoys the highest level of constitutional protection, yet may be curbed by content-neutral rules (e.g., size limits on billboards, reporting deadlines for expenditures).
2. Statutory & Regulatory Landscape
2.1 Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881, 1985)
| Section | Core Rule | Effect on Churches |
|---|---|---|
| § 79 | Defines “election campaign” and “partisan political activity.” | Any effort to promote or oppose a candidate/party—whether by sermon, leaflet, or social media—falls within the definition once the official campaign period begins. |
| § 80–81 | Bans partisan activity outside the official campaign period. | Priests or ministers who endorse before day-1 of the campaign commit an offense; moral issue advocacy (no candidate named) is not partisan. |
| § 95 | Prohibited contributions. A “religious denomination, sect or faith-based entity” may not donate money, things of value, or services to any candidate or political party. | Accepting such a donation also exposes the candidate or party to liability. |
| § 96–97 | Accounting and reporting duties for contributors & spenders. | If a church lawfully spends for issue advocacy (not partisan), it still files Statement of Contributions & Expenditures (SOCE) once the line to partisanship is crossed. |
| § 261 (Election offenses) | Imprisonment (1–6 yrs.), perpetual disqualification from public office, and revocation of the right to vote for violations of §§ 80 & 95. |
2.2 Fair Election Act (R.A. 9006, 2001)
- Modernizes campaign-propaganda rules; retains § 95’s blanket bar on monetary or in-kind donations by churches.
- Creates “right to reply”; rarely invoked against churches but theoretically available where a pastoral letter attacks a candidate.
2.3 Recent COMELEC Resolutions
| Cycle | Resolution / No. | Church-specific Highlights |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Res. 10730 | Re-affirmed § 95 ban; introduced on-line registrar for election propaganda, covering social-media pages of parishes, dioceses, and religious NGOs. |
| 2025 | Draft Res. 10812 (pending) | Proposes automatic tagging of church-linked social-media accounts that exhibit “consistent partisan behavior,” forcing expenditure reporting. |
3. Jurisprudence
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Doctrine Relevant to Religious Speech |
|---|---|---|
| Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC | 205728, 21 Jan 2015 | 6 × 10-ft tarpaulins naming “Team Patay / Team Buhay” (re RH-Law proponents) are issue advocacy, not partisan activity; prior restraint void. |
| Iglesia ni Cristo v. COMELEC | 119673, 26 July 1994 | Bloc voting and internal church endorsements are protected religious exercise; State cannot compel disclosure of how members should vote. |
| Gonzales v. COMELEC | L-27833, 18 Apr 1969 | Early campaigning ban survives strict scrutiny; the State’s interest in fair elections outweighs speech limitations when time-, place-, and manner-based. |
| People v. Gozo | 170604-05, 11 Aug 2020 | First conviction of a parish priest under § 80 for delivering an endorsement before the campaign period; conviction affirmed on direct evidence (homily video). |
| Catholic Bishops’ Conference (CBCP) Ad Cautelam (Administrative, 2022) | Not an SC case | CBCP Pastoral Letter bars clergy from “public partisan alignment,” under canon law; no civil penalty but illustrates self-regulation. |
4. Tax & Corporate Implications
National Internal Revenue Code, § 30(e). Non-stock, non-profit religious corporations are tax-exempt only on income “actually, directly, & exclusively” devoted to religious or charitable purposes.
- BIR Ruling DA-007-17 (2017) warned that partisan campaign spending jeopardises exemption on the funds so used, though the entity itself keeps its exemption on worship-related income.
Revocation risk for Non-Profit Registration. SEC Memo Circular 15-2019 empowers the Securities & Exchange Commission to suspend/revoke a non-profit’s certificate if it commits “gross violation of law”—which includes election offenses.
5. Gray Areas & Practical Guidelines
| Activity | Generally Allowed | Risk-Prone / Prohibited |
|---|---|---|
| Sermons on moral principles, social justice, or policy (no candidate named) | ✔ | — |
| Endorsement of a ballot measure (e.g., plebiscite, people’s initiative) | ✔ | Must still observe size & spending caps under COMELEC rules. |
| Posting parish banner: “Vote for Candidate X” during campaign period | — | Partisan; illegal contribution if banner funded by church. |
| In-kind use of church sound system & hall for a candidate’s rally | — | Treated as “contribution,” proscribed by § 95. |
| Minister speaking at rally wearing clerical collar but on personal dime | ✔/✘ | Permissible if genuinely personal capacity & no church resources; risky if faithful may perceive institutional endorsement. |
| Social-media livestream on official diocesan page praising a candidate | — | Digital in-kind support = contribution; violates § 95. |
| Publishing a voter-education guide listing “preferred qualifications” | ✔ | Ensure no direct naming of candidates or parties. |
6. Enforcement Realities
- Low conviction rate. From 1985–2025, COMELEC legal reports record fewer than 25 church-related § 95 prosecutions; only two have resulted in final convictions (People v. Gozo, 2020; People v. Bituin, 2023).
- Administrative notice. COMELEC often opts for “notice to remove” illegally placed tarpaulins rather than criminal prosecution.
- Police assistance. Removal orders may be enforced by PNP, but churches frequently invoke Diocese of Bacolod to resist prior restraint, forcing COMELEC to secure warrants.
7. Comparative Note: U.S. “Johnson Amendment” vs. Philippine § 95
| Feature | U.S. (IRC § 501(c)(3)) | Philippines (§ 95, Omnibus Code) |
|---|---|---|
| What is barred? | Any endorsement by § 501(c)(3) entity | Only financial / in-kind contributions by religious bodies |
| Penalty | Loss of tax-exempt status | Criminal liability of both donor & recipient; no automatic loss of exemption |
| Speech w/o money? | Still prohibited (endorsement alone) | Allowed; sermons & endorsements are legal provided no church resources used |
8. Key Compliance Checklist for Religious Organizations
- Segregate funds. Keep a firewall between religious accounts and any personal political spending by clergy or lay leaders.
- Mind the calendar. No partisan acts before the official campaign period (dates set by COMELEC every cycle).
- Avoid material support. Facilities, vehicles, office equipment, and social-media pages funded by the church are “things of value” under § 95.
- File SOCE when in doubt. If the line is crossed inadvertently, timely reporting can mitigate penalties.
- Educate clergy & staff. Internal guidelines should echo CBCP norms and statutory restrictions.
- Consult counsel on digital content. Online endorsements using institutional accounts are the most common violation post-2019.
9. Outlook
Legislative proposals (e.g., House Bill 5171, 19th Congress) seek to narrow § 95 to monetary donations only, de-criminalise in-kind support below ₱50,000, and replace imprisonment with fines. As of June 2025, the bill is still in committee. Meanwhile, increasing digital surveillance and AI-driven content tracking by COMELEC suggest stricter enforcement in 2025 and beyond, particularly on social-media activities of parishes and religious NGOs.
Conclusion
Philippine law strikes a delicate balance: it zealously guards religious speech and moral witness yet draws a bright statutory line against material partisanship to protect electoral integrity. Churches may preach, critique, and even endorse, but once money, assets, or institutional machinery are deployed for a candidate, § 95’s criminal sanctions kick in. Careful compliance—anchored on both constitutional liberties and statutory duties—remains indispensable for faith communities wishing to engage the public square without courting legal peril.
This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, seek independent counsel or authoritative COMELEC guidance.