MOOT COURT EXERCISE

2016

Litigating the following freedoms-

Press, Speech, Expression, Assembly, and Religion

THE FREETHINKERS NETWORK

OF THE PHILIPPINES
v.
CATHOLIC LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
OF MINDANAO

Team No. 2
Team Members:
XU- College of Law
Constitutional Law II Block B

Alagao, Elaine
Arellano, Almira
Manabilang, Aslia
Vistal, Nenette
 Summary of Oral Pleadings
FOR THE DEFENDANT
CATHOLIC LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF MINDANAO
I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

The Religious Solidarity Law Act of 2016 was legislated as a reaction to the all-out war
waged first against the BIFF and then the MILF after BBL was not enacted. The Congress were
upset that the all out war was ignited, among others, through traditional and social media that had
sensationalized the Mamasapano tragedy and abetted bigotry against Muslims. Abovementioned
law was enacted as a response to this, so that solidarity between religious groups would be
encouraged.

II. ISSUES

A) Whether or not the police power of the state include the power to promote religious
solidarity?

B) Whether or not sections 2, 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. XBYZ violate the Bill of Rights?

III. ARGUMENTS

A) The police power of the state has the capacity to promote religious solidarity.

Police power has been acknowledged as “the most essential, insistent and the least
limitable power of the state, covering all the public needs. Along with this also is the plenary
power of the state to prohibit all that can cause harm or injury to the comfort, safety and welfare
of the society.”
It is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, and establish
all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its
people. (Ermita Malate Hotel v. City Mayor, July 31, 1967).
 Police power of the state has the capacity therefore to promote religious solidarity since
“religious solidarity in its essence does not support and protect only one group of religion it is in
its purest intention to provide, create, establish and ordain unity among various religious sector
to attain peace and order in the country.”
The tests to determine the validity of legislative enactments are:
1. The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the exercise of police power; and
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
Promotion of religious solidarity passes the test of validity in exercising police power
because it is concerned with the interest of public welfare, not of a particular class or certain
religion nor it is in favor of one religion over the other which is lawful in effect pertaining to its
subject. Furthermore, the means employed is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and unduly oppressive to a certain individual because it does not resort to using of
violence, nor incite conflict, in short the end does not justify the means.
Promoting religious solidarity through the police power of the state does not cross the
line between the separation of the state and the church. It was held in the case of Victoriano Rope
Workers’ Union v. Elizalde that the constitutional provision 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, but also assures the
free exercise of one's chosen form of religion within limits of utmost amplitude. It has been said
that the religion clauses of the Constitution are all designed to protect the broadest possible
liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his
beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with
the common good.
In addition, if the state regulates conduct by enacting, within its power, a general law
which has for its purpose and effect to advance the state's secular goals, the statute is valid
despite its indirect burden on religious observance, unless the state can accomplish its purpose
without imposing such burden.
In Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201, what was involved was Act No. 4052 which
appropriated sixty thousand pesos for the cost of plates and the printing of postage stamps with
new designs. Under the law, the Director of Posts, with the approval of the Department Head and
the President of the Philippines, issued in 1936 postage stamps to commemorate the celebration
in Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress sponsored by the Catholic Church.
The purpose of the stamps was to raise revenue and advertise the Philippines. The design
of the stamps showed a map of the Philippines and nothing about the Catholic Church. No
religious purpose was intended.
In the enactment of RA XBYZ, there is no religious purpose intended in the promotion of
religious solidarity. The intention of the The Religious Solidarity Law Act of 2016 is to promote
peace and order in the country, following the non-enactment of the BBL.
History also is a strong evidence of the very existence of religious solidarity which
creates a huge impact in our country. During Marcos regime the victims of the human rights
violations found refuge in the church, composed of various religious sectors namely the
Protestant churches, some evangelical denomination and the Roman Catholic church.
As a general rule, non-establishment clause means that government must remain neutral
in matters of faith; it must not privilege one faith over the others. It cannot promote one at the
expense of the other.
In Garces v Estenzo 104 SCRA 510 (1981), the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring
the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, is a socio-religious affair and not for the purpose of favoring
any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents.
Its celebration is an ingrained tradition in rural communities. The fiesta relieves the monotony
and drudgery of the lives of the masses. Similarly RA XBYZ promotes religious solidarity which
does not interfere with religious matters or beliefs of the Filipinos, but helps ensure a harmonious
relationship between different faiths and thereby helping in attaining peace and order, which
benefits the entire nation.
Today we are experiencing crisis of civic culture, where politicians and even religious
leaders refuse to respond to the demands of truth. Yet we certainly believe that working hand in
hand visibly, the state together with the establishment of religious solidarity can help advance the
interest of social justice. Social justice as defined by Jose P. Laurel is the promotion of the
welfare of all people, of the adaptation by the government of measures calculated to insure
economic stability of the component elements of society through the maintenance of a proper
economic and social equilibrium in the interrelation of the members of the community. Social
justice must be founded on the recognition of necessary interdependence among... diverse units
of society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups... It is
neither communism nor despotism nor atomism nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and
the equalization of social and economic forces of the State.

B) The sections 2, 3 and 5 of RA XBYZ do not violate the Bill of Rights of the 1987
Constitution.

It should be emphasized that the purpose and intention of Religious Solidarity Law Act of
2016 is persevering determination to commit to the common good or to the good of all and seek
harmony rather than disunion.

Section 5 of Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides:

"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 required for the
exercise of civil or political rights."

There are two principal parts of this section and these are (1) the non-establishment
clause, and (2) the free exercise clause. The non-establishment clause simply means that "the
state cannot set up a church; nor pass laws which aid one religion over the other nor force nor
influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will; or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief; that the state cannot openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religion
organization or vice versa (Everson vs. Board of education, 330 US 1).

Section 2 of RA XBYZ provides:

"It is the policy of the state to promote solidarity among all religions and to this end, the
state shall institute measures and incentives to bring people of different faiths together so that
they can understand each other better and pursue dialogue instead of conflict. In particular,
funds shall be provided to support joint religious celebration especially in government functions.
In particular, all government programs, including all court proceedings must always begin with
ecumenical prayer representing the Catholic, Protestant and Muslim religion."
 With regard to this, Section 2 of RA XBYZ does not provide or result to aiding one
religion or one from the other or all religion nor the government toil excessively upon religious
affairs, it merely provides solidarity among all religions to prevent and heal conflict brought
about by the recent all-out-war.

Section 2 of RA XBYZ likewise does not violate the free exercise clause of Section 5 of
the Bill of Rights. The free exercise of religion has two-fold aspect and these are (1) the freedom
to believe, and (2) the freedom to act on one's belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is
confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. Neither of these two aspects of
freedom of religion is being restrained or curtailed under the RA XBYZ. In Religious Solidarity
Act, the people are given liberty to choose what to believe in or to act in accordance with their
belief. The freedom to act is only restrained if there exist a grave and present danger of character
of both grave and imminent of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any
other legitimate public interest (German v. Baranagan).

Section 2 of the Religious Solidarity Act further provides for funds to support joint
religious celebration especially in government functions. This does not violate the separation of
state and church under which it provides:

"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, denominations, 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."

A statute, to be valid, must not violate the separation of state and church provision.
Furthermore, such statute must have a secular legislative purpose, have a primary effect that
neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion (Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 403 US 602).

Moreover, in the case of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974),
it has been held that in order to withstand objections based on this ground, the statute must have
a secular purpose and that purpose must not directly advance or diminish the interest of any
religion. In relation to this and as borne out by the stipulated facts, the all-out-war that happened
waged by the BIFF and MILF which resulted to massive casualties and economic damages in the
country, the government, including Congress, responded through enactment of the Republic Act
XBYZ which encourages solidarity among religious group, thus, promoting peace and
preventing the use of force. Such act was enacted to supply measures and incentives to bring
people of different faiths to understand each other. The benefit redounds to all and not to a
particular sect. Therefore, as clearly manifested from its language and can be deduced from its
intent it does not established a new religion nor curtails the free exercise thereof, it is well within
the constitutional limits and has all the necessary requisites to pass as a legislative act, hence, it
is valid.

Section 2 of religious solidarity act further states that there be ecumenical prayer
representing the catholic, protestant and Muslim religion in all government programs, including
all court proceedings. This policy strengthened the constitutional guaranty that it does not aid nor
favor one religion over the other.

On the other hand, Section 3 of RA XBYZ provides:

(a) Art. 132 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended as follows: Interruption of
religious worship. — The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee or private individual who shall prevent or disturb the
ceremonies or manifestations of any religion. If the crime shall have been committed with
violence or threats, the penalty shall be Reclusion Perpetua.

(b) Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of Reclusion Temporal
shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the
celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful. If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats,
the penalty shall be Reclusion Perpetua.

These two amended provisions of the Revised Penal Code do not violate the Bill of
Rights which guarantees religious freedom. People are given leeway on what to believe and to
express on such belief alone or together with others provided it does not pose serious evil to
society. And since freedom of religion is guaranteed and protected any attempt to violate or
violation of these rights are punishable. The severity of the penalty it attaches justifies the
situation to prevent future occurrence of the same circumstances which may ignite another war.
Supreme court declared that freedom of religion is accorded preference by the framers of the
fundamental law, well aware that it is designed to protect the broadest possible liberty to allow
each man to believe as his conscience direct, to profess his belief and to live as he believes he
ought to live consistent with the liberty of the other and with the common good (Islamic Da’wah
Council of the Philippines, Inc v. Office of the Executive Secretary).

Section 4 of the RA XBYZ provides:

“Creation and Powers of the Religious Solidarity Commission. The Religious Solidarity
Commission (RSC) is hereby created composed of a Chairperson and 4 commissioners.
The Chairperson must at least 40 years old and a member of a bar with ten years
experience as a constitutional lawyer. All other Commissioners must be at least 35 years
old and will be selected from nominees of religious. The AHC shall have the following
functions and powers:

(a) It shall monitor traditional and social media for incidents that could result in
religious conflict and shall take necessary actions in accordance with the law;
(b) It shall have the power to order the publication of print media articles that
encourage religious solidarity;
(c) It can issue cease and desist orders to groups that gather for purposes of inciting
violence against persons or groups by reason of their religious affiliation.
(d) It can make recommendations on how to promote religious solidarity in the
country.”

Abovementioned section 4 of RA XBYZ does not violate the Bill of Rights. The creation
of Religious commission and the power vested in them by the government only seeks to
encourage and maintain religious solidarity to avert conflict or hostilities which may be produced
and ignited from different sources.
 Section 5 of the RA XBYZ states:

“If any part, Sec., or provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the
other parts thereof not affected thereby shall remain valid.”

Section 5 of the RA XBYZ is the separability clause. In statutory construction, it is often

part of the statute, it states that invalidation of some sections or clauses in the document will not
affect the validity of the remainder.