consticases

Thursday,June30,2011
freedomofreligion
FREEDOMOFRELIGION
A.C.No.L350.August7,1959
GenaroGerona,etal.vs.SecretaryofEducation,etal.
106Phil2
FACTS:RA1265isalawthatmakesaflagceremonycompulsoryforschools.The
implementingruleDepOrder8saysthattheanthemmustbeplayedwhilethe
flagisraised.Italsosaysthateveryonemustsalutetheflagandnooneistodo
anythingwhiletheceremonyisbeingheld.Aftertheflageveryoneistorecite
thepatrioticpledge.GeronaschildrenattendingtheBuenavistaCommunity
SchoolinUson,Masbaterefusedtosalutetheflag,singtheanthemandrecite
thepledge.Theydidnotdosooutofreligiousbelief.TheyareJehovah's
Witnesses.Theyconsidertheflagtobeanimageinthecontextofwhatis
prohibitedintheirreligionandbecauseofthistheywereexpelledfromthe
school.GeronawrotetoSecofEdthattheirchildrenbeexemptfromthelawand
justbeallowedtoremainsilentandstandatattention.SecofEddeniedthe
petition.Writofpreliminaryinjunctionwaspetitionedandissued.
ISSUE:IsDepOrder8unconstitutional?
RULING:Flagsaluteceremonyissecularandthedepordernon
Discriminatorythereforeitisconstitutional.Thefreedomofbeliefislimitlessand
boundlessbutitsexerciseisnot.Ifthebeliefclasheswithlawthentheformer
mustyield.Petitionerssalutetheflagduringboyscoutactivities.Theirobjection
thenrestsonthesingingofanthemandrecitationofpledge.Thepledgeis
judgedtobecompletelysecular.Itdoesnotevenpledgeallegiancetotheflagor
totheRepublic.Theanthemisalsosecular.Ittalksaboutpatriotism.Itdoesnot
speakofresortingtoforce,militaryservice,ordutytodefendthecountry.There
wasnocompulsioninvolvedintheenforcementoftheflagsalute.Theywerenot
criminallyprosecutedunderapenalsanction.Iftheychosenottoobeythe
saluteregulationtheymerelylostthebenefitsofpubliceducation.
330US1February10,1947
ArchREversonv.BoardofEducation
Facts:NJenactedalawthatgaveSchoolDistauthoritytomakerulesandcases
pertainingtothetransportationofchildrentoandfromschools.BoardofEd
authorizedreimbursementofmoneypaidbyparentsforbustransportationof
theirkidswhorodepublictransittoschool.Someofthismoneywaspaidforthe
transportationofsomekidstoparochialschoolsCatholic.
Issue:WhethertheNJstatuteortheBoardresolution,authorizingthe
reimbursementoftaxfundstoparentswithstudentsofparochialschools,
unconstitutionallyregulatestheestablishmentofreligion?
Ruling:No,underthefactsthe1
st
AmenddoesnotbarNJfromspendingtax
fundstopaythebusfaresofparochialstudentsunderageneralprogramthat
reimbursesthefaresofstudentswhoattendotherschools.Asageneralprogram
NJlawisneutralinitsapplication.
319US624June14,1943
WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette
Facts.In1942,thePetitioneradoptedarulethatforcedallteachersandpupilsto
pledgeallegiancethenationsflageachday.Ifthestudentrefusedhewouldbe
foundinsubordinateandexpelledfromschool.Hewouldnotbereadmittedto
2011(1)
June(1)
freedomofreligion
BlogArchive
_eiLa_
singlemum,
malakastumawa,
topakin,sweet,
strongan,iyakin...
Viewmycompleteprofile
AboutMe
More NextBlog CreateBlog SignIn
schooluntilheconformed.Meanwhile,hewasconsideredtobeunlawfully
absentandsubjecttodelinquencyhearings.Theparentscouldbefined$50per
daywithajailtermnottoexceed30days.TheRespondentaskedforan
exceptionforallJehovahsWitnessesbecausethispledgegoesagainsttheir
religiousbelief.Buthewasdeniedanexception.
Issue.DoesthisrulecompellingapledgeviolatetheFirstAmendmentofthe
Constitution?
Ruling:Yes.Compellingasalutetotheflaginfringesuponanindividualsintellect
andrighttochoosetheirownbeliefs.Themajorityfocusesontherightof
personstochoosebeliefsandactaccordingly.Aslongastheactionsdonot
presentaclearandpresentdangerofthekindthestateisallowedtoprevent,
thentheConstitutionencouragesdiversityofthoughtandbelief.Thestatehas
notpowertomandateeallegianceinhopesthatitwillencouragepatriotism.This
issomethingthecitizenswillchooseornot.
G.R.NO.95770March1,1993
Ebralinagvdivisionsuperintendentofschoolsofcebu
219SCRA256
FACTS:Respondentsorderedexpulsionof68HSandGSstudentsofCebu.Public
schoolauthoritiesexpelledthesestudentsforrefusingtosalutetheflag,singthe
nationalanthemandrecitethepledgerequiredbyRA1265.TheyareJehovahs
Witnessesbelievingthatbydoingtheseisreligiousworship/devotionakinto
idolatryagainsttheirteachings.Theycontendthattocompeltranscends
constitutionallimitsandinvadesprotectionagainstofficialcontrolandreligious
freedom.
Issue:Hasreligiousfreedombeenviolated?
Held:Religiousfreedomisafundamentalrightofhighestpriority.The2fold
aspectofrighttoreligiousworshipis:1.)Freedomtobelievewhichisan
absoluteactwithintherealmofthought.2.)Freedomtoactononesbelief
regulatedandtranslatedtoexternalacts.Theonlylimitationtoreligiousfreedom
istheexistenceofgraveandpresentdangertopublicsafety,morals,healthand
interestswhereStatehasrighttoprevent.Theexpulsionofthepetitionersfrom
theschoolisnotjustified.JehovahsWitnessesmaybeexemptedfromobserving
theflagceremonybutthisrightdoesnotgivethemtherighttodisruptsuch
ceremonies.Inthecaseatbar,theStudentsexpelledwereonlystandingquietly
duringceremonies.Byobservingtheceremoniesquietly,itdoesntpresentany
dangersoevilandimminenttojustifytheirexpulsion.Whatthepetitioners
requestisexemptionfromflagceremoniesandnotexclusionfrompublicschools.
Theexpulsionofthestudentsbyreasonoftheirreligiousbeliefsisalsoa
violationofacitizensrighttofreeeducation.Thenonobservanceoftheflag
ceremonydoesnottotallyconstituteignoranceofpatriotismandcivic
consciousness.Loveforcountryandadmirationfornationalheroes,civic
consciousnessandformofgovernmentarepartoftheschoolcurricula.Therefore,
expulsionduetoreligiousbeliefsisunjustified.ExpulsionisANNULLED.
G.R.NO.45459MARCH13,1937
AGLIPAYVS.RUIZ
64PHIL201
Facts:Petitionerseekstheissuanceofawritofprohibitionagainstrespondent
DirectorofPostsfromissuingandsellingpostagestampscommemorativeofthe
33rdInternationalEucharisticCongress.Petitionercontendsthatsuchactisa
violationoftheConstitutionalprovisionstatingthatnopublicfundsshallbe
appropriatedorusedinthebenefitofanychurch,systemofreligion,etc.This
provisionisaresultoftheprincipleoftheseparationofchurchandstate,forthe
purposeofavoidingtheoccasionwhereinthestatewillusethechurch,orvice
versa,asaweapontofurthertheirendsandaims.Respondentcontendsthat
suchissuanceisinaccordancetoActNo.4052,providingfortheappropriation
fundstorespondentfortheproductionandissuanceofpostagestampsaswould
beadvantageoustothegovernment.
Issue:WhetherorNottherewasaviolationofthefreedomtoreligion.
Held:WhatisguaranteedbyourConstitutionisreligiousfreedomandnotmere
religioustoleration.Itishowevernotaninhibitionofprofoundreverencefor
religionandisnotadenialofitsinfluenceinhumanaffairs.Religionasa
professionoffaithtoanactivepowerthatbindsandelevatesmantohisCreator
isrecognized.Andinsofarasitinstillsintothemindsthepurestprinciplesof
morality,itsinfluenceisdeeplyfeltandhighlyappreciated.ThephraseinActNo.
4052advantageoustothegovernmentdoesnotauthorizeviolationofthe
Constitution.Theissuanceofthestampswasnotinspiredbyanyfeelingtofavor
aparticularchurchorreligiousdenomination.Theywerenotsoldforthebenefit
oftheRomanCatholicChurch.Thepostagestamps,insteadofshowinga
Catholicchaliceasoriginallyplanned,containsamapofthePhilippinesandthe
locationofManila,withthewordsSeatXXXIIIInternationalEucharistic
Congress.ThefocusofthestampswasnottheEucharisticCongressbutthecity
ofManila,beingtheseatofthatcongress.Thiswastotoadvertisethe
Philippinesandattractmoretourists,theofficialsmerelytookadvantageofan
eventconsideredofinternationalimportance.Althoughsuchissuanceandsale
maybeinseparablylinkedwiththeRomanCatholicChurch,anybenefitand
propagandaincidentallyresultingfromitwasnotheaimorpurposeofthe
Government.
G.R.No.113092September1,1994
MARTINCENTENO,vs.HON.VICTORIAVILLALONPORNILLOS
236SCRA197
Facts:TheofficersofagroupofelderlymenofacivicorganizationknownastheSamahang
KatandaanngNayonngTikaylaunchedafunddriveforthepurposeofrenovatingthechapelof
BarrioTikay,Malolos,Bulacan.MartinCenteno,thechairmanofthegroup,approachedJudge
AdoracionG.Angeles,aresidentofTikay,andsolicitedfromheracontributionofP1,500.00.Itis
admittedthatthesolicitationwasmadewithoutapermitfromtheDepartmentofSocialWelfareand
Development.Asaconsequence,aninformationwasfiledagainstCenteno,forviolationofPDNo.
1564ortheSolicitationPermitLaw.Centenofiledamotiontoquashtheinformationontheground
thatthefactsallegedthereindonotconstituteanoffense,claimingthatPDNo.1564onlycovers
solicitationsmadeforcharitableorpublicwelfarepurposes,butnotthosemadeforareligious
purposesuchastheconstructionofachapel.
Issue:Shouldthephrase"charitablepurposes"beconstruedinitsbroadestsensesoastoincludea
religiouspurpose?
Ruling:Noandthatlegislativeenactmentsspecificallyspelledout"charitable"and"religious"inan
enumeration,whereasPresidentialDecreeNo.1564merelystated"charitableorpublicwelfare
purposes,"onlygoestoshowthattheframersofthelawinquestionneverintendedtoinclude
solicitationsforreligiouspurposeswithinitscoverage.Otherwise,thereisnoreasonwhyitwould
nothavesostatedexpressly.
SolicitationforreligiouspurposesmaybesubjecttoproperregulationbytheStateintheexerciseof
policepower.However,inthecaseatbar,consideringthatsolicitationsintendedforareligious
purposearenotwithinthecoverageofPresidentialDecreeNo.1564,asearlierdemonstrated,
petitionercannotbeheldcriminallyliablethereforandthereforeacquitted.
Coxv.NewHampshire
312U.S.569(1941)
Facts:AgroupofJehovah'sWitnesseswereconvictedforengaginginapublic
paradewithoutobtainingapermit.Thedefendantsassembledattheirchurch
anddividedintosmallergroupsthatmarchedalongsidewalks,displayedsigns,
andhandedoutleafletsannouncingalatermeeting.Theyclaimedthattheir
FourteenthAmendmentrightswereviolatedincludingtheirrightstofreedomof
worshipandfreedomofassembly.
Issue:Whethertime,place,andmannerrestrictionsonholdingaparadeviolatetheFirst
Amendmentfreedomsofspeechandassembly.
Ruling:No.AunanimousSupremeCourt,viaJusticeCharlesEvansHughes,heldthat,
althoughthegovernmentcannotregulatethecontentsofspeech,itcanplacereasonabletime,
place,andmannerrestrictionsonspeechforthepublicsafety.TheCourtheldthattheNew
Hampshirelawwasnotmeanttoprohibitspeech,butsimplytoregulateitwhenittookthe
formofaparadeorotherformoflargegathering.TheCourtsaidthatthegovernmenthada
legitimateinterestinkeepingorderatsuchevents,anditcouldimposeafeeforthelicense
thatwasproportionaltotheamountofpolicepresencethatwouldberequiredtoensurethe
peaceablenatureoftheevent.
G.R.L5917JANUARY28,1955
FONACIERVS.COURTOFAPPEALS
96PHIL417
Facts:CasewasfiledbyIglesiaFilipinaIndependiente(IFI),representedbyits
supremebishopGerardoBayaca,againstBishopFonacierseekingtorenderan
accountingofhisadministrationofallthetemporalpropertiesandtorecoverthe
sameonthegroundthatheceasedtobethesupremebishopofIFI.IsabeloDe
losReyesJr.hadbeenelectedastheSupremeBishop.
PetitionerclaimsthathewasnotproperlyremovedasSupremeBishopandhis
legalsuccessorwasJuanJamias.Heclaimsthatthetherewasanaccountingof
hisadministrationandwasturnedovertobishopJamias.Also,thatIsabeloDe
losReyesandBayacahaveabandonedtheirfaithandformallyjoinedthe
ProstestantEpiscopalChurchofAmerica.CFIrenderedjudgmentdeclaring
IsabeloDeLosReyes,Jr.asthesoleandlegitimateSupremeBishopofIFIand
orderedFonaciertorenderanaccountingofhisadmistration.CAaffirmedthe
decisionoftheCFI
Issue:Whetherornotthepetitionershouldstillberegardedasthelegitimate
supremebishopofIFI.
Held:SupremeCourtaffirmedCAsdecision.ThelegitimateSupremeBishopof
IFIisIsabeloDelosReyes,Jr.TheSupremeCourtaffirmsthevalidityofthe
electionofBishopDelosReyesastheSupremeBishopbasedontheirinternal
laws
Tofinallydisposeofthepropertyissue,theCourt,citingWatsonv.Jones,368
declaredthattheruleinpropertycontroversieswithinreligiouscongregations
strictlyindependentofanyothersuperiorecclesiasticalassociation(suchasthe
PhilippineIndependentChurch)isthattherulesforresolvingsuchcontroversies
shouldbethoseofanyvoluntaryassociation.Ifthecongregationadoptsthe
majorityrulethenthemajorityshouldprevailifitadoptsadherencetoduly
constitutedauthoritieswithinthecongregation,thenthatshouldbefollowed.
G.R.L53487MAY25,1981
GARCESVS.ESTENZO
104SCRA510
Facts:TworesolutionsoftheBarangayCouncilofValencia,OrmocCitywere
passed.Theseresolutionshavebeenratifiedby272voters,andprojectswere
implemented.TheimagewastemporarilyplacedinthealtaroftheCatholic
Churchofthebarangay.However,afteramass,FatherSergioMarilaoOsmea
refusedtoreturntheimagetothebarangaycouncil,asitwasthechurchs
propertysincechurchfundswereusedinitsacquisition.ResolutionNo.10was
passedfortheauthorizationofhiringalawyerforthereplevincaseagainstthe
priestfortherecoveryoftheimage.ResolutionNo.12appointedBrgy.Captain
Velosoasarepresentativetothecase.Thepriest,inhisanswerassailedthe
constitutionalityofthesaidresolutions.ThepriestwithAndresGarces,amember
oftheAglipayanChurch,contendsthatSec.8ArticleIV1andSec18(2)Article
VIII)2oftheconstitutionwasviolated.
Issue:WasanyfreedomofreligionclauseintheConstitutionviolated.
Held:No.AssaidbytheCourtthiscaseisapettyquarreloverthecustodyof
theimage.Theimagewaspurchasedinconnectionwiththecelebrationofthe
barriofiestaandnotforthepurposeoffavoringanyreligionnorinterferingwith
religiousmattersorbeliefsofthebarrioresidents.Anyactivityintendedto
facilitatetheworshipofthepatronsaint(suchastheacquisition)isnotillegal.
Practically,theimagewasplacedinalaymanscustodysothatitcouldeasilybe
madeavailabletoanyfamilydesiringtoborrowtheimageinconnectionwith
prayersandnovena.Itwasthecouncilsfundsthatwereusedtobuytheimage,
thereforeitistheirproperty.Rightofthedeterminationofcustodyistheirright,
andeveniftheydecidedtogiveittotheChurch,thereisnoviolationofthe
Constitution,sinceprivatefundswereused.Noteverygovernmentactivity
whichinvolvestheexpenditureofpublicfundsandwhichhassomereligioustint
isviolativeoftheconstitutionalprovisionsregardingseparationofchurchand
state,freedomofworshipandbanningtheuseofpublicmoneyorproperty.
G.R.NO.68828MARCH27,1985
GERMANVS.BARANGAN
135SCRA514
Facts:PetitionersconvergedatJ.P.LaurelStreettohearMassattheSt.Jude
Chapel,whichadjoinedMalacaang.Respondentbarredthemforsecurity
reasons.Petitionersfiledapetitionformandamus.
Issue:WhetherorNottherewasaviolationoftheconstitutionalfreedom.
Held:Petitioners'intentionwasnotreallytoperformanactofreligiousworship
buttoconductanantigovernmentdemonstrationsincetheyworeyellowT
shirts,raisedtheirclenchedfistsandshoutedantigovernmentslogans.While
everycitizenhastherighttoreligiousfreedom,theexercisemustbedonein
goodfaith.Besides,therestrictionwasreasonableasitwasdesignedtoprotect
thelivesofthePresidentandhisfamily,governmentofficialsanddiplomaticand
foreigngueststransactingbusinesswithMalacanang.Therestrictionwasalso
intendedtosecuretheexecutiveofficeswithintheMalacananggroundsfrom
possibleexternalattacksanddisturbances.(Minorityopinion)Thesole
justificationforapriorrestraintorlimitationontheexerciseofthefreedomof
religionistheexistenceofagraveandimminent,ofaseriouseviltopublic
safety,publicmorals,publichealthoranyotherlegitimatepublicinterestthat
theStatehasarighttoprevent.Theburdentoshowtheexistenceofgraveand
imminentdangerliesontheofficialswhowouldrestrainpetitioners.Respondents
wereinfullcontrolandhadthecapabilitytostopanyuntowardmove.Therewas
noclearandpresentdangerofanyseriouseviltopublicsafetyorthesecurityof
Malacanang.
51Phil420
RAULGONZALEZv.ROMANCATHOLICARCHBISHOPOFMANILA.
Facts:GonzalezbroughtthesuitagainstthearchbishopintheCFIofManilaand
prayedforjudgmentdeclaringthathe,thelawfulheirtothechaplaincyandits
incomeestablishingtherightofthepetitionerandhissuccessorstobe
appointedtoandreceivetheincomeofthechaplaincyduringtheirinfancy
wheneveritmaybevacantand,pendingsuchappointment,toreceivethe
incomefortheirmaintenanceandsupport.Thetrialcourtdirectedthearchbishop
toappointGonzalezaschaplainandorderedpaymenttohimthesumbeingthe
aggregatenetincomeofthechaplaincyduringthevacancy,lesstheexpenseof
havingtheprescribedmassescelebratedineachyear.Itreservedtothe
petitioneranylegalrighthemayhavetoproceedinthepropercourtfor
cancellationofthecertificateofregistrationofthepropertyinthenameofthe
archbishop.
Issue:IstheGonzalezlegallyentitledtobeappointedthechaplain?
Ruling:TheSupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslandsreversedthejudgmentand
absolvedthearchbishopfromthecomplaint,'withoutprejudicetotherightof
properpersonsininteresttoproceedforindependentrelief,'inrespecttothe
incomeaccruedduringthevacancy,orinrespecttothereformationofthe
certificateofregistrationsoastoshowthefiduciarycharacterofthetitle.Without
decidingwhethersuchdispositionofthesurpluswasproperorwhatshouldbeitsdispositionin
thefuture,thatasonofthelastincumbent,whowasproperlyrefusedappointmentaschaplain
becausehehadnotthequalificationsprescribedbytheCanonLaw,wasnotentitled,asthe
nearestrelative,totheaccruedsurplus.
GR119673
IGLESIANIKRISTOvs.CourtofAppeals
Facts:IglesianiCristohasatelevisionprogramentitled"AngIglesianiCristo"
airedonChannel2everySaturdayandonChannel13everySunday.The
programpresentsandpropagatesINC'sreligiousbeliefs,doctrinesandpractices
oftentimesincomparativestudieswithotherreligions.Sometimeinthemonths
ofSeptember,OctoberandNovember1992INCsubmittedtotheMTRCBthe
VTRtapesofitsTVprogram.TheBoardclassifiedtheseriesas"X"ornotfor
publicviewingonthegroundthatthey"offendandconstituteanattackagainst
otherreligionswhichisexpresslyprohibitedbylaw."
Issue:IsapriorsubmissiontoMTRCBacaseofpriorrestraint?
Ruling:TherecordsshowthatthedecisionoftherespondentBoard,affirmedby
theCAiscompletelybereftoffindingsoffactstojustifytheconclusionthatthe
subjectvideotapesconstituteimpermissibleattacksagainstanotherreligion.
Thereisnoshowingwhatsoeverofthetypeofharmthetapeswillbringabout
especiallythegravityandimminenceofthethreatenedharm.Priorrestrainton
speech,includingreligiousspeech,cannotbejustifiedbyhypotheticalfearsbut
onlybytheshowingofasubstantiveandimminentevilwhichhastakenthelife
ofarealityalreadyonground.Finally,itisalsoopinedthat"thedeterminationof
thequestionastowhetherornotsuchvilification,exaggerationorfabrication
fallswithinorliesoutsidetheboundariesofprotectedspeechorexpressionisa
judicialfunctionwhichcannotbearrogatedbyanadministrativebodysuchasa
BoardofCensorsandthatasystemofpriorrestraintmayonlybevalidly
administeredbyjudgesandnotlefttoadministrativeagencies.
Home
Subscribeto:Posts(Atom)
Postedby_eiLa_at9:16PM Nocomments:
AwesomeInc.template.PoweredbyBlogger.