Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sec 5 - Freedom of Religion - 10 - 14 PDF
Sec 5 - Freedom of Religion - 10 - 14 PDF
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
421, known as the “School Prayer Case”, allow each man to believe as his
the recitation by the students in public conscience directs, to profess his beliefs,
schools in New York of a prayer and to live as he believes he ought to live,
composed by the Board of Regents was consistent with the liberty of others and
held unconstitutional. with the common good”. Without doubt,
classifying food products as halal is a
In line with the constitutional principle of religious function because the standards
equal treatment of all religions, the State used are drawn from the Qur’an and
recognizes the validity of marriages Islamic beliefs. By giving the Office of
performed in conformity with the rites of Muslim Affairs (OMA) the exclusive
the Mohammedan religion [Adong v. power to classify food products as halal,
Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil 43]. EO 46 encroached on the religious
freedom of Muslim organizations like
As to the expression “non-Christian” used herein petitioner to interpret for Filipino
in some restrictive laws applicable to Muslims what food products are fit for
“non-Christian” tribes, the Supreme Court, Muslim consumption. Also by arrogating
conscious of the implication of religious to itself the task of issuing halal
discrimination in the term, has given the certifications, the State has, in effect,
interpretation that it does not refer to forced Muslims to accept its own
religious belief, but to degree of interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah
civilization. See People v. Cayat, supra.; on halal food.
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro,
supra.. Intramural religious dispute. In
Gonzales v. Archbishop of Manila, 51
Laws, such as Art. 133, Revised Penal Phil 420, the Supreme Court said that
Code, which punish blasphemy or acts where a civil right depends upon some
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs,
faithful in a place devoted to religious the civil tribunal tries the civil right and
worship or during the celebration of a nothing more.
religious ceremony, do not violate the
freedom of religion. In Fonacier v. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil
417, where the dispute involves the
In Islamic Da’wah. Council of the property rights of the religious group, or
Philippines v. Office of the Executive the relations of the members where
Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003, property rights are involved, the civil
the Supreme Court declared that freedom courts may assume jurisdiction.
of religion is accorded preferred status by
the framers of the fundamental law, well In Austria v. NLRC and Central
aware that it is “designed to protect the Philippine Union Mission Corporation of
broadest possible liberty of conscience, to the Seventh Day Adventists, G.R. No.
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 2
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
124382, August 16, 1999, concerning the matter best left to the discretion of the
dismissal of petitioner, a minister, for officials, and the laws and canons of such
misappropriation of denominational institution/organization. It is not for the
funds, willful breach of trust, serious Court to exercise control over church
misconduct and gross and habitual authorities in the performance of their
neglect of duties, the Supreme Court had discretionary and official functions.
occasion to define an ecclesiastical affair Rather, it is for the members of religious
as “one that concerns doctrine, creed or institutions/organizations to conform to
form of worship of the church, or the just church regulations.
adoption and enforcement within a
religious association of needful laws and
regulations for the government of the
membership, and the power of excluding DOCTRINE
from such associations those deemed
unworthy of membership” [Black’s Law Aglipay vs. Ruiz [G.R. No. 45459, March
Dictionary, 5th ed. (1979), p. 460]. 13, 1937]
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 3
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 4
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
States the designs of the postage for freedom, with its inherent limitations and
printing recognized implications.
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 5
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
subsec. 3, Art. VI, Constitution of the for the use, benefit or support of a
Philippines and sec. 1, subsec. Ordinance particular sect or church. In the present
appended thereto; Assessment Law, sec. case, however, the issuance of the postage
344, par [c], Adm. Code) sectarian aid is stamps in question by the Director of
not prohibited when a priest, preacher, Posts and the Secretary of Public Works
minister or other religious teacher or and Communications was not inspired by
dignitary as such is assigned to the armed any sectarian feeling to favor a
forces or to any penal institution, particular church or religious
orphanage or leprosarium (sec. 13, denominations. The stamps were not
subsec. 3 Art. VI, Constitution of the issued and sold for the benefit of the
Philippines). Optional religious Roman Catholic Church. Nor were
instruction in the public schools is by money derived from the sale of the
constitutional mandate allowed (sec. 5, stamps given to that church.
Art. XIII, Constitution of the Philippines,
in relation to sec. 928, Ad. Code). On the contrary, it appears from the letter
of the Director of Posts of June 5, 1936,
Thursday and Friday of Holy Week, incorporated on page 2 of the petitioner's
Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and complaint, that the only purpose in
Sundays are made legal holidays (sec. 29, issuing and selling the stamps was "to
Adm. Code) because of the secular idea advertise the Philippines and attract more
that their observance is conducive to tourists to this country." The officials
beneficial moral results. The law allows concerned merely took advantage of an
divorce but punishes polygamy and event considered of international
bigamy; and certain crimes against importance "to give publicity to the
religious worship are considered crimes Philippines and its people". It is
against the significant to note that the stamps as
fundamental laws of the state (see arts. actually designed and printed, instead of
132 and 133, Revised Penal Code). showing a Catholic Church chalice as
originally planned, contains a map of the
Act No. 4052 contemplates no religious Philippines and the location of the City of
purpose in view. What it gives the Manila, and an inscription as follows:
Director of Posts is the discretionary "Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic
power to determine when the issuance of Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937." What is
special postage stamps would be emphasized is not the Eucharistic
"advantageous to the Government." Of Congress itself but Manila, the capital of
course, the phrase "advantageous to the the Philippines, as the seat of that
Government" does not authorize the congress. It is obvious that while the
violation of the Constitution. It does not issuance and sale of the stamps in
authorize the appropriation, use or question may be said to be inseparably
application of public money or property linked with an event of a religious
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 6
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
character, the resulting propaganda, if appropriate money for the benefit of any
any, received by the Roman Catholic sect, priest or clergyman.
Church, was not the aim and purpose of
the Government. We are of the opinion The image was purchased with private
that the Government should not be funds, not with tax money. The
embarrassed in its activities simply construction of the waiting shed is
because of incidental results, more or less entirely a secular matter. The wooden
religious in character, if the purpose had image was purchased in connection with
in view is one which could legitimately be the celebration of the barrio fiesta
undertaken by appropriate legislation. honoring the patron saint, San Vicente
The main purpose should not be Ferrer, and not for the purpose of
frustrated by its subordination to mere favoring any religion nor interfering with
incidental results not contemplated. religious beliefs of the barrio residents.
One of the highlights of the fiesta was the
mass. Consequently, the image of the
DOCTRINE: patron saint had to be placed in the
church when the mass was celebrated. If
Garces vs. Estenzo [G.R. No. L-53487, there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal
May 25, 1981] in holding a fiesta and having a patron
saint for the barrio, then any activity
PURCHASE OF WOODEN IMAGE OF intended to facilitate the worship of the
PATRON SAINT DOES NOT VIOLATE patron saint (such as the acquisition and
THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF display of his image) cannot be branded
CHURCH AND STATE. Resolution No. 5 of as illegal. As noted in the resolution, the
the barangay council of Valenzuela, barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its
Ormoc City, "reviving the traditional celebration is an ingrained tradition in
socio-religious celebration" every fifth rural communities. The fiesta relieves the
day of April "of the feast day of Señor San monotony and drudgery of the lives of the
Vicente Ferrer, the patron saint of masses.
Valenzuela", and providing for:
Not every governmental activity which
(1) the acquisition of the image of San involves the expenditure of public funds
Vicente Ferrer; and and which has some religious tint is
(2) the construction of a waiting shed as violative of the constitutional provisions
the barangay's projects, funds for which regarding separation of church and state,
would be obtained through the "selling of freedom of worship and banning the use
tickets and cash donations", does not of public money or property.
directly or indirectly establish any
religion, nor abridge religious liberty, nor
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 7
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ANDRES GARCES, et. al, vs. Hon. have custody of the image and "maliciously
NUMERIANO ESTENZO, et. al. ignored" the council's resolutions, the
G.R. No. L-53487, May 25, 1981,Aquino, council enacted another resolution,
J. authorizing the hiring of a lawyer to file a
replevin case against Father Osmea for the
FACTS: The barangay council of Valencia, recovery of the image. On June 14, 1976,
Ormoc City issued four (4) resolutions the barangay council passed another
regarding the acquisition of the wooden resolution, appointing Veloso as its
image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used representative in the replevin case. The
in the celebration of his annual feast replevin case was filed in the city court of
day. One of the resolutions further Ormoc City against Father Osmea and
provided that the barangay council, in Bishop Cipriano Urgel. After the barangay
accordance with the practice in Eastern council had posted a cash bond of eight
Leyte, Councilman Tomas Cabatingan, the hundred pesos, Father Osmea replevin, he
Chairman or hermano mayor of the fiesta, assailed the constitutionality of the said
would be the caretaker of the image of San resolutions library
Vicente Ferrer and that the image would
remain in his residence for one year and Later, he and three other persons, Andres
until the election of his successor as Garces, a member of the Aglipayan
chairman of the next feast day. Church, and two Catholic laymen, Jesus
Edullantes and Nicetas Dagar, filed
Several days after the fiesta or on April 11, against the barangay council and its
1976, on the occasion of his sermon during members (excluding two members) a
a mass, Father Osmea allegedly uttered complaint in the Court of First Instance at
defamatory remarks against the barangay Ormoc City, praying for the annulment of
captain, Manuel C. Veloso, apparently in the said resolutions. The lower court
connection with the disputed image. That dismissed the complaint. lt upheld the
incident provoked Veloso to file against validity of the resolutions.
Father Osmea in the city court of Ormoc
City a charge for grave oral defamation. ISSUE: Whether the resolutions
Father Osmea retaliated by filing contravene Section 5 of Article III of the
administrative complaints against Veloso Constitution.
on the grounds of immorality, grave abuse
of authority, acts unbecoming a public HELD: NO. The wooden image was
official and ignorance of the law. purchased in connection with the
celebration of the barrio fiesta
Meanwhile, the image of San Vicente honoring the patron saint, San Vicente
Ferrer remained in the Catholic church of Ferrer, and not for the purpose of
Valencia. Because Father Osmea did not favoring any religion nor interfering
accede to the request of Cabatingan to with religious matters or the religious
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 8
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 9
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 10
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
divided Supreme Court upheld the justified like other restraints of freedom
constitutionality of Sec. 2175 of the of expression on the grounds that there is
Revised Administrative Code a clear and present danger of any
disqualifying ecclesiastics from holding substantive evil which the State has the
elective or appointive municipal offices. right to prevent". (Tañada and Fernando
on the Constitution of the Philippines,
In American Bible Society v. City of Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 297).
Manila, 101 Phil 386, the Supreme Court
recognized the “right to proselytize’’ as In the case at bar the license fee herein
part of religious freedom, and invalidated involved is imposed upon appellant for its
the application of a City Ordinance distribution and sale of bibles and other
imposing license fees on the sale of religious literature. "In the case of
merchandise to the sale of religious tracts. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, it was held
Citing this case, the Supreme Court said in that an ordinance requiring that a license
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, be obtained before a person could
supra.,that the constitutional guarantee of canvass or solicit orders for goods,
free exercise of religious profession and paintings, pictures, wares or merchandise
worship carries with it the right to cannot be made to apply to members of
disseminate religious information, and Jehovah's Witnesses who went about
any restraint of such right can be justified from door to door distributing literature
only on the ground that there is a clear and soliciting people to 'purchase' certain
and present danger of an evil which the religious books and pamphlets, all
State has the right to prevent. published by the Watch Tower Bible &
Tract Society. The 'price' of the books was
twenty-five cents each, the 'price' of the
pamphlets five cents each. It was shown
DOCTRINE:
that in making the solicitations there was
American Bible Society vs. City of a request for additional 'contribution' of
Manila [G.R. No. L-9637, April 30, twenty-five cents each for the books and
1957] five cents each for the pamphlets. Lesser
sum were accepted, however, and books
IMPOSING TAX ON RELIGIOUS were even donated in case interested
ACTIVITY VIOLATES THE persons were without funds.
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. The On the above facts the Supreme Court
constitutional guaranty of the free held that it could not be said that
exercise and enjoyment of religious petitioners were engaged in commercial
profession and worship carries with it the rather than a religious venture. Their
right to disseminate religious information. activities could not be described as
Any restraint of such right can only be
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 11
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 12
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 13
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs. CITY OF such right can only be justified like
MANILA other restraints of freedom of
G.R. No. L-9637, April 30, 1957, Felix, J. expression on the grounds that there is
a clear and present danger of any
Facts: Plaintiff-appellant is a foreign, non- substantive evil which the State has the
stock, non-profit, religious, missionary right to prevent.
corporation duly registered and doing
business in the Philippines. In the course The fees under Ordinance No. 2529, as
of its ministry, plaintiff's Philippine amended, cannot be applied to
agency has been distributing and selling appellant, for in doing so it would
bibles and/or gospel portions thereof impair its free exercise and enjoyment
(except during the Japanese occupation) of its religious profession and worship
throughout the Philippines and as well as its rights of dissemination of
translating the same into several religious beliefs. There is a difference
Philippine dialects. when the tax is imposed upon the income
or property of the religious organization
On May 29 1953, the acting City and one imposed against the acts of
Treasurer of the City of Manila informed disseminating religious information. To
plaintiff that it was conducting the tax the latter is impair the free exercise
business of general merchandise since and enjoyment of its religious profession
November, 1945, without providing itself and worship as well as its rights of
with the necessary Mayor's permit and dissemination of religious beliefs
municipal license. Plaintiff protested regardless of the amount of such fees.
against this requirement, but the City
Treasurer demanded that plaintiff deposit As to Ordinance No. 3000 requiring the
and pay the sum of P5, 891.45 which it obtention of a mayor’s permit before
paid under protest. A suit was brought by any person can engage in any of the
plaintiff against defendant. businesses, trades or occupations
enumerated therein, we do not find that
Issue: WON the imposition of the fees it imposes any charge upon the
constitute an impairment of the free- enjoyment of a right granted by the
exercise of religion of the petitioner as Constitution, nor tax the exercise of
imposed on its sale and distribution of religious practices. Ordinance No. 3000
bibles. cannot be considered unconstitutional,
even if applied to plaintiff Society.
Held: YES. The constitutional guaranty
of the free exercise and enjoyment of But as Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of
religious profession and worship Manila, as amended, is not applicable to
carries with it the right to disseminate plaintiff-appellant and defendant
religious information. Any restraint of appellee is powerless to license or tax
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 14
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the business of plaintiff Society involved pamphlets. Then the Court continued:
herein for, as stated before, it would 'We do not mean to say that religious
impair plaintiff's right to the free groups and the press are free from all
exercise and enjoyment of its religious financial burdens of government. See
profession and worship, as well as its Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297 U.S.,
rights of dissemination of religious 233, 250, 80 L. ed. 660, 668, 56 S. Ct. 444.
beliefs, We find that Ordinance No. 3000, We have here something quite different,
as amended, is also inapplicable to said for example, from a tax on the income of
business, trade or occupation of the one who engages in religious activities or
plaintiff. a tax on property used or employed in
connection with those activities. It is one
"In the case of Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, thing to impose a tax on the income or
it was held that an ordinance requiring property of a preacher. It is quite another
that a license be obtained before a person thing to exact a tax from him for the
could canvass or solicit orders for goods, privilege of delivering a sermon. The tax
paintings, pictures, wares or merchandise imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat
cannot be made to apply to members of license tax, payment of which is a
Jehovah's Witnesses who went about condition of the exercise of these
from door to door distributing literature constitutional privileges.
and soliciting people to 'purchase' certain
religious books and pamphlets, all The power to tax the exercise of a
published by the Watch Tower Bible & privilege is the power to control or
Tract Society. The 'price' of the books was suppress its enjoyment. . . . Those who
twenty-five cents each, the 'price' of the can tax the exercise of this religious
pamphlets five cents each. It was shown practice can make its exercise so costly
that in making the solicitations there was as to deprive it of the resources
a request for additional 'contribution' of necessary for its maintenance. Those
twenty-five cents each for the books and who can tax the privilege of engaging in
five cents each for the pamphlets. Lesser this form of missionary evangelism can
sum were accepted, however, and books close all its doors to all 'those who do
were even donated in case interested not have a full purse. Spreading
persons were without funds. religious beliefs in this ancient and
honorable manner would thus be
On the above facts the Supreme Court denied the needy. . . .
held that it could not be said that
petitioners were engaged in It is contended however that the fact
commercial rather than a religious that the license tax can suppress or
venture. Their activities could not be control this activity is unimportant if it
described as embraced in the does not do so. But that is to disregard
occupation of selling books and the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 15
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 16
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
may indulge his own theories with a proper regard for the rights
about life and death; worship of others. It is error to think that
any god he chooses, or none at the mere invocation of religious
all; embrace or reject any freedom will stalemate the State
religion; acknowledge the and render it impotent in
divinity of God or of any being protecting the general welfare. The
that appeals to his reverence; inherent police power can be
recognize or deny the exercised to prevent religious
immortality of his soul — in practices inimical to society. And
fact, cherish any religious this is true even if such practices
conviction as he and he alone are pursued out of sincere
sees fit. religious conviction and not
merely for the purpose of evading
However absurd his beliefs the reasonable requirements or
may be to others, even if they prohibitions of the law.
be hostile and heretical to the
majority, he has full freedom to Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly: 'The
believe as he pleases. He may constitutional provision on religious
not be required to prove his freedom terminated disabilities, it did not
beliefs. He may not be create new privileges. It gave religious
punished for his inability to do liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence is
so. Religion, after all, is a freedom from conformity to religious
matter of faith. 'Men may dogma, not freedom from conformity to
believe what they cannot law because of religious dogma.”
prove.' Everyone has a right to
his beliefs and he may not be Accordingly, while one has full freedom to
called to account because he believe in Satan, he may not offer the
cannot prove what he believes. object of his piety a human sacrifice, as
this would be murder. Those who literally
(2) Freedom to Act on One's interpret the Biblical command to "go
Beliefs forth and multiply" are nevertheless not
But where the individual allowed to contract plural marriages in
externalizes his beliefs in acts or violation of the laws against bigamy. A
omissions that affect the public, his person cannot refuse to pay taxes on the
freedom to do so becomes subject ground that it would be against his
to the authority of the State. As religious tenets to recognize any
great as this liberty may be, authority except that of God alone. An
religious freedom, like all the other atheist cannot express his disbelief in acts
rights guaranteed in the of derision that wound the feelings of the
Constitution, can be enjoyed only faithful. The police power can be validly
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 17
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
asserted against the Indian practice of the brothers and sisters. The bewildering rise
suttee born of deep religious conviction, of weird religious cults espousing
that calls on the widow to immolate violence as an article of faith also proves
herself at the funeral pile of her husband. the wisdom of our rule rejecting a strict
let alone policy on the exercise of religion.
We thus reject petitioner's postulate that For sure, we shall continue to subject any
its religious program is per se beyond act pinching the space for the free
review by the respondent Board. Its exercise of religion to a heightened
public broadcast on TV of its religious scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational
program brings it out of the bosom of exercise to the irrationality of man. For
internal belief. Television is a medium when religion divides and its exercise
that reaches even the eyes and ears of destroys, the State should not stand still.
children. The Court iterates the rule that
the exercise of religious freedom can be "The constitutional guaranty of free
regulated by the State when it will bring exercise and enjoyment of religious
about the clear and present danger of profession and worship carries with it the
some substantive evil which the State is right to disseminate religious information.
duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious Any restraint of such right can be justified
detriment to the more overriding interest like other restraints on freedom of
of public health, public morals, or public expression on the ground that there is a
welfare. A laissez faire policy on the clear and present danger of any
exercise of religion can be seductive to substantive evil which the State has the
the liberal mind but history counsels the right to prevent." ". . . it is only where it is
Court against its blind adoption as unavoidably necessary to prevent an
religion is and continues to be a volatile immediate and grave danger to the
area of concern in our country today. security and welfare of the community
that infringement of religious freedom
Across the sea and in our shore, the may be justified, and only to the smallest
bloodiest and bitterest wars fought by extent necessary to avoid the danger."
men were caused by irreconcilable
religious differences. Our country is still CRITICISMS OR ATTACK ON OTHER
not safe from the recurrence of this RELIGION IS COVERED BY THE
stultifying strife considering our warring FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The
religious beliefs and the fanaticism with respondent Board may disagree with the
which some of us cling and claw to these criticisms of other religions by petitioner
beliefs. Even now, we have yet to settle but that gives it no excuse to interdict
the near century old strife in Mindanao, such criticisms, however, unclean they
the roots of which have been nourished may be. Under our constitutional scheme,
by the mistrust and misunderstanding it is not the task of the State to favor any
between our Christian and Muslim religion by protecting it against an attack
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 18
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 19
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 20
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the space for the free exercise of religion administrative rules and regulations
to a heightened scrutiny but we shall not cannot expand the letter and spirit of the
leave its rational exercise to the law they seek to enforce.
irrationality of man. For when religion
divides and its exercise destroys, the Third, in x-rating the TV program of the
State should not stand still. petitioner, the respondents failed to
apply the clear and present danger rule.
2. NO. First, The evidence shows that the In American Bible Society v. City of Manila,
respondent Board x-rated petitioners this Court held: "The constitutional
TV series for "attacking" either guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment
religions, especially the Catholic church. of religious profession and worship
An examination of the evidence will carries with it the right to disseminate
show that the so-called "attacks" are religious information. Any restraint of
mere criticisms of some of the deeply such right can be justified like other
held dogmas and tenets of other restraints on freedom of expression on
religions . The videotapes were not the ground that there is aclear and present
viewed by the respondent court as they danger of any substantive evil which the
were not presented as evidence. Yet they State has the right to prevent."
were considered by the respondent court
as indecent, contrary to law and good In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers
customs, hence, can be prohibited from Union, we further ruled that ". . . it is only
public viewing under section 3(c) of PD where it is unavoidably necessary to
1986. prevent an immediate and grave danger
to the security and welfare of the
This ruling clearly suppresses community that infringement of religious
petitioner's freedom of speech and freedom may be justified, and only to the
interferes with its right to free exercise smallest extent necessary to avoid the
of religion. danger."
Second, even a side glance at section 3 of Lastly, the records show that the decision
PD No. 1986 will reveal that, the ground of the respondent Board, affirmed by the
"attacks against another religion" in x- respondent appellate court, is completely
rating the religious program of petitioner, bereft of findings of facts to justify the
is not among the grounds to justify an conclusion that the subject video tapes
order prohibiting the broadcast of constitute impermissible attacks against
petitioner's television program. The another religion. There is no showing
ground "attack against another religion" whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes
was merely added by the respondent Board will bring about especially the gravity and
in its Rules. This rule is void for it runs imminence of the threatened harm. Prior
smack against the hoary doctrine that restraint on speech, including religious
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 21
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 22
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 23
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
of 1987. They have targeted only Republic opinion in German vs. Barangan, 135
Act No. 1265 and the implementing SCRA 514, 530-531). The right to
orders of the DECS. religious profession and worship has a
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 24
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
heroes" (Gerona vs. Sec. of Education, 106 freedom to differ is not limited to things
Phil. 2, 24). After all, what the that do not matter much. That would be a
petitioners seek only is exemption from mere shadow of freedom. The test of its
the flag ceremony, not exclusion from substance is the right to differ as to things
the public schools where they may study that touch the heart of the existing order.
the Constitution, the democratic way of
life and form of government, and learn Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced
not only the arts, sciences, Philippine unity and loyalty even to the country, . . .
history and culture but also receive — assuming that such unity and loyalty
training for a vocation of profession can be attained through coercion — is
and be taught the virtues of "patriotism, not a goal that is constitutionally
respect for human rights, appreciation obtainable at the expense of religious
for national heroes, the rights and liberty. A desirable end cannot be
duties of citizenship, and moral and promoted by prohibited means. (Meyer
spiritual values (Sec. 3[2], Art. XIV, 1987 vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 67 L. ed. 1042,
Constitution) as part of the curricula. 1046.)
Expelling or banning the petitioners
from Philippine schools will bring about Moreover, the expulsion of members of
the very situation that this Court had Jehovah's Witnesses from the schools
feared in Gerona. Forcing a small where they are enrolled will violate
religious group, through the iron hand their right as Philippine citizens, under
of the law, to participate in a ceremony the 1987 Constitution, to receive free
that violates their religious beliefs, will education, for it is the duty of the State
hardly be conducive to love of country to "protect and promote the right of all
or respect for dully constituted citizens to quality education . . . and to
authorities. make such education accessible to all
(Sec. 1, Art. XIV). SC holds that a similar
As Mr. Justice Jackson remarked in West exemption may be accorded to the
Virginia vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943): Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the
observance of the flag ceremony out of
. . . To believe that patriotism will not respect for their religious beliefs,
flourish if patriotic ceremonies are however "bizarre" those beliefs may
voluntary and spontaneous instead of a seem to others. Nevertheless, their right
compulsory routine is to make an not to participate in the flag ceremony
unflattering estimate of the appeal of our does not give them a right to disrupt
institutions to free minds. . . . such patriotic exercises .
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 25
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 26
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
nothing in the memorandum to the Court man must be allowed to subscribe to the
that demonstrates how the interest is so infinite.
compelling that it should override the
respondent’s plea of religious freedom,
nor is it shown that the means employed
by the government in pursuing its interest DOCTRINE:
is the least restrictive to respondent’s Estrada vs. Escritor [A.M. No. P-02-
religious exercise. The case was ordered 1651, August 4, 2003; June 22, 2006]
remanded to the Office of the Court
Administrator for the application of this In simplest terms, the Free Exercise
test. Clause prohibits government from
inhibiting religious beliefs with penalties
Thus, in the final resolution of the case for religious beliefs and practice, while
[June 22, 2006], it was held that if the the Establishment Clause prohibits
burden is great and the sincerity of the government from inhibiting religious
religious belief is not in question, belief with rewards for religious beliefs
adherence to benevolent neutrality and practices. In other words, the two
accommodation approach requires that religion clauses were intended to deny
the Court make an individual
government the power to use either the
determination and not dismiss the claim carrot or the stick to influence individual
outright. Accordingly, the Court found religious beliefs and practices.
that in this particular case and under the
distinct circumstances prevailing, The history of the religion clauses in the
respondent Escritor’s arrangement 1987 Constitution shows that these
cannot be penalized as she made out a clauses were largely adopted from the
case for exemption from the law based on First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
her fundamental right to freedom of xxxx Philippine jurisprudence and
religion. Concluding, the high tribunal commentaries on the religious clauses
said that the Court recognizes that the also continued to borrow authorities from
state interests must be upheld in order U.S. jurisprudence without articulating
that freedoms, including religious the stark distinction between the two
freedom, may be enjpyed. But in the area streams of U.S. jurisprudence [i.e.,
of religious exercise as a preferred separation and benevolent neutrality].
freedom, man stands accountable to an
authority higher than the state, and so the One might simply conclude that the
state interest sought to be upheld must be Philippine Constitutions and
so compelling that the violation will erode
jurisprudence also inherited the disarray
the very fabric of the state that will also of U.S. religion clause jurisprudence and
protect the freedom. In the absence of a the two identifiable streams; thus, when a
showing that such state interest exists,
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 27
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
religion clause case comes before the showing the questions which must be
Court, a separationist approach or a answered in each step, viz:
benevolent neutrality approach might be
adopted and each will have U.S. …First, “Has the statute or government
authorities to support it. Or, one might action created a burden on the free
conclude that as the history of the First exercise of religion?” The courts often
Amendment as narrated by the Court in look into the sincerity of the religious
Everson supports the separationist belief, but without inquiring into the truth
approach, Philippine jurisprudence of the belief because the Free Exercise
should also follow this approach in light Clause prohibits inquiring about its truth
of the Philippine religion clauses’ history. as held in Ballard and Cantwell. The
As a result, in a case where the party sincerity of the claimant’s belief is
claims religious liberty in the face of a ascertained to avoid the mere claim of
general law that inadvertently burdens religious beliefs to escape a mandatory
his religious exercise, he faces an almost regulation. xxx
insurmountable wall in convincing the Second, the court asks: “[I]s there a
Court that the wall of separation would sufficiently compelling state interest to
not be breached if the Court grants him an justify this infringement of religious
exemption. These conclusions, however, liberty?” In this step, the government has
are not and were never warranted by the to establish that its purposes are
1987, 1973 and 1935 Constitutions as legitimate for the state and that they are
shown by other provisions on religion in compelling. Government must do more
all three constitutions. It is a cardinal rule than assert the objectives at risk if
in constitutional construction that the exemption is given; it must precisely
constitution must be interpreted as a show how and to what extent those
whole and apparently conflicting objectives will be undermined if
provisions should be reconciled and exemptions are granted. xxx
harmonized in a manner that will give to
all of them full force and effect. From this Third, the court asks: “[H]as the state in
construction, it will be ascertained that achieving its legitimate purposes used the
the intent of the framers was to adopt a least intrusive means possible so that the
benevolent neutrality approach in free exercise is not infringed any more
interpreting the religious clauses in the than necessary to achieve the legitimate
Philippine constitutions, and the goal of the state?” The analysis requires
enforcement of this intent is the goal of the state to show that the means in which
construing the constitution. it is achieving its legitimate state
objective is the least intrusive means, i.e.,
As previously stated, the compelling state it has chosen a way to achieve its
interest test involves a three-step process. legitimate state end that imposes as little
We explained this process in detail, by as possible on religious liberties xxx.
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 28
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 29
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Respondent Escritor testified that when she spouses’ commission of adultery are
entered the judiciary in 1999, she was investigated before the declarations are
already a widow, her husband having died executed. Escritor and Quilapio’s
in 1998. She admitted that she started declarations were executed in the usual
living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without and approved form prescribed by the
the benefit of marriage more than twenty Jehovah’s Witnesses, approved by elders of
years ago when her husband was still alive the congregation where the declarations
but living with another woman. She also were executed, and recorded in the Watch
admitted that she and Quilapio have a son. Tower Central Office.
But as a member of the religious sect
known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Moreover, the Jehovah’s congregation
Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, believes that once all legal impediments for
respondent asserted that their conjugal the couple are lifted, the validity of the
arrangement is in conformity with their declarations ceases, and the couple should
religious beliefs and has the approval of legalize their union. In Escritor’s case,
her congregation. although she was widowed in 1998,
thereby lifting the legal impediment to
In fact, after ten years of living together, marry on her part, her mate was still not
she executed on July 28, 1991, a capacitated to remarry. Thus, their
“Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness.” For declarations remained valid. In sum,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Declaration allows therefore, insofar as the congregation is
members of the congregation who have concerned, there is nothing immoral about
been abandoned by their spouses to enter the conjugal arrangement between
into marital relations . The Declaration Escritor and Quilapio and they remain
thus makes the resulting union mora l and members in good standing in the
binding within the congregation all over congregation.
the world except in countries where
divorce is allowed. As laid out by the ISSUE:
tenets of their faith, the Jehovah’s Whether or not the Administrative case
congregation requires that at the time herein should be dismissed?
the declarations are executed, the
couple cannot secure the civil HELD:
authorities’ approval of the marital YES. In our decision dated August 4, 2003,
relationship because of legal after a long and arduous scrutiny into the
impediments. Only couples who have been origins and development of the religion
baptized and in good standing may execute clauses in the United States (U.S.) and the
the Declaration, which requires the Philippines, we held that in resolving
approval of the elders of the congregation. claims involving religious freedom
As a matter of practice, the marital status
of the declarants and their respective
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 30
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 31
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
less than twenty-four hours after secular criteria may be the basis of
Congress adopted the First Amendment’s government action. It does not permit,
prohibition on laws respecting an much less require, accommodation of
establishment of religion, Congress secular programs to religious belief.
decided to express its thanks to God
Almighty for the many blessings enjoyed The problem with the strict neutrality
by the nation with a resolution in favor of approach, however, is if applied in
a presidential proclamation declaring a interpreting the Establishment Clause,
national day of Thanksgiving and Prayer. it could lead to a de facto voiding of
Thus, strict separationists are caught in religious expression in the Free Exercise
an awkward position of claiming a Clause. As pointed out by Justice
constitutional principle that has never Goldberg in his concurring opinion in
existed and is never likely to. Abington School District v. Schempp]
strict neutrality could lead to “a
The tamer version of the strict brooding and pervasive devotion to the
separationist view, the STRICT secular and a passive, or even active,
NEUTRALITY OR SEPARATIONIST hostility to the religious” which is
VIEW, (or, the governmental neutrality prohibited by the Constitution.Professor
theory) finds basis in Everson v. Board of Laurence Tribe commented in his
Education, where the Court declared that authoritative treatise, viz:
Jefferson’s “wall of separation”
encapsulated the meaning of the First To most observers. . . strict neutrality
Amendment. has seemed incompatible with the very
idea of a free exercise clause. The
However, unlike the strict Framers, whatever specific applications
separationists, the strict neutrality view they may have intended, clearly
believes that the “wall of separation” envisioned religion as something special;
does not require the state to be their they enacted that vision into law by
adversary.” Rather, the state must be guaranteeing the free exercise of
NEUTRAL in its relations with groups of religion but not, say, of philosophy or
religious believers and non-believers. science. The strict neutrality approach
“State power is no more to be used so as all but erases this distinction. Thus it is
to handicap religions than it is to favor not surprising that the [U.S.] Supreme
them.” The strict neutrality approach is Court has rejected strict neutrality,
not hostile to religion, but it is strict in permitting and sometimes mandating
holding that religion may not be used as religious classifications.
a basis for classification for purposes of
governmental action , whether the Thus, the dilemma of the separationist
action confers rights or privileges or approach, whether in the form of strict
imposes duties or obligations. Only separation or strict neutrality, is that
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 32
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 33
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
But the more difficult religion cases Thus, what is sought under the theory of
involve legislative acts which have a accommodation is not a declaration of
secular purpose and general applicability, unconstitutionality of a facially neutral
but may incidentally or inadvertently aid law, but an exemption from its
or burden religious exercise. Though the application or its “burdensome effect,”
government action is not religiously whether by the legislature or the courts .
motivated, these laws have a Most of the free exercise claims brought
“burdensome effect” on religious exercise. to the U.S. Court are for exemption, not
invalidation of the facially neutral law
The benevolent neutrality theory that has a “burdensome” effect.
believes that with respect to these
governmental actions, accommodation (2) FREE EXERCISE Jurisprudence:
of religion may be allowed, not to Sherbert, Yoder and Smith The pinnacle
promote the government’s favored form of free exercise protection and the
of religion, but to allow individuals and theory of accommodation in the U.S.
groups to exercise their religion blossomed in the case of Sherbert v.
without hindrance. The purpose of Verner, which ruled that state
accommodations is to remove a burden regulation that indirectly restrains or
on, or facilitate the exercise of, a punishes religious belief or conduct
person’s or institution’s religion. must be subjected to strict scrutiny
under the Free Exercise Clause .
As Justice Brennan explained, the According to Sherbert, when a law of
“government [may] take religion into general application infringes religious
account…to exempt, when possible, exercise, albeit incidentally, the state
from generally applicable interest sought to be promoted must be
governmental regulation individuals so paramount and compelling as to
whose religious beliefs and practices override the free exercise claim .
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 34
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Otherwise, the Court itself will carve out The Court, in effect, granted exemption
the exemption. from a neutral, criminal statute that
punished religiously motivated conduct.
It is certain that not every conscience The cases of Sherbert and Yoder laid out
can be accommodated by all the laws of the following doctrines:
the land; but when general laws conflict (a) free exercise clause claims were
with scruples of conscience, exemptions subject to heightened scrutiny or
ought to be granted unless some compelling interest test if
“compelling state interest” intervenes. government substantially
Thus, Sherbert and subsequent cases burdened the exercise of religion;
held that when government action (b) heightened scrutiny or
burdens, even inadvertently, a sincerely compelling interest test
held religious belief or practice, the governed cases where the burden
state must justify the burden by was direct, i.e., the exercise of
demonstrating that the law embodies a religion triggered a criminal or
compelling interest, that no less civil penalty, as well as cases
restrictive alternative exists, and that a where the burden was indirect,
religious exemption would impair the i.e., the exercise of religion
state’s ability to effectuate its resulted in the forfeiture of a
compelling interest. As in other government benefit; and (c) the
instances of state action affecting Court could carve out
fundamental rights, negative impacts on accommodations or exemptions
those rights demand the highest level of from a facially neutral law of
judicial scrutiny. After Sherbert, this strict general application, whether
scrutiny balancing test resulted in court- general or criminal.
mandated religious exemptions from
facially-neutral laws of general The Sherbert-Yoder doctrine had five
application whenever unjustified burdens main components. First, action was
were found. protected—conduct beyond speech, press,
or worship was included in the shelter of
Then, in the 1972 case of Wisconsin v. freedom of religion. Neither Sherbert’s
Yoder,[61] the U.S. Court again ruled refusal to work on the Sabbath nor the
that religious exemption was in order, Amish parents’ refusal to let their
notwithstanding that the law of general children attend ninth and tenth grades
application had a criminal penalty. can be classified as conduct protected by
Using heightened scrutiny, the Court the other clauses of the First Amendment.
overturned the conviction of Amish Second, indirect impositions on religious
parents for violating Wisconsin conduct, such as the denial of twenty-six
compulsory school-attendance laws. weeks of unemployment insurance
benefits to Adel Sherbert, as well as direct
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 35
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
restraints, such as the criminal (2) the state has failed to demonstrate a
prohibition at issue in Yoder, were particularly important or compelling
prohibited. governmental goal in preventing an
exemption; and
Third, as the language in the two cases
indicate, the protection granted was (3) that the state has failed to demonstrate
extensive. Only extremely strong that it used the least restrictive means.
governmental interests justified
impingement on religious conduct, as In these cases, the Court finds that the
the absolute language of the test of the injury to religious conscience is so great
Free Exercise Clause suggests. and the advancement of public
purposes is incomparable that only
(3) ACCOMMODATION under the indifference or hostility could explain a
Religion Clauses A free exercise claim refusal to make exemptions. Thus, if the
could result to THREE KINDS OF state’s objective could be served as well
ACCOMMODATION: or almost as well by granting an
exemption to those whose religious
(a) those which are found to be beliefs are burdened by the regulation,
constitutionally compelled, i.e., required the Court must grant the exemption. The
by the Free Exercise Clause; Yoder case is an example where the
(b) those which are discretionary or Court held that the state must
legislative, i.e., not required by the Free accommodate the religious beliefs of
Exercise Clause but nonetheless the Amish who objected to enrolling
permitted by the Establishment Clause; their children in high school as required
and (c) those which the religion clauses by law.
prohibit.
The Sherbert case is another example
A. MANDATORY ACCOMMODATION where the Court held that the state
results when the Court finds that unemployment compensation plan must
accommodation is required by the Free accommodate the religious convictions of
Exercise Clause, i.e, when the Court itself Sherbert.
carves out an exemption. This
accommodation occurs when all three B. PERMISSIVE ACCOMMODATION , the
conditions of the compelling interest Court finds that the State may, but is not
test are met: required to, accommodate religious
(1) a statute or government action has interests. The U.S. Walz case illustrates
burdened claimant’s free exercise of this situation where the U.S. Supreme
religion, and there is no doubt as to the Court upheld the constitutionality of tax
sincerity of the religious belief; exemption given by New York to church
properties, but did not rule that the
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 36
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
state was required to provide tax state interest test which is most in line
exemptions. The Court declared that with the benevolent neutrality-
“(t)he limits of permissible state accommodation approach.
accommodation to religion are by no
means coextensive with the Under the benevolent-neutrality theory,
noninterference mandated by the Free the principle underlying the First
Exercise Clause.” Other examples are Amendment is that freedom to carry out
Zorach v. Clauson, allowing released time one’s duties to a Supreme Being is an
in public schools and Marsh v. Chambers, inalienable right, not one dependent
allowing payment of legislative chaplains on the grace of legislature. Religious
from public funds. Parenthetically, the freedom is seen as a substantive right and
Court in Smith has ruled that this is the not merely a privilege against
only accommodation allowed by the discriminatory legislation. With religion
Religion Clauses. looked upon with benevolence and not
hostility, benevolent neutrality allows
C . PROHIBITED ACCOMMODATION . as accommodation of religion under
when the Court finds no basis for a certain circumstances.
mandatory accommodation, or it
determines that the legislative 3. Religion Clauses in the Philippine
accommodation runs afoul of the Context: Constitution, Jurisprudence and
establishment or the free exercise Practice
clause, it results to a In this case, the
Court finds that establishment concerns a. US Constitution and jurisprudence vis-
prevail over potential accommodation à-vis Philippine Constitution By
interests. To say that there are valid juxtaposing the American Constitution
exemptions buttressed by the Free and jurisprudence against that of the
Exercise Clause does not mean that all Philippines, it is immediately clear that
claims for free exercise exemptions are one cannot simply conclude that we have
valid. An example where adopted—lock, stock and barrel—the
accommodation was prohibited is religion clauses as embodied in the First
McCollum v. Board of Education, where Amendment, and therefore, the U.S.
the Court ruled against optional Court’s interpretation of the same. Unlike
religious instruction in the public school in the U.S. where legislative exemptions of
premises. religion had to be upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court as constituting permissive
Given that a free exercise claim could lead accommodations, similar exemptions for
to three different results, the question religion are mandatory accommodations
now remains as to how the Court should under our own constitutions.
determine which action to take. In this
regard, it is the strict scrutiny-compelling
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 37
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Thus, our 1935, 1973 and 1987 framework underlying the Philippine
Constitutions contain provisions on tax Constitution.[128] As stated in our
exemption of church property,[123] Decision, dated August 4, 2003:
salary of religious officers in government
institutions, and optional religious The history of the religion clauses in the
instruction.[125] Our own preamble also 1987 Constitution shows that these
invokes the aid of a divine being.[126] clauses were largely adopted from the
These constitutional provisions are First Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution
wholly ours and have no counterpart in xxxx Philippine jurisprudence and
the U.S. Constitution or its amendments. commentaries on the religious clauses
They all reveal without doubt that the also continued to borrow authorities from
Filipino people, in U.S. jurisprudence without articulating
adopting these constitutions, manifested the stark distinction between the two
their adherence to the benevolent streams of U.S. jurisprudence i.e.,
neutrality approach that requires separation and benevolent neutrality. One
accommodations in interpreting the might simply conclude that the Philippine
religion clauses. Constitutions and jurisprudence also
inherited the disarray of U.S. religion
The argument of Mr. Justice Carpio that clause jurisprudence and the two
the August 4, 2003 ponencia was identifiable streams; thus, when a religion
erroneous insofar as it asserted that the clause case comes before the Court, a
1935 Constitution incorporates the Walz separationist approach or a benevolent
ruling as this case was decided neutrality approach might be adopted and
subsequent to the 1935 Constitution is a each will have U.S. authorities to support
misreading of the ponencia. What the it.
ponencia pointed out was that even as
early as 1935, or more than three decades Or, one might conclude that as the history
before the U.S. Court could validate the of the First Amendment as narrated by
exemption in Walz as a form or the Court in Everson supports the
permissible accommodation, we have separationist approach, Philippine
already incorporated the same in our jurisprudence should also follow this
Constitution, as a mandatory approach in light of the Philippine religion
accommodation. There is no ambiguity clauses’ history. As a result, in a case
with regard to the Philippine where the party claims religious liberty in
Constitution’s departure from the U.S. the face of a general law that
Constitution, insofar as religious inadvertently burdens his religious
accommodations are concerned. It is exercise, he faces an almost
indubitable that benevolent neutrality- insurmountable wall in convincing the
accommodation, whether mandatory or Court that the wall of separation would
permissive, is the spirit, intent and not be breached if the Court grants him an
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 38
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 39
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
information. Any restraint of such right only because of its merits as discussed
can only be justified like other above, but more importantly, because
restraints of freedom of expression on our constitutional history and
the grounds that there is a clear and interpretation indubitably show that
present danger of any substantive benevolent neutrality is the launching
evil which the State has the right to pad from which the Court should take
prevent. off in interpreting religion clause cases.
The ideal towards which this approach is
At this point, we must emphasize that directed is the protection of religious
the adoption of the benevolent liberty “not only for a minority, however
neutrality-accommodation approach small- not only for a majority, however
does not mean that the Court ought to large but for each of us” to the greatest
grant exemptions every time a free extent possible within flexible
exercise claim comes before it. This is an constitutional limits.
erroneous reading of the framework
which the dissent of Mr. Justice Carpio II. THE CURRENT PROCEEDINGS
seems to entertain. Although benevolent We now resume from where we ended in
neutrality is the lens with which the our August 4, 2003 Decision. As
Court ought to view religion clause mentioned, what remained to be resolved,
cases, the interest of the state should upon which remand was necessary,
also be afforded utmost protection. This pertained to the final task of subjecting
is precisely the purpose of the test — to this case to the careful application of the
draw the line between mandatory, compelling state interest test, i.e.,
permissible and forbidden religious determining whether respondent is
exercise. entitled to exemption, an issue which is
essentially factual or evidentiary in
xxx While the Court cannot adopt a nature.
doctrinal formulation that can eliminate
the difficult questions of judgment in There has never been any question that
determining the degree of burden on the state has an interest in protecting
religious practice or importance of the the institutions of marriage and the
state interest or the sufficiency of the family, or even in the sound
means adopted by the state to pursue its administration of justice. Indeed, the
interest, the Court can set a doctrine on provisions by which respondent’s
the ideal towards which religious clause relationship is said to have impinged, e.g.,
jurisprudence should be directed. Book V, Title I, Chapter VI, Sec. 46(b)(5) of
the Revised Administrative Code, Articles
We here lay down the doctrine that in 334 and 349 of the Revised Penal Code,
Philippine jurisdiction, we adopt the and even the provisions on marriage and
benevolent neutrality approach not family in the Civil Code and Family Code,
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 40
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 41
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 42
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 43
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 44
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Doctrine: The intent of the framers of the However, the authors of the IRR gravely
Constitution for protecting the life of the abused their office when they redefined
unborn child was to prevent the the meaning of abortifacient by using the
legislature from passing a law that would term “primarily”. Recognizing as
allow abortion. abortifacient only those that “primarily
induce abortion or the destruction of a
Facts: 14 petitions and 2 petitions-in- fetus inside the mother’s womb”, Sec.
intervention were filed in Court assailing 3.01(a) of the IRR would pave the way for
the constitutionality of R.A. 10354, the approval of contraceptives that may
otherwise known as the Responsible harm or destroy the life of the unborn
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act from conception/fertilization. This
of 2012, or the RH Law, for short. violates Sec. 12, Art. II, of the
Constitution. For the same reason, the
Issue: Whether the law violates the right definition of contraceptives under Sec.
of an unborn child as guaranteed under 3.01(j) of the IRR, which also uses the
Sec. 12, Art. II, of the Constitution. term “primarily” must be struck down.
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 45
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
NACHURA:
1. A minor may receive information,
as opposed to procedures, about State regulations imposed on solicitations
family planning services. Parents for religious purposes do not constitute
are not deprived of parental an abridgment of freedom of religion; but
guidance and control over their solicitations for religious purposes are
minor child in this situation and not covered by PD 1564 (Solicitation
may assist her in deciding whether Permit Law) which requires a prior
to accept or reject information permit from DSWD in solicitations for
received. “charitable or public welfare purposes”
2. In life-threatening procedures. The [Centeno v. Villalon, 236 SCRA 197].
life of the minor who has already
RA 7716, insofar as the sale of religious
suffered a miscarriage and that of
articles, as well as their printing and
the spouse should not be put at
publication, is subject to VAT, is not
grave risk simply because of the
lack of consent. Ibid. unconstitutional. As the US Supreme
Court held in Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v.
Board of Equalization, the free exercise
Sec.12, Art.II, places more importance on
clause does not prohibit imposing a
the role of parents in the development of
generally applicable sales and use tax on
their children, with theuse of the term
the sale of religious materials by a
“primary”. The right of parents in the
religious organization [Tolentino v.
upbringing of the youth is superior to
Secretary of Finance, supra.].
that of the State. Ibid.
In the Resolution on the Motion for
Gabriel:
Reconsideration, October 30, 1995, the
Q: When does life begin? Supreme Court said that the resulting
A: Life begins at fertilization. Medical burden on the exercise of religious
sources also support the view that freedom is so incidental as to make it
conception begins at fertilization. difficult to differentiate it from any other
economic imposition that might make the
Q: meeting of sperm and egg, is that a right to disseminate religious doctrines
human life? costly. At any rate, liability for VAT must
A: 46 chromosomes, which is origin in be decided in concrete cases in the event
every human being, hence, it is the BIR assesses this tax on the Philippine
considered as human life. But human life Bible Society.
is different from civil personality.
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 46
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Q— Is the free exercise clause
absolute?
Q— To what extent is the freedom of
ANS: No, because it is subject to the
religion guaranteed?
police power of the State. In fact, in
ANS: The freedom of religion is German vs. Barangan, March 27,
guaranteed to the extent that a person 1985, it was said that the freedom
may— of religion must be exercised in
good faith. This was a situation
(1) Worship God according to the where the Supreme Court said that
dictates of his conscience; when people, who claimed to be
(2) No to worship God at all; holding mass near Malacañang
(3) Entertain notions respecting Palace, were instead chanting
words against the government,
his relationship with God;
they can be prevented as it was
(4) Exhibit sentiments in such actually a demonstration. People
form of worship not injurious come and go to Malacañang, the
to the equal rights of others; lives of the members of the First
(5) Prohibit any legislation for the Family and the security of the
support of religion because the people going in and out were the
State cannot establish a church, concerns of the State. When they
wer prevented, there was no
aid one, aid all and participate
deprivation of the freedom of
in purely religious activities. religion. What was at issue was the
manner of the exercise. A person
may believe, and there is no limit
Q— What are the two (2) aspects in to it, but the manner of doing it is
the freedom of religion clause? subject to regulation. (See also
Ebralinag, et al., vs. Division
ANS: They are: Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu, G.R. No. 95770, March 1,
(1) The non-establishment clause; 1993).
and
(2) The free exercise clause.
(Ebralinag, et al., vs. Division
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 47
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 48
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 49
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 50
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 51
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 52
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 53
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 54
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 55
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 56
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 57
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 58
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 59
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
to salute the flag, sing the national (3) There is also jurisprudence that
anthem and recite the patriotic supports permissive
pledge, in violation of the accommodation. The case of
Administrative Code of 1987. In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope
resolving the religious freedom Workers Union, G.R. No. 25246,
issue, a unanimous Court September 12, 1974; See also
overturned an earlier ruling Basa vs. FederacionObrera, G.R.
denying such exemption, using the No.L-27113, November 19,1974,
“grave and imminent danger” test, 61 SCRA 93; Gonzales vs. Central
viz: Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union,
G.R. No. L-38178, October 3, 1985,
139 SCRA 30, is an example of the
The sole justification for a
prior restraint or limitation application of Mr. Justice Carpio’s
on the exercise of religious theory of permissive
freedom (according to the accommodation, where religious
late Chief Justice Claudio exemption is granted by a
Teehankee in his dissenting legislative act. In Victoriano, the
opinion in German v. constitutionality of Republic Act
Barangan, 135 SCRA 514,
No. 3350 was questioned. The said
517) is the existence of a
grave and present danger of R.A. exempt employees from the
a character both grave and application and coverage of a
imminent, of a serious evil closed shop agreement—
to public safety, public mandated in another law— based
morals, public health or any on religious objections. A
other legitimate public unanimous Court upheld the
interest, that the State has a
constitutionality of the law,
right (and duty) to prevent.
Absent such a threat to holding that “government is not
public safety, the expulsion precluded from pursuing valid
of the petitioners from the objectives secular in character
schools is not justified. even if the incidental result would
In these two cases, the Court itself be favorable to a religion or sect.”
carved out an exemption from a Interestingly, the secular purpose
law of general application, on the of the challenged law which the
strength directly of the Free Court upheld was the
Exercise Clause. advancement of “the constitutional
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 60
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
right to the free exercise of least intrusive means possible so that the
religion.” free exercise is not infringed any more
than necessary to achieve the legitimate
goal of the state?" The analysis requires
the state to show that the means in which
Q-The compelling state interest test it is achieving its legitimate state
involves a three-step process. Explain objective is the least intrusive means, it
the three-step process. has chosen a way to achieve its legitimate
state end that imposes as little as possible
ANS- The three-step process may be
on religious liberties.
explained in the following questions
which must be answered in each step, to Again, the application of the compelling
wit: state interest test could result to three
situations of accommodation: First
First, "Has tie statute or government mandatory accommodation would result
action created a burden on the exercise of if the Court finds that accommodation is
religion? The courts often look into the required by the Free Exercise Clause.
sincerity of the religious belief but Second, if the Court finds that the State is
without inquiring into the truth of the not required to, accommodate religious
belief because the Free Exercise Clause interests, permissive accommodation
prohibits inquiring about its truth as held results. Finally, if the Court finds that that
in Ballard and Cantwell. The sincerity of establishment concerns prevail over
the claimant's beliefs ascertained to avoid potential accommodation interests, then
the mere ain of religious beliefs to escape it must rule that the accommodation
a mandatory regulation. prohibited. (Estrada vs Escritor, supra).
Second, the court asks: Is there a
sufficiently compelling state interest to
justify this infringement of religious Q- What is the justification for a prior
liberty?" In this step, the government has restraint or limitation on the exercise
this to establish that its purposes are of religious freedom?
legitimate for the state and that they are
compelling. Government must do more ANS- The sole justification for a prior
than assert the objectives at risk if restraint or limitation on the freedom of
exemption is given; it must precisely religion is when there exists a clear and
show how and to what extent those present danger.
objectives will be undermined if
exemptions are granted.
Q- Why is it that in Gerona vs.
Third, the court asks: Has the state in
Secretary of Education, et al. 106 PhiL
achieving its legitimate purposes used the
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 61
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
2 (1959), school children were exclusion from the public schools where
compelled to salute the flag resulting they may study the Constitution, the
in their expulsion when they refused? democratic way of life and of government
Explain. and learn not only the arts, sciences,
Philippine history and culture, but also
ANS- This was so because it was receive training for a vocation or
predicted that: profession and be taught the virtues of
patriotism, respect for human rights,
"The flag ceremony wi become a thing of
the past or perhaps conducted with very appreciation o national heroes, rights and
few participants, and the time will come duties of citizenship, moral and spiritual
when we would have citizens untaught values. (Ebralinag vs Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219
and uninculcated in and not imbued
reverence for the flag and love of country SCRA 256 (1993).
admiration for national heroes, and Expelling or banning the petitioners from
patriotism. A pathetic, even tragic Philippine schools will bring about the
situation, and all because a small portion very situation that the SC feared in
of the school population imposed its will Gerona. Forcing a small religious group,
demanded, and was granted an through the iron hand of the law, to
exemption. participate in a ceremony that violates
their religious beliefs, will hardly be
conducive to love of country or respect
Q- What caused the Supreme Court in for duly constituted authorities.
Ebralinag to uphold the exemption of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses from saluting
the flag? Explain. Q- In 1985, the officers of a civic
organization known as the Samahang
ANS- It was the conviction that by
Katandaan ng Nayon ngTikay launched
exempting them from saluting the flag,
a fund drive for the purpose of
singing the national anthem, and reciting
the patriotic pledge, this small group renovating the barrio chapel at Tikay,
which admittedly compromises a small Malolos, Bulacan. Martin Centeno, the
portion of the school population will not chairman of the group, and Vincent Yco
approached Judge Adoracion Angeles,
shake up this part of the globe and
a resident of the place for solicitation.
suddenly produce a nation untaught and
inculcated in and not imbued with There was no permit from the DSWD.
reverence for the flag and love of country, Judge Angeles filed a complaint for
violation of P.D. No. 1564 known as the
or admiration for national heroes. After
Solicitation Permit Law. An
all, what they were merely asking was
information was filed. After the trial,
exemption from flag ceremony, not
they were convicted. The RTC affirmed
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Man never made any material as resilient as the human spirit."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 62
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 63
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The exercise of freedom of religion may Q- The MTRCB X-rated the program of
be regulated in order that the State may the Iglesia ni Kristo because of its
protect its citizens from injury. The State attacks against other religions. It was
may protect its citizens from fraudulent contended, however, that religious
solicitation by requiring a stranger in the programs are beyond review by the
community, before permitting him Board. Rule on the contention and
publicly to solicit funds for any purpose, explain, citing salient features of
establish his identity and authority to act Iglesia ni Kristo vs. CA, infra.
for the cause which purports present. The
State is likewise free to the time and ANS- (1) Deeply rooted in our
manner of solicitation generally in the fundamental law is its hostility against all
interest of public safety, peace, comfort prior restraints on speech, including
and convenience. Such regulation would religious speech. Any act that restrains
not constitute a prohibition or previous speech is hobbled by the presumption of
restraint on the free exercise of religion invalidity. The Board must overthrow the
or interpose an inadmissible obstacle to presumption, otherwise, if it fails, its act
its exercise. In short, solicitations for of censorship will be struck down.
religious purposes may be subject to (2) The Board X-rated the
proper regulation by the State in the petitioners TV series because of attacks
exercise of police power. And under this made on other religions. It is not the task
power, it can determine whether or not of the State to favor any religion by
there shall be restrictions on soliciting by protecting it against any attack by
unscrupulous persons or for unworthy
another religion.
causes or fraudulent purposes.
The State must not lean towards
any religion as this is prohibited by the
Q- Is the imposition of value added tax freedom of religion clause. Vis-a-vis
on the publication and importation of religious differences, the State enjoys no
religious books and articles violative banquet of options. Neutrality alone is its
of the freedom of religion? Why? fixed and immovable stance.
ANS- No. Freedom of religion does net (3) In a state where there ought to
prohibit the imposition of a sales tax on be no difference between the appearance
religious articles by a religious and the reality of freedom of religion, the
organization if the tax is generally remedy against bad theology.
applicable. (Tolentino vs Sec of Finance, (4) The bedrock of freedom of
54 SCAD 671, GR No. 113455, Aug. 28,
religion is freedom of thought and it is
(1994). best by encouraging the marketplace of
dwelling ideas. When the luxury of time
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 64
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 65
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
but because of the far reaching effects of the Court should not touch: doctrinal and
the decisions in human society. However, disciplinary differences.
courts have learned the lesson of
conservatism in dealing with such
matters, it having been found that, in a
form of government where the complete
separation of civil and ecclesiastical
authority is insisted upon, the civil courts
must not allow themselves to intrude
unduly in matters of an ecclesiastical
nature. (Gonzales vs. R. Archbishop, 51
Phil. 420 (1928).
The expulsion/excommunication of
members of a religious
institution/organization is a matter best
left to the discretion of the officials, and
the laws and canons, of said
institution/organization. It is not for the
courts to exercise control over church
authorities in the performance of their
discretionary and official functions.
Rather, it is for the members of religious
institutions/organizations to conform to
just church regulations. In the words of
Justice Samuel F. Miller, (In Watson vs.
Jones, 13 Wall. 679,723: 20 Law ed. 666
quoted in Gonzales vs. R. Archbishop,
supra).
…all who unite themselves
to an ecclesiastical body do so with
an implied consent to submit to
the Church government and they
are bound to submit to it.
In the leading case of Fonacier v Court of
Appeals, we enunciated the doctrine that
in disputes involving religious institutions
or organizations, there is one area which
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 66