Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter Vi Non Establishment of Religion Clause
Chapter Vi Non Establishment of Religion Clause
Whether or not there was violation of petitioners’ right to FOURTH ISSUE: Yes.
property.
The Court held that every citizen’s expression with
Whether or not the tarpaulin and its message are considered political consequences enjoys a high degree of protection.
religious speech.
Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the
HELD: tarpaulin is election propaganda, being petitioners’ way of
endorsing candidates who voted against the RH Law and
FIRST ISSUE: No. rejecting those who voted for it, holds no water.
The Court ruled that the present case does not call for The Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence
the exercise of prudence or modesty. There is no political the success or failure of the named candidates and political
question. It can be acted upon by this court through the parties, this does not necessarily mean it is election
expanded jurisdiction granted to this court through Article VIII, propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid for or posted “in return
Section 1 of the Constitution. for consideration” by any candidate, political party, or party-list
The concept of a political question never precludes group.
judicial review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal
upon a fundamental individual or collective right. Even opinions are not included, while sponsored messages are
assuming arguendo that the COMELEC did have the discretion covered.
to choose the manner of regulation of the tarpaulin in question,
it cannot do so by abridging the fundamental right to The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech
expression.
Political speech refers to speech “both intended and received not to promote the government’s favored form of religion, but
as a contribution to public deliberation about some issue,” to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion
“fostering informed and civic minded deliberation.” On the without hindrance. Their purpose or effect therefore is to
other hand, commercial speech has been defined as speech remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a person’s or
that does “no more than propose a commercial transaction.” institution’s religion.
The expression resulting from the content of the tarpaulin is,
however, definitely political speech. As Justice Brennan explained, the “government may
take religion into account . . . to exempt, when possible, from
FIFTH ISSUE: Content-based regulation. generally applicable governmental regulation individuals whose
religious beliefs and practices would otherwise thereby be
Content-based restraint or censorship refers to infringed, or to create without state involvement an
restrictions “based on the subject matter of the utterance or atmosphere in which voluntary religious exercise may flourish.”
speech.” In contrast, content-neutral regulation includes
controls merely on the incidents of the speech such as time, IMBONG VS. OCHOA
place, or manner of the speech.
G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014
The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is
content-based. The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced FACTS:
from the size of its medium. Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on
Content-based regulation bears a heavy presumption Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the
of invalidity, and this court has used the clear and present Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012
danger rule as measure. (RH Law), challengers from various sectors of society came
knocking on the doors of the Court, beckoning it to wield the
Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought to be sword that strikes down constitutional disobedience. Aware of
prevented must be substantive, ‘extremely serious and the the profound and lasting impact that its decision may produce,
degree of imminence extremely high.’” “Only when the the Court now faces the controversy, as presented in fourteen
challenged act has overcome the clear and present danger rule (14) petitions and two (2) petitions-in-intervention.
will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having
the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.” The petitioners are one in praying that the entire RH Law
be declared unconstitutional.
Even with the clear and present danger test,
respondents failed to justify the regulation. There is no ISSUES:
compelling and substantial state interest endangered by the After a scrutiny of the various arguments and contentions of
posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment of the right of the parties, the Court has synthesized and refined them to the
freedom of expression. There is no reason for the state to following principal issues:
minimize the right of non-candidate petitioners to post the
tarpaulin in their private property. The size of the tarpaulin PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power of
does not affect anyone else’s constitutional rights. judicial review over the controversy.
The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is Actual Case or Controversy
readily seen by the public, the tarpaulin remains the private
property of petitioners. Their right to use their property is Facial Challenge
likewise protected by the Constitution. Locus Standi
Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an Declaratory Relief
effective confiscation of private property or constitutes an
arbitrary or unreasonable infringement of property rights is One Subject/One Title Rule
void, because it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of
due process and equal protection of the laws. 2. SUBSTANTIVE: Whether the RH law is unconstitutional:
The Court in Adiong case held that a restriction that Right to Life
regulates where decals and stickers should be posted is “so
Right to Health
broad that it encompasses even the citizen’s private property.”
Consequently, it violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech
which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property
without due process of law. The Family
The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon Due Process
by petitioners are not binding upon this court. The position of
Equal Protection
the Catholic religion in the Philippines as regards the RH Law
does not suffice to qualify the posting by one of its members of Involuntary Servitude
a tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such basis. The
enumeration of candidates on the face of the tarpaulin Delegation of Authority to the FDA
precludes any doubt as to its nature as speech with political
Autonomy of Local Governments / ARMM
consequences and not religious speech.
RULING:
Doctrine of benevolent neutrality
Before delving into the constitutionality of the RH Law and its
With religion looked upon with benevolence and not
implementing rules, it behooves the Court to resolve some
hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of
procedural impediments.
religion under certain circumstances. Accommodations are
government policies that take religion specifically into account
The petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where eschewed. Considering that it is the right to life of the mother
an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have and the unborn which is primarily at issue, the Court need not
infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in wait for a life to be taken away before taking action.
fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. “The
question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to Where the case has far-reaching implications and prays for
adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider them as petitions for
Constitution is upheld. Once a controversy as to the application prohibition under Rule 65.
or interpretation of constitutional provision is raised before this The RH Law does not violate the one subject/one bill rule. It is
Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the well-settled that the “one title-one subject” rule does not
Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide. In the require the Congress to employ in the title of the enactment
scholarly estimation of former Supreme Court Justice language of such precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue
Florentino Feliciano, “judicial review is essential for the all the contents and the minute details therein. The rule is
maintenance and enforcement of the separation of powers and sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough
the balancing of powers among the three great departments of as to include the general object which the statute seeks to
government through the definition and maintenance of the effect, and where, as here, the persons interested are informed
boundaries of authority and control between them.” To him, of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law
judicial review is the chief, indeed the only, medium of and its operation. Moreover, this Court has invariably adopted
participation – or instrument of intervention – of the judiciary a liberal rather than technical construction of the rule “so as
in that balancing operation. Lest it be misunderstood, it bears not to cripple or impede legislation.” In this case, a textual
emphasizing that the Court does not have the unbridled analysis of the various provisions of the law shows that both
authority to rule on just any and every claim of constitutional “reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” are
violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the power interrelated and germane to the overriding objective to control
of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz : (a) the population growth.
there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners
must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of
constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case. The Court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by Hon.
Lagman that life begins at implantation. According to him,
Even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is “fertilization and conception are two distinct and successive
enough to awaken judicial duty. In this case, the Court is of the stages in the reproductive process. They are not identical and
view that an actual case or controversy exists and that the same synonymous.” Citing a letter of the WHO, he wrote that medical
is ripe for judicial determination. Considering that the RH Law authorities confirm that the implantation of the fertilized ovum
and its implementing rules have already taken effect and that is the commencement of conception and it is only after
budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been implantation that pregnancy can be medically detected. This
passed, it is evident that the subject petitions present a theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any
justiciable controversy. When an action of the legislative branch legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning
is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it not of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized
only becomes a right, but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object – it is a living human
the dispute. being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes. Implantation
has been conceptualized only for convenience by those who
The Court is not persuaded. In United States (US) constitutional had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute
law, a facial challenge, also known as a First Amendment textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the
Challenge, is one that is launched to assail the validity of Constitution. It is the Court’s position that life begins at
statutes concerning not only protected speech, but also all fertilization, not at implantation. When a fertilized ovum is
other rights in the First Amendment. These include religious implanted in the uterine wall, its viability is sustained but that
freedom, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life.
peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances. After all, the fundamental right to A component to the right to life is the constitutional right to
religious freedom, freedom of the press and peaceful assembly health. In this regard, the Constitution is replete with provisions
are but component rights of the right to one’s freedom of protecting and promoting the right to health. These provisions
expression, as they are modes which one’s thoughts are are self-executing. Unless the provisions clearly express the
externalized. In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be
originating from the U.S. has been generally maintained, albeit considered self-executory. There is no need for legislation to
with some modifications. While this Court has withheld the implement these self-executing provisions. In Manila Prince
application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it has Hotel v. GSIS, it was stated:
expanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free
speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other x x x Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act
fundamental rights. Verily, the framers of Our Constitution is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the
envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty to presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are
maintain the supremacy of the Constitution. self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as
requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature
The transcendental importance of the issues involved in this would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the
case warrants that we set aside the technical defects and take mandate of the fundamental law. This can be cataclysmic. That
primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One cannot deny is why the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that –… in
that the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-
influence on the social and moral wellbeing of this nation, executing rather than non-self-executing. . . .
specially the youth; hence, their proper and just determination
is an imperative need. This is in accordance with the well- Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the
entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary
tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or
the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, whether, they shall be effective. These provisions would be
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could
rather than promote substantial justice, must always be make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the
needed implementing statute.
It is not within the province of the Court to determine whether reproductive health education. One can only speculate on the
the use of contraceptives or one’s participation in the support content, manner and medium of instruction that will be used to
of modem reproductive health measures is moral from a educate the adolescents and whether they will contradict the
religious standpoint or whether the same is right or wrong religious beliefs of the petitioners and validate their
according to one’s dogma or belief. For the Court has declared apprehensions. Thus, considering the premature nature of this
that matters dealing with “faith, practice, doctrine, form of particular issue, the Court declines to rule on its
worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church … are constitutionality or validity.
unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the
province of the civil courts.” The jurisdiction of the Court A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it
extends only to public and secular morality. Whatever lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
pronouncement the Court makes in the case at bench should intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to
be understood only in this realm where it has authority. Stated its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two
otherwise, while the Court stands without authority to rule on respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord
ecclesiastical matters, as vanguard of the Constitution, it does persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
have authority to determine whether the RH Law contravenes conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled
the guarantee of religious freedom. Consequently, the discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an
petitioners are misguided in their supposition that the State arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. Moreover, in
cannot enhance its population control program through the RH determining whether the words used in a statute are vague,
Law simply because the promotion of contraceptive use is words must not only be taken in accordance with their plain
contrary to their religious beliefs. Indeed, the State is not meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute.
precluded to pursue its legitimate secular objectives without It is a rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted
being dictated upon by the policies of any one religion. One with reference to the context, that is, every part of it must be
cannot refuse to pay his taxes simply because it will cloud his construed together with the other parts and kept subservient
conscience. The demarcation line between Church and State to the general intent of the whole enactment.
demands that one render unto Caesar the things that are To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the
Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. The Court is of government’s reproductive health care program is not a
the view that the obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violation of the equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to
violates the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the
objector. Once the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a distinct necessity to address the needs of the underprivileged
patient seeking information on modem reproductive health by providing that they be given priority in addressing the health
products, services, procedures and methods, his conscience is development of the people. Thus: Section 11. The State shall
immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health
act against his beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas development which shall endeavor to make essential goods,
(Commissioner Bernas) has written, “at the basis of the free health and other social services available to all the people at
exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the
conscience. underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children.
The Court is of the strong view that the religious freedom of The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to
health providers, whether public or private, should be accorded paupers. It should be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law
primacy. Accordingly, a conscientious objector should be prioritizes poor and marginalized couples who are suffering
exempt from compliance with the mandates of the RH Law. If from fertility issues and desire to have children. There is,
he would be compelled to act contrary to his religious belief therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH Law only
and conviction, it would be violative of “the principle of non- seeks to target the poor to reduce their number. While the RH
coercion” enshrined in the constitutional right to free exercise Law admits the use of contraceptives, it does not, as elucidate
of religion. above, sanction abortion. As Section 3(1) explains, the
“promotion and/or stabilization of the population growth rate
The same holds true with respect to non-maternity specialty is incidental to the advancement of reproductive health.”
hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious
group and health care service providers. Considering that The notion of involuntary servitude connotes the presence of
Section 24 of the RH Law penalizes such institutions should they force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion
fail or refuse to comply with their duty to refer under Section 7 and compulsion. A reading of the assailed provision, however,
and Section 23(a)(3), the Court deems that it must be struck reveals that it only encourages private and non- government
down for being violative of the freedom of religion. reproductive healthcare service providers to render pro bono
service. Other than non-accreditation with PhilHealth, no
The same applies to Section 23(a)(l) and (a)(2) in relation to penalty is imposed should they choose to do otherwise. Private
Section 24, considering that in the dissemination of information and non-government reproductive healthcare service providers
regarding programs and services and in the performance of also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of health service
reproductive health procedures, the religious freedom of health they wish to provide, when, where and how to provide it or
care service providers should be respected. The punishment of whether to provide it all. Clearly, therefore, no compulsion,
a healthcare service provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer force or threat is made upon them to render pro bono service
a patient to another, or who declines to perform reproductive against their will. While the rendering of such service was made
health procedure on a patient because incompatible religious a prerequisite to accreditation with PhilHealth, the Court does
beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a constitutional guarantee which not consider the same to be an unreasonable burden, but
the Court cannot allow. rather, a necessary incentive imposed by Congress in the
furtherance of a perceived legitimate state interest. Consistent
The State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over with what the Court had earlier discussed, however, it should
the role of parents in the care and custody of a minor child, be emphasized that conscientious objectors are exempt from
whether or not the latter is already a parent or has had a this provision as long as their religious beliefs and convictions
miscarriage. Only a compelling state interest can justify a state do not allow them to render reproductive health service, pro
substitution of their parental authority. bona or otherwise.
Any attack on the validity of Section 14 of the RH Law is The Court finds nothing wrong with the delegation. The FDA
premature because the Department of Education, Culture and does not only have the power but also the competency to
Sports has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate evaluate, register and cover health services and methods. It is
the only government entity empowered to render such services ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner should be accredited as a
and highly proficient to do so. It should be understood that party-list organization under RA 7941.
health services and methods fall under the gamut of terms that
are associated with what is ordinarily understood as “health HELD: The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside
products.” Being the country’s premiere and sole agency that the resolutions of the COMELEC. It also directed the COMELEC
ensures the safety of food and medicines available to the to grant petitioner’s application for party-list accreditation.
public, the FDA was equipped with the necessary powers and The enumeration of marginalized and under-represented
functions to make it effective. Pursuant to the principle of sectors is not exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a
necessary implication, the mandate by Congress to the FDA to sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular
ensure public health and safety by permitting only food and organization complies with the requirements of the
medicines that are safe includes “service” and “methods.” From Constitution and RA 7941. Ang Ladlad has sufficiently
the declared policy of the RH Law, it is clear that Congress demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements for
intended that the public be given only those medicines that are accreditation. Nowhere in the records has the respondent ever
proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective in found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register as a
accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research party-list organization under any of the requisites under RA
standards. The philosophy behind the permitted delegation was 7941.
explained in Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice, as follows:
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “no law
The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of the shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our
directly with the many problems demanding its attention. The non-establishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in
growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar religious matters. Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious
and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.”
expected reasonably to comprehend. Specialization even in
legislation has become necessary. To many of the problems Laws of general application should apply with equal force to
attendant upon present day undertakings, the legislature may LGBTs and they deserve to participate in the party-list system
not have the competence, let alone the interest and the time, on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented
to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say sectors.
specific solutions.
The principle of non-discrimination requires the laws of general
A reading of the RH Law clearly shows that whether it pertains application relating to elections be applied to all persons,
to the establishment of health care facilities, the hiring of regardless of sexual orientation.
skilled health professionals, or the training of barangay health
workers, it will be the national government that will provide for ALEJANDRO ESTRADA vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR
the funding of its implementation. Local autonomy is not A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4, 2003.
absolute. The national government still has the say when it
comes to national priority programs which the local FACTS:
government is called upon to implement like the RH Law.
Soledad S. Escritor, a court interpreter, admittedly while still
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELECG.R. No. 190582April 8, married to another, cohabited to Luciano Quilapio, Jr. since
2010 1980, who was himself married to another. Escritor and
Quilapio had a nineteen-year old son. Alejandro Estrada, the
FACTS: private complainant herein, was not personally related to
Petitioner is an organization composed of men and Escritor nor did he personally know her. However, he wanted
women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or the Court to declare the relationship of Escritor with Quilapio as
trans-gendered individuals (LGBT’s). Incorporated in 2003, Ang immoral in consonance with the pertinent provision of the
Ladlad first applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006 Administrative Code. In her defense, Escritor contended that
as a party-list organization under Republic Act 7941, otherwise under the rules of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious sect of
known as the Party-List System Act. The application for whom she is a member, the act of signing a Declaration
accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization Pledging Faithfulness, is sufficient to legitimize a union which
had no substantial membership base. In 2009, Ang Ladlad again would otherwise be classified as adulterous and bigamous.
filed a petition for registration with the COMELEC upon which it Escritor and Quilapio's declarations are recorded in the Watch
was dismissed on moral grounds. Tower Central office. They were executed in the usual and
approved form prescribed by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract
Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration but the Society which was lifted from the article, "Maintaining Marriage
COMELEC upheld its First Resolution, stating that “the party-list in Honor Before God and Men," in the March 15, 1977 issue of
system is a tool for the realization of aspirations of marginalized the Watch Tower magazine, entitled The Watchtower. Escritor
individuals whose interests are also the nation’s. Until the time alleged that in compliance with the foregoing rules, she and her
comes when Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual partner signed the Declaration Pledging Faithfulness in 1991,
orientations and transgender identities is beneficial to the and by virtue of such act, they are for all purposes, regarded as
nation, its application for accreditation under the party-list husband and wife by the religious denomination of which they
system will remain just that.” That “the Philippines cannot are devout adherents. Although in 1998 Escritor was widowed,
ignore its more than 500 years of Muslim and Christian thereby lifting the legal impediment to marry on her part, her
upbringing, such that some moral precepts espoused by said mate is still not capacitated to remarry. Thus, their declarations
religions have slipped into society and these are not publicly remain valid. Once all legal impediments for both are lifted, the
accepted moral norms.” COMELEC reiterated that petitioner couple can already register their marriage with the civil
does not have a concrete and genuine national poltical agenda authorities and the validity of the declarations ceases. The
to benefit the nation and that the petition was validly dismissed elders in the congregations can then solemnize their marriage
on moral grounds. It also argued for the first time that the LGBT as authorized by Philippine law. In sum, therefore, insofar as
sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution the congregation is concerned, there is nothing immoral about
and RA 7941. Thus Ladlad filed this petition for Certiorari under the conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and
Rule 65. they remain members in good standing in the congregation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent's right to religious freedom should benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
carve out an exception from the prevailing jurisprudence on religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
illicit relations for which government employees are held preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces
administratively liable. or to any penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.’
· City of Manila is a municipal corporation with powers that · The only difference between the 2 provisions is the
are to be exercised in conformity with the provisions of limitation as to the amount of tax or license fee that a retail
Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City dealer has to pay per annum
of Manila
· As held in Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, the power to impose
· American Bible Society has been distributing and selling a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms provided for in
bibles and/or gospel portions throughout the Philippines and the Bill of Rights, is indeed as potent as the power of censorship
translating the same into several Philippine dialect which this Court has repeatedly struck down. It is not a nominal
fee imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of
· City Treasurer of Manila informed American Bible Society policing the activities in question. It is in no way apportioned. It
that it was violating several Ordinances for operating without is flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the
the necessary permit and license, thereby requiring the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the
corporation to secure the permit and license fees covering the constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably
period from 4Q 1945-2Q 1953 tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly
· To avoid closing of its business, American Bible Society recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax.
paid the City of Manila its permit and license fees under protest · Further, the case also mentioned that the power to tax
· American Bible filed a complaint, questioning the the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its
constitutionality and legality of the Ordinances 2529 and 3000, enjoyment. Those who can tax the exercise of this religious
and prayed for a refund of the payment made to the City of practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the
Manila. They contended: resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the
privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can
a. They had been in the Philippines since 1899 and were not close all its doors to all those who do not have a full purse
required to pay any license fee or sales tax
· Under Sec. 27(e) of Commonwealth Act No. 466 or the
b. it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles National Internal Revenue Code, Corporations or associations
organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, . . .
· City of Manila prayed that the complaint be dismissed, or educational purposes, . . .: Provided, however, That the
reiterating the constitutionality of the Ordinances in question income of whatever kind and character from any of its
properties, real or personal, or from any activity conducted for
· Trial Court dismissed the complaint
profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall
· American Bible Society appealed to the Court of Appeals be liable to the tax imposed under this Code shall not be taxed
Issue: WON American Bible Society liable to pay sales tax for · The price asked for the bibles and other religious
the distribution and sale of bibles pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the
actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that American
Ruling: NO Bible Society was engaged in the business or occupation of
selling said "merchandise" for profit
· Under Sec. 1 of Ordinance 3000, one of the ordinance in
question, person or entity engaged in any of the business, · Therefore, the Ordinance cannot be applied for in doing
trades or occupation enumerated under Sec. 3 must obtain a so it would impair American Bible Society’s free exercise and
Mayor’s permit and license from the City Treasurer. American enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its
Bible Society’s business is not among those enumerated rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
· However, item 79 of Sec. 3 of the Ordinance provides that Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing
all other businesses, trade or occupation not mentioned, except considerations, we hereby reverse the decision appealed from,
those upon which the City is not empowered to license or to tax sentencing defendant return to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45
P5.00 unduly collected from it
· Therefore, the necessity of the permit is made to depend Fortunato Pamil vs Victorino Teleron
upon the power of the City to license or tax said business, trade
or occupation. December 2, 2011
· 2 provisions of law that may have bearing on this case: 86 SCRA 413 – Political Law – Inviolability of the Separation of
Church and State
a. Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code, the
Municipal Board of the City of Manila is empowered to tax and In 1971, Fr. Margarito Gonzaga, a priest, won the election for
fix the license fees on retail dealers engaged in the sale of mayoralty in Alburquerque, Bohol. He was later proclaimed as
books mayor therein. Fortunato Pamil, a rival candidate filed a quo
warranto case against Gonzaga questioning the eligibility of
b. Sec. 18(o) of RA 409: to tax and fix the license fee on Gonzaga. He argued that as provided for in Section 2175 of the
dealers in general merchandise, including importers and 1917 Revised Administrative Code:
indentors, except those dealers who may be expressly subject
to the payment of some other municipal tax. Further, Dealers in …in no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal
general merchandise shall be classified as (a) wholesale dealers office ecclesiastic, soldiers in active service, persons receiving
and (b) retail dealers. For purposes of the tax on retail dealers,
salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds, or reiterated that he is not exempt from the close shop agreement
contractors for public works of the municipality. because RA 3350, which provides that close shop agreements
shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit
In this case, the elected mayor is a priest. However, Judge affiliation of their members in any such labor organization, is
Victorino Teleron ruled that the Administrative Code is unconstitutional and that said law violates the EPWU’s and
repealed by the Election Code of 1971 which now allows ERF’s legal/contractual rights.
ecclesiastics to run.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 2175 of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917 is no longer operative? HELD: No. The right to religion prevails over contractual or legal
rights. As such, an INC member may refuse to join a labor union
HELD: The Supreme Court decision was indecisive. Under the and despite the fact that there is a close shop agreement in the
1935 Constitution, “No religious test shall be required for the factory where he was employed, his employment could not be
exercise of civil or political rights.” If the the doctrine of validly terminated for his non-membership in the majority
constitutional supremacy is to be maintained, then Section therein. Further, the right to join a union includes the right not
2175 shall not prevail, thus, an ecclesiastic may run for elective to join a union. The law is not unconstitutional. It recognizes
office. However, this issue proved to have divided the Supreme both the rights of unions and employers to enforce terms of
Court because it failed to obtain the majority vote of eight (8) contracts and at the same time it recognizes the workers’ right
which is needed in order to declare Section 2175 of the RAC to to join or not to join union. RA 3550 recognizes as well the
be unconstitutional. For this, the petition filed by Pamil must be primacy of a constitutional right over a contractual right.
granted and the decision of the lower court reversed and set
aside. Fr. Gonzaga is hereby ordered to vacate the mayoralty Reli German vs Santiago Barangan
position.
December 4, 2011
It was also pointed out (in the dissenting opinions) that how can
one who swore to serve the Church’s interest above all be in 135 SCRA 514 – Political Law – Religious Freedom vs Clear and
duty to enforce state policies which at times may conflict with Present Danger Doctrine
church tenets. This is in violation of the separation of the One afternoon in October 1984, Reli German et al went to JP
church and state. The Revised Administrative Code still stands Laurel Sreet to pray and worship at the St. Luke Chapel. But
because there is no implied repeal. they were barred by General Santiago Barangan from entering
Dissenting Opinion the church because the same is within the vicinity of the
Malacañang. And considering that German’s group is
J. Teehankee – The Comelec ruled that soldiers in active service expressively known as the August Twenty-One Movement who
and persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial were wearing yellow shirts with clench fists, Barangan deemed
or national funds “are obviously now allowed to run for a public that they were not really there to worship but rather they are
elective office because under Sec. 23 of the Election Code of there to disrupt the ongoings within the Malacañang.
1971 ‘every person holding a public appointive office or
position, including active members of the Armed Forces’ shall ISSUE: Whether or not the bar disallowing petitioners to
ipso facto cease in their office or position on the date they file worship and pray at St. Luke’s is a violation of their freedom to
their certificates of candidacy. This implies that they are no worship and locomotion.
longer disqualified from running for an elective office.” The HELD: No. In the case at bar, German et al were not denied or
Comelec further ruled that as to the two remaining categories restrained of their freedom of belief or choice of their religion,
formerly banned under the Revised Administrative Code, but only in the manner by which they had attempted to
“ecclesiastics and contractors for public works of the translate the same into action. There has been a clear
municipality are allowed to run for municipal elective offices manifestation by Barangan et al that they allow German et al to
under the maxim, ‘Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius’, they practice their religious belief but not in the manner that
being not included in the enumeration of person’s ineligible German et al impressed. Such manner impresses “clear and
under the New Election Code. The rule is that all persons present danger” to the executive of the state hence the need to
possessing the necessary qualifications, except those expressly curtail it even at the expense of curtailing one’s freedom to
disqualified by the election code, are eligible to run for public worship.
office.”
Dissenting Opinions
Benjamin Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union
J. Fernando – It would be an unwarranted departure then from
December 5, 2011 what has been unanimously held in the J.B.L. Reyes decision if
59 SCRA 54 – Political Law – Primacy of the Constitution over on such a basic right as religious freedom -clearly the most
Contractual Rights fundamental and thus entitled to the highest priority among
human rights, involving as it does the relationship of man to his
Benjamin Victoriano, an Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) member, has Creator -this Court will be less vigilant in upholding any rightful
been an employee of the Elizalde Rope Factory (ERF) since claim. More than ever, in times of stress -and much more so in
1958. He was also a member of the EPWU (Elizalde Rope times of crisis -it is that deeply-held faith that affords solace
Workers’ Union). Under the collective bargaining agreement and comfort if not for everyone at least for the majority of
(CBA) between ERF and EPWU, a close shop agreement is being mankind. Without that faith, man’s very existence is devoid of
enforced which means that employment in the factory relies on meaning, bereft of significance.
the membership in the EPWU; that in order to retain
employment in the said factory one must be a member of the J. Teehankee – The right to freely exercise one’s religion is
said Union. In 1962, Victoriano tendered his resignation from guaranteed in Section 8 of our Bill of Rights. 7 Freedom of
EPWU claiming that as per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the worship, alongside with freedom of expression and speech and
close shop agreement by virtue of his being a member of the peaceable assembly “along with the other intellectual
INC because apparently in the INC, one is forbidden from being freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional
a member of any labor union. It was only in 1974 that his values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the judiciary -
resignation from the Union was acted upon by EPWU which even more so than on the other departments -rests the grave
notified ERF about it. ERF then moved to terminate Victoriano and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference
due to his non-membership from the EPWU. EPWU and ERF to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying
phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so emblem of national sovereignty, unity and cohesion and of
felicitously termed by Justice Holmes ‘as the sovereign freedom and liberty.
prerogative of judgment.’ Nonetheless, the presumption must
be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of b. the wordings of the patriotic pledge or the national anthem
such rights, enjoying as they do precedence and primacy. does not have anything that is religiously objectionable as they
speak only of love of country, patriotism, liberty and the glory
J. Makasiar – With the assurances aforestated given by both of suffering and dying for it.
petitioners and respondents, there is no clear and present
danger to public peace and order or to the security of persons c. the State was merely carrying out its constitutional duty to
within the premises of Malacañang and the adjacent areas, as supervise and regulate educational institutions and see to it
the respondents has adopted measures and are prepared to that all schools aim to develop civic conscience and teach the
insure against any public disturbance or violence. duties of citizenship. (Art. XIV, section 5 of the Constitution).
GERONA, ET AL. vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET d. considering the separation of the State and Church, the flag
AL. does not have any religious significance.
G.R. No. L-13954 e. also, the determination of whether a certain ritual is or is not
a religious ceremony must rest with the court; it cannot be left
August 12, 1959 MONTEMAYOR, J. to a religious group or sector to its follower as there would be
confusion and misunderstanding for there might be as many
EN BANC interpretations and meaning to be given as there are religious
FACTS: groups or sects or followers.
1. When RA 1265 (An Act Making Flag Ceremony Compulsary In f. as emphatically stated, if a man lived on an island, alone and
All Educational Institutions) took effect, the Sec. of Education all by himself, he would normally have complete and absolute
issued Dept. Order No. 8 prescribing the rules and regulations rights as to the way he lives, his religion, including the manners
for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony. he practices his religious beliefs with no laws to obey, no rules
and regulations to follow; but since man is gregarious by nature
2. The said order mandates that a proper salute must be given, and instinct and he gravitates toward community life, to receive
or at least standing still with arms and hands straight at sides and enjoy the benefits of society, he becomes a member of a
along with the singing of the National Anthem and recital of the community or nation; thus, he has to give up rights for the
pledge. However, petitioners’ children attending the Buenavista benefit of his fellow citizens and for the general welfare, just as
Community School in Uson, Masbate refused to do so. his fellow men and companions also agree to a limitation of
their rights in his favor.
3. This was because, as members of Jehova’s Witnesses, they
believe that the obligation imposed by law of God is superior to g. also, exempting the children will disrupt school discipline and
that of laws enacted by the State. This is based on a verse demoralize the rest of the school population which by far
which states: constitutes the great majority; other pupils would naturally ask
for the same privilege because they might want to do
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any something else such as play or study; if this exemption is
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the extended, then the flag ceremony would soon be a thing of the
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou past or perhaps conducted with very few participants, and the
shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” time will come when we would have citizens untaught and
They consider that the flag is an “image” within this command uninculcated in and not imbued with reverence for the flag and
and thus refuse to salute it. Because of this, they were expelled love of country, admiration for national heroes, and patriotism
from the school. — a pathetic, even tragic situation, and all because a small
portion of the school population imposed its will, demanded
4. The counsel of petitioners wrote to the Sec. of Education that and was granted an exemption.
the children be allowed to just remain silent and stand still with
their arms and hands straight at their sides. This was, however, 3. US jurisprudence made as basis:
denied along with the children’s reinstatement. a. Reynolds vs. US – the law prohibited polygamy which was
5. An action was then filed before the CFI with prayer for a writ allowed for Mormons
of preliminary injunction but the complaint was dismissed. “Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his
Hence, the present petition with the SC issuing a temporary religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed
writ subject to the result of the case. doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and
ISSUE: Should the department order be upheld? in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
RULING: Yes. The CFI decision was affirmed and the writ of b. Hamilton vs. University of California – the university requires
preliminary injunction was dissolved. military science and tactics training but the objectioners believe
that war and preparation for war is a violation of their religious
1. First, there was no question with the act of saluting since the belief
department order allows that students can just stand still with
their arms and hands straight at their sides. The issue was – it was held untenable. The Court stated that California did not
focused on the singing of the national anthem and the recital of call them. They sought education in the university and the due
pledge. process clause secured by law will be violated if they are to be
exempted from the training.
2. The court eventually held that if the exercise of said religious
belief clashes with the established institutions of society and In this case, having elected not to comply with the regulations
with the law, then the former must yield and give way to the about the flag salute, they forfeited their right to attend public
latter. The reasons are: schools.
a. the flag is not an image nor the flag ceremony a religious rite; c. Minersville School District vs. Gobitis – same facts with
the flag is a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, an present case; the US Supreme Court upheld the conduct of flag
ceremony but after 3 years, it was reversed in West Virginia
State Board of Education vs. Bernette. This was only because in
the latter case, the parents are to be prosecuted criminally if predecessor. Instead, he verbally caused the expulsion of some
their children are not in school. It turned out as a dilemma with more children of Jehovah's Witnesses.
the authority against individual rights so the Court then
approved the exemption. However, it is not the ruling in the The petitioning students filed on account of grave abuse of
present case. discretion on the part of the respondents in violating their due
process and their right to education. They alleged for the nullity
Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented in the latter case stating: of the expulsion or dropping from the rolls of petitioners from
their respective schools, prohibiting respondents from further
“The constitutional protection of religious freedom … gave barring the petitioners from their classes, and compelling the
religious equality, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom respondent and all persons acting for him to admit and order
from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from the re-admission of petitioners to their respective schools. They
conformity to law because of religious dogma…” also prayed for a TRO.
Ebralinag v Cebu G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993 On November 27, 1990, the Court issued a temporary
J. Grino-Aquino restraining order and a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction commanding the respondents to immediately re-
Facts: admit the petitioners to their respective classes until further
orders from this Court.
All the petitioners in these two cases were expelled from their
classes by the public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to The OSG commented on the defense of the expulsion orders
salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic and claimed that the flag salute was devoid of any religious
pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 and DECS significance and the State had compelling interests to expel the
Department Order No. 8 which stipulated compulsory flag children.
ceremonies in all educational institutions.
Issue: Whether school children who are members or a religious
Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses may be expelled from
salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the school (both public and private), for refusing, on account of
patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of their religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony which
worship" or "religious devotion" which they "cannot includes playing (by a band) or singing the Philippine national
conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God" anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the patriotic
pledge.
They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the
State. They allege that the action of the local authorities in Held: No. Petition granted.
compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional
limitations on the State's power and invades the sphere of the Ratio:
intellect and spirit which the Constitution protects against Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to
official control. the highest priority and the amplest protection among human
Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education- In requiring school rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator
pupils to participate in the flag salute, the State thru the The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold
Secretary of Education is not imposing a religion or religious aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's
belief or a religious test on said students. It is merely enforcing belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined
a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all alike. within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, Any teacher or student where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the
or pupil who refuses to join or participate in the flag ceremony public welfare.
may be dismissed after due investigation. (This was due to Petitioners stress, however, that while they do not take part in
Gerona) the compulsory flag ceremony, they do not engage in "external
In 1989, the DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints acts" or behavior that would offend their countrymen who
about teachers and pupils belonging to the Jehovah's believe in expressing their love of country through the
Witnesses, and enrolled in various public and private schools, observance of the flag ceremony. Ie. they stand quietly during
who refused to sing the Philippine national anthem, salute the the ceremony.
Philippine flag and recite the patriotic pledge. The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the
Cebu school officials resorted to a number of ways to persuade exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and
the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to obey the memorandum. present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a
In the Buenavista Elementary School, the children were asked serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any
to sign an Agreement (Kasabutan) in the Cebuano dialect other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and
promising to sing the national anthem, place their right hand on duty) to prevent.
their breast until the end of the song and recite the pledge of We are not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovah's
allegiance to the flag. Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem
However, things took a turn for the worst. In the Daan and reciting the patriotic pledge, this religious group which
Bantayan District, the District Supervisor, Manuel F. Biongcog, admittedly comprises a "small portion of the school population"
ordered the "dropping from the rolls" of students who "opted will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a
to follow their religious belief which is against the Flag Salute nation "untaught and uninculcated in and unimbued with
Law" on the theory that "they forfeited their right to attend reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of country and
public schools." admiration for national heroes
43 students were subsequently expelled after refusing to sing. Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will
bring about the very situation that this Court had feared in
The petition in G.R. No. 95887 was filed by 25 students who Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand
were similarly expelled because Dr. Pablo Antopina, who of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their
succeeded Susana Cabahug as Division Superintendent of religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or
Schools, would not recall the expulsion orders of his respect for dully constituted authorities.
Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even
to the country — assuming that such unity and loyalty can be
attained through coercion — is not a goal that is
constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A
desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.