The Separation of the

Church and State and

Freedom Of Religion in
the Philippines
April 25, 2014

Article II, Sec. 6. “The separation of

Church and State shall be inviolable.”

This is also called as the Non-

establishment clause. The Concept of
this provision is that the State has no
right to establish a religion, force or
influence a person against his will to
associate or disassociate himself to a
particular religion and to mandate a
national religion. The constitutional
provisions not only prohibits legislation
for the support of any religious tenets or
the modes of worship of any sect, thus
forestalling compulsion by law of the
acceptance of any creed or the practice
of any form of worship (U.S. Ballard, 322
U.S. 78, 88 L. ed. 1148, 1153)

The non-establishment clause can be

summarized as:

1. The prohibition of supporting directly

institutional religion but not support
which indirectly accrues to churches and
church agencies through support given to
its members; and

2. Prohibition to both direct and indirect

aid to religion when the aid involves
preference of one religion over another
and preference over religion over
irreligion.

Under the Benevolent neutrality doctrine

which is copied from American
jurisprudence, in the case of Estrada v.
Escritor the Supreme Court said: “The
principle underlying the First Amendment
is that freedom to carry out one's duties
to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right,
not one dependent on the grace of
legislature. Although inalienable, it is
necessarily limited by the rights of others,
including the public right of peace and
good order. Nevertheless it is a
substantive right and not merely a
privilege against discriminatory
legislation. The accomplishment of the
purpose of the First Amendment requires
more than the "religion blindness" of
strict neutrality.”

Art. III Sec. 5. “No law shall be made

respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever
be allowed. No religious test shall be
requires for the exercise of civil or
political rights.”

Freedom of Religion includes the right to

believe and the right not to believe.
Freedom of Religion embraces two
concepts, to wit: the “Right to Believe”
and the “Right to put that belief into
action”. The “Right to Believe” is an
absolute right which no one even the
State cannot interfere and the “Freedom
to Act According to Oneʼs Belief” is
subject to State regulations. The
absoluteness of the freedom to believe
carries with it the corollary that the
government, while it may look into the
good faith of a person, cannot inquire into
a personʼs religious pretensions. Men may
believe what they cannot prove. They
may not be put to the proof of their
religious doctrines or beliefs. The
moment however, when this belief flows
over into action, it becomes subject to
government regulation.

There are two test which can be used to

determine if the religious act is subject to
government regulations, they are the:

1. Clear and present danger rule/test

(which is applicable to Freedom of
Speech) - this rests on the premise that
speech may be restrained because there
is substantial danger that the speech will
likely lead to an evil the government has a
right to prevent. This rule requires that
the evil consequences sought to be
prevented must be substantive,
“extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high (Cabansag v.
Fernandez, 102 Phil. 151); and

2. Compelling State Interest Test (which

is mostly used in voting rights cases and
equal protection cases) – it is the test
used to determine if the interest of the
State are compelling enough to justify
infringement of religious freedom. The
state has the burden to justify any
possible sanctions. This involves three (3)
steps:

a. The court should look into the sincerity

of the religious belief without inquiring to
the truth of that belief;

b. The State has to establish that its

purpose is legitimate and compelling;

c. That the State used the less intrusive

means possible.

Cases for reading:

Ebralinag vs Division Superintendent of

Schools of Cebu - Separation of Church
and State
Estrada vs Escritor - Freedom of Religion
Aglipay vs Ruiz - Freedom of Religion