Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Right To Free Speech
Right To Free Speech
The police power of the State does not include the power to promote religious
solidarity because laws, such as in the case at bar i.e. RA XBYZ, tend to impose invalid
exercise of police power. It actually collides with the peoples constitutional rights as
guaranteed in Article III. The end does not justify the means, as they say. 1The Establishment
and Free Exercise Clauses as expressed in the Bill of Rights were not designed to serve
contradictory purposes. They have a single goal to promote freedom of individual religious
beliefs and practices. In simplest terms, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits government from
inhibiting religious beliefs with penalties for religious beliefs and practice, while the
Establishment Clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious belief with rewards for
religious beliefs and practices. The two religion clauses were intended to deny government
the power to use either the carrot or the stick to influence individual religious beliefs and
practices. The legislature, having the ultimate authority in exercising the states police power,
would recognize religions and their practices and would consider them, when practical, in
enacting laws of general application. But when the legislature fails to do so, religions that are
threatened and burdened may turn to the courts for protection.
Providing funds and support in joint religious celebrations expresses a violation of the nonestablishment principle contemplated not only in the Bill of Rights, but also in Article VI,
Section 29 (2) saying: No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister,
or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium. The said provision is accorded in the limitation of powers set
upon the Congress considering that the latter has the control of the expenditure of public
funds. Given that the limits have been explicitly provided in the Constitution, appropriating
funds for the enforcement of this law, in which it may redound to the benefit of the religious
institutions, is plainly unconstitutional. This is also breaches the wall between the Church and
the State. Article II, Section 6 says: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
The Board of Education v. Emerson (1946) interpreted the clause as: 3Neither a State nor
the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. The standard of separation which may
take in the form of the theory of Strict Separation as produced in the line of US jurisprudence
anchors on the premise that an absolute barrier to formal interdependence of religion and
state needs to be erected. Religious institutions could not receive aid, whether direct or
indirect, from the state. Nor could the state adjust its secular programs to alleviate burdens
the programs placed on believers.
Likewise, starting all government programs, and even in court proceedings, with an
ecumenical prayer representing the Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim religions may require
excessive entanglement with the religious group; consequently violating the establishment
clause of Section 5 of the Bill of Rights. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court ruled
that nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment (Freedom to Religion). Similarly, allowing any governmental function with
a prayer shall mean government interference with religion. Since Filipinos adhere to a wide
variety of beliefs, it is not appropriate for the government to endorse any particular belief
system (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim religions).
Sec. 3 of R.A. XBYZ is violative of the Bill of Rights.
It provides an amendment to Articles 132 and 133 of the Revised Penal Code,
punishing illegal acts regarding the interruption of religious worship and offending of the
religious feelings, respectively. This amendment increased by two degrees the original
punishment for both acts should any commit them. Instead of initially having Prision
Correcional as punishment for both, such has been worsened to Reclusion Temporal and is
further qualified to Reclusion Perpetua should there be any violence employed.
Such amendment is tantamount to cruel punishment, protected against by Art. 19, Art.
III of the 1987 Constitution.
3 Board of Education v. Everson, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1946)
The main guides that may be used to gauge whether certain punishments are cruel
include that 1. A punishment must not be too severe that it degrades the dignity of human
beings, 2. It must not be arbitrarily applied, 3. It must be socially unacceptable and 4. It must
not be excessive, i.e., it must serve a penal purpose more effectively than a less severe
punishment would. Sec. 3 fulfills the fourth standard because it is excessive in nature and that
it serves a penal purpose more effective than a less severe punishment would.