Interpellation Points:

A. Churches are not purely for worshipping purposes only, hence should be taxed

Q1: In the status quo, are the Churches taxed?Q2: Does the current law distinguish between what Church activities should be exempted?

If YES: No, the law does NOT distinguish Ms. Speaker. In the status quo, ALL Church activities and properties are NOT taxed. Let’s be clear on that.

If NO: Correct, the law does NOT.Q3: Are you of the belief that Churches only undertake activities related only to religion?Q4: Do you agree in the case of Estrada vs Escritur which states that the Church is recognized by the State for religious purposes ONLY?

If NO: You contravene the decision of the Supreme Court itself Ms. SpeakerQ5: When we say that the Church is for religious purpose only, of course we mean that activities be related to religion, right?Q6: And in the case of People vs Baes, do you concede with the SC when it ruled that the Churches’ activities and properties should be devoted to religion only?Q7: And according to our taxation laws, churches are exempted from taxes basically because they are religious in nature correct?Q8: By implication, once a church’s activities and properties cease in being religious in nature, it is not within the context of the taxation law anymore?

If YES: And by that do you admit that the purpose of the taxation law is thereby being violated?

If NO: But that is what the SC ruled in the case of Escritur.Q9: Are you of the belief that ALL churches properties are related to religion?Q10: Aren’t you informed that there are a lot of churches across all religions that appropriate and use properties NOT for religious purposes?Q11: Are you aware that the Basilica of Immaculate Conception here in Batangas has an approximate area of 500sqm which it uses not for worship, not for holding mass and most definitely not for charity BUT leases it for COMMERCIAL purposes? Q12: Do you know that in the case of Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs CIR, the SC ruled that commercial purposes are different from religious purposes?Q13: and do you know that the taxation law ought to exempt churches only for religious purposes and NOT for any other purposes?Q14: And do you confirm that once the religious nature of the church properties cease to exist, then the exemption from taxes should be rightfully withdrawn?

If YES: That is the exact position of the affirmative side. Exemption should only be granted in properties made for religious purposes and not for any other purposes.

If NO: You are contradicting your previous answers Ms. Speaker

Batch A part 2: More examples of non-religious properties

Q14: Another example. Are you aware that the Iglesia Ni Cristo owns several parcels of lands in Pasay, Manila which it does NOT use for holding pagsamba or worship but leases it to third party lessees for RESIDENTIAL purposes?Q15: And are you aware that of the 8 families leasing those lots from Iglesia ni Cristo, NONE OF THEM ARE MEMBERS OF THE INC?Q16: And are you serious to make this body belief that the business of leasing residential lots to third persons not even members of their religion is a RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY?

If YES: It is NOT a religious activity Ms. Speaker, it is a business already, and in the case of Roman Catholic vs CIR, it is already settled by the Court that Churches should not engage in businesses.

If NO: Exactly. Churches should own properties for religious purposes only and NOT for business and commercial purposes, as ruled in the case of Roman Catholic vs CIRQ17: Are you informed that in Visayas, the Roman Catholic religion owns at least 12 hectares of land which are bought under the name of the Catholic Church using funds from the people’s tithes and donations, but are not used for religious purposes?Q18: Are you further informed that the said lots are not actually used for ANY religious purposes because no Church of place of worship is erected there?Q19: And using your own conscience Ms. Speaker, do you honestly believe that it is right not to impose taxes on such barren, unused lands just because they are owned by the Church?Q20: So in summary, do you now concede that the Church in general is not solely limited in religious but also commercial and business purposes?

If YES: Thank you for helping the affirmative side build its case.If NO: You are going blatantly denying the truth that exists out there in the real

world Ms. Speaker. Churches are no longer your plain old religious entities nowadays. Religions have learned to maximize fund generation by engaging in commercial and residential activities as proven by the examples given a while ago just to name a few.

Batch A Part 3: Other similar situations

Q1: right now, the law exempts churches and other religious orgs and institutions from tax correct?

If NO: The law only exempts churches and other religious orgs and institutions only Ms Speaker, please do not amend the law.Q2: Do you happen to know one Alipio Gonzaga?

Of course NO: Let me enlighten you. He is an owner of a vacant lot in Poblacion, San Pascual, Batangas and the said lot has been used by the Catholic Church for its El Shaddai and other apostolic activities for 15 years now since year 2000. Mr. Gonzaga received no payment or rentals from the church for 15 years. But for 15 years Mr. Gonzaga has been paying real estate taxes.Q3: Now this is the question, is the purpose for the use of Mr. Gonzaga’s land religious in nature?

If NO: It is not? Ms Speaker the lot has been used for worship and apostolic activities, are they not religious to you? They are religious in nature.Q4: And going back to our taxation law, it exempts churches from taxes because they are religious in nature correct?Q5: And since Mr. Gonzaga’s land was used for religious purposes, shouldn’t his lot be exempted from taxes?

Most probably NO: And the reason for this is because the lot is not owned by the Church correct?Q6: Let us reverse the situation: Let us suppose that the lot was not owned by Mr. Gonzaga but the Church itself, do you think it would be exempted from taxes?

If NO: It will be exempted from taxes because that is the status quo.Q7: Now do you realize that the law grants tax exemption to churches based on ownership and not on the purpose for which said lots are used?Q8: Do you recognize that a lot may be owned by the Church but not used for religious purpose?

If NO: We have discussed examples of these a while ago Ms. Speaker please do not forget.Q9: Do you also admit that like the case of Mr. Gonzaga, a lot may be owned by a private person but may be used for religious purpose?

If NO: The case of Mr. Gonzaga is a clear example of this.Q10: So do you now realize that there is a mistake in the law that needs to be corrected?Q11: Do you concede that the law should be amended so as to impose exemptions not based on who owns the property, but for what purpose the property is dedicated?

If YES: That is what the affirmative side is arguing for today and we are thankful that the negative side has conceded and admitted our contentions that there is a mistake in the law that needs to be corrected by this respected council.

If NO: Don’t you think there is an injustice there?Most probably no ulit; Don’t you think that Mr. Gonzaga, who never used

his land for himself but let the Church use it for religious purposes but was exacted taxes by the government, experienced social injustice?

If YES: Yes, there is indeed a social injustice there and that should be corrected because social injustice is never the intention of the law.

If NO: Wrong Ms. Speaker. there is a social injustice there and that should be corrected because social injustice is never the intention of the law.

C. Debunking the Separation of Church and State

Q: As gathered from your position as negative, you wish to maintain the tax exemption on churches in the status quo, correct?Q: In Article II, sec 6, the 1987 Charter grants separation of church and state, correct?Q: Do you understand full well the meaning of this provision?

Side comment: Very good. Let’s test that.Q: Are you aware of the case of US vs Reynolds?

Q: Are you not informed that under such case, the SC ruled that the separation of church and state DOES NOT mean that the State shall totally disregard the Church in national concerns?Q: In roman Catholic vs CIR, are you aware that the SC ruled that taxation is a national concern?Q: Are you aware that under such ruling, the SC ruled that the obligations of the State is not to take a blind eye on religion but must ensure that tax exemptions are taken faithfully in accordance with the tenor of the law?Q: Do you know that under the case of Aglipay vs Ruiz, the SC declared that the Church is not just a religious group, but also reflects the core value of the people, which is vital in nation building?Q: Are you also aware that in that particular case, the SC declared that religion is not EXCLUDED in nation building?Q: Do you believe that the Church and religion in general can help the government create a nation that is progressive and prosperous?Q: Following the rulings in US vs Reynolds and Aglipay vs Ruiz, do you now agree with the High Tribunal that the true meaning of separation of church and state is not separation in its plain meaning but the balancing of the interest of the State and religion?Q: Do you now concede that the separation of Church and State is not an excuse to exclude the Church in nation building?

If YES: Very good. Thank you for cooperating with the negative side.If NO: That would be to deny the statutory construction done by the Supreme Court itself.

Q: And by implication from the court’s ruling in Roman Catholic vs CIR, do you agree that religion and the Church as a whole may be imposed tax as its contribution in nation building?