Sec 5 - Freedom of Religion - 10 - 14 PDF

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
taxation of properties actually, directly

FREEDOM OF RELIGION and exclusively used for religious
purposes]; see Bishop of Nueva Segovia v.
Provincial Board, 51 Phil 352;
Sec. 5. Art. Ill: “No law shall be made
(ii) Sec. 4 (2), Art.XIV [citizenship
respecting an establishment of religion or
requirement of ownership of educational
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
institutions, except those established by
free exercise and enjoyment of religious
religious groups and mission boards];
profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever (iii) Sec. 3 (3), Art. XIV [optional
be allowed. No religious test shall be religious instruction in public elementary
required for the exercise of civil or political and high schools: at the option expressed
rights. ’’ in writing by the parents or guardians,
religious instruction taught within regular
Two guarantees contained in Sec. 5:
class hours by instructors designated or
(a) Non-establishment Clause; and approved by the religious authorities of
the religion to which the children or
(b) Freedom of religious profession and wards belong, without additional cost to
worship. the Government];
Non-establishment clause. This (iv) Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI [appropriation

reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II, on the separation allowed where the minister or ecclesiastic
of Church and State. Recall other is employed in the armed forces, in a
constitutional provisions which support penal institution, or in a government-
the non-establishment clause, namely: Sec. owned orphanage or leprosarium].
2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or
denomination cannot be registered as a
political party]; Sec. 5(2), Art. VI [no
SCOPE:. In Everson v. Board of
sectoral representative from the
Education, 30 U.S. 1, the U.S. Supreme
religious sector]; and Sec. 29 (2), Art.VI
Court said that the non-establishment
[prohibition against the use of public
clause means that the State cannot set up
money or property for the benefit of any
a church, nor pass laws which aid one
religion, or of any priest, minister, or
religion, aid alt religion, or prefer one
ecclesiastic]. See Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil
religion over another, nor force nor
201; Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510.
influence a person to go to or remain
Exceptions: away from church against his will or force
him to profess a belief or disbelief in, any
(i) Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI [exemption from religion, etc. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S,
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 | 1
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.

Page | 2
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]
Based on this definition, an ecclesiastical RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. It should be

affair involves the relationship between stated that what is guaranteed by our
the church and its members and relates to Constitution is religious liberty, not mere
matters of faith, religious doctrines, religious toleration. Religious freedom,
worship and governance of the however, as a constitutional mandate is
congregation. Examples of these affairs in not inhibition of profound reverence for
which the State cannot meddle are religion and is not a denial of its influence
proceedings for excommunication, in human affairs. Religion as a profession
ordination of religious ministers, of faith to an active power that binds and
administration of sacraments, and other elevates man to his Creator is recognized.
activities to which is attached religious And, in so far as it instills into the minds
significance. In this case, what is involved the purest principles of morality, its
is the relationship of the church as an influence is deeply felt and highly
employer and the minister as an appreciated. When the Filipino people, in
employee. It is purely secular and has no the preamble of their Constitution,
relation whatsoever with the practice of implored "the aid of Divine Providence, in
faith, worship or doctrine of the church. order to establish a government that shall
embody their ideals, conserve and
In Taruc v. Bishop Porfirio de la Cruz, develop the patrimony of the nation,
G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005, the promote the general welfare, and secure
Supreme Court declared that the to themselves and their posterity the
expulsion/ excommunication of members blessings of independence under a regime
of a religious institution/organization is a of justice, liberty and democracy," they

Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
thereby manifested their intense religious

nature and placed unfaltering reliance
upon Him who guides the destinies of
men and nations. The elevating influence Q: WHAT IS BENEVOLENT
of religion in human society is recognized NEUTRALITY?
here as elsewhere. ANS – exemptions are granted to allow
individuals to exercise their religion.
In fact, certain general concessions are
indiscriminately accorded to religious
sects and denominations. Our Q: DOES ACCOMODATION ONLY
Constitution and laws exempt from EXEMPTS ADMINISTRATIVE
taxation properties devoted exclusively to LIABILITY?
religious purposes (sec. 14, subsec. 3, Art. ANS – No, it also extends to criminal
VI, Constitution of the Philippines and sec. liability
1, subsec. Ordinance appended thereto;
Assessment Law, sec. 344, par [c], Adm.
Code) sectarian aid is not prohibited GREGORIO AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ
when a priest, preacher, minister or other G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937,
religious teacher or dignitary as such is Laurel, J.
assigned to the armed forces or to any
penal institution, orphanage or Facts: - The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio
leprosarium (sec. 13, subsec. 3 Art. VI, Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine
Constitution of the Philippines). Independent Church, seeks the issuance
from this court of a writ of prohibition to
Optional religious instruction in the prevent the respondent Director of Posts
public schools is by constitutional from issuing and selling postage stamps
mandate allowed (sec. 5, Art. XIII, commemorative of the Thirty-third
Constitution of the Philippines, in relation International Eucharistic Congress.
to sec. 928, Ad. Code). Thursday and
Friday of Holy Week, Thanksgiving Day, In May, 1936, the Director of Posts
Christmas Day, and Sundays are made announced in the dailies of Manila that he
legal holidays (sec. 29, Adm. Code) would order the issuance of postage
because of the secular idea that their stamps commemorating the celebration
observance is conducive to beneficial in the City of Manila of the Thirty- third
moral results. The law allows divorce but International Eucharistic Congress,
punishes polygamy and bigamy; and organized by the Roman Catholic Church.
certain crimes against religious worship In spite of the protest of the petitioner's
are considered crimes against the attorney, the respondent publicly
fundamental laws of the state (see arts. announced having sent to the United
132 and 133, Revised Penal Code).
Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
States the designs of the postage for freedom, with its inherent limitations and
printing recognized implications.
Issue: Whether or not there was a It should be stated that what is

violation of the freedom of religion? guaranteed by our Constitution is
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, not mere
Held: No. The prohibition herein RELIGIOUS TOLERATION. RELIGIOUS
expressed is a direct corollary of the FREEDOM, however, as a constitutional
principle of separation of church and mandate is not inhibition of profound
state. Without the necessity of adverting reverence for religion and is not a
to the historical background of this denial of its influence in human affairs.
principle in our country, it is sufficient to Religion as a profession of faith to an
say that our history, not to speak of the active power that binds and elevates
history of mankind, has taught us that the man to his Creator is recognized. And, in
union of church and state is prejudicial to so far as it instills into the minds the
both, for occasions might arise when the purest principles of morality, its influence
state will use the church, and the church is deeply felt and highly appreciated.
the state, as a weapon in the furtherance When the Filipino people, in the
of their respective ends and aims. The preamble of their Constitution,
Malolos Constitution recognized this implored "the aid of Divine Providence,
principle of separation of church and in order to establish a government that
state in the early stages of our shall embody their ideals, conserve and
constitutional development; it was develop the patrimony of the nation,
inserted in the Treaty of Paris between promote the general welfare, and secure
the United States and Spain of December to themselves and their posterity the
10, 1898, reiterated in President blessings of independence under a regime
McKinley's Instructions to the Philippine of justice, liberty and democracy," they
Commission, reaffirmed in the Philippine thereby manifested their intense
Bill of 1902 and in the Autonomy Act of religious nature and placed unfaltering
August 29, 1916, and finally embodied in reliance upon Him who guides the
the Constitution of the Philippines as the destinies of men and nations.
supreme expression of the Filipino People.
It is almost trite to say now that in this The elevating influence of religion in
country we enjoy both religious and civil human society is recognized here as
freedom. All the officers of the elsewhere. In fact, certain general
Government, from the highest to the concessions are indiscriminately
lowest, in taking their oath to support and accorded to religious sects and
defend the Constitution, bind themselves denominations. Our Constitution and laws
to recognize and respect the exempt from taxation properties devoted
constitutional guarantee of religious exclusively to religious purposes (sec. 14,
Page | 5
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
Page | 6
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

Page | 7
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
Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
beliefs of the barrio residents . One of of separation of church and state,

the highlights of the fiesta was the mass. freedom of religion annd the use of
public money to favor any sect or
Consequently, the image of the patron church are not involved at all in this
saint had to be placed in the church when case even remotely or indirectly. lt is
the mass was celebrated. If there is not a microcosmic test case on those
nothing unconstitutional or illegal in issues. This case is a petty quarrel over
holding a fiesta and having a patron saint the custody of a saint's image . lt would
for the barrio, then any activity intended never have arisen if the parties had
to facilitate the worship of the patron been more diplomatic and tactful and if
saint (such as the acquisition and display Father Osmea had taken the trouble of
of his image) cannot be branded as illegal. causing contributions to be solicited
As noted in the first resolution, the from his own parishioners for the
barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. purchase of another image of San
Its celebration is an ingrained tradition Vicente Ferrer to be installed in his
in rural communities. The fiesta church.
relieves the monotony and drudgery of
the lives of the masses. There can be no question that the image
in question belongs to the barangay
The barangay council designated a council. Father Osmea claim that it
layman as the custodian of the wooden belongs to his church is wrong. The
image in order to forestall any suspicion barangay council, as owner of the
that it is favoring the Catholic church. A image, has the right to determine who
more practical reason for that should have custody thereof. If it
arrangement would be that the image, chooses to change its mind and decides
if placed in a layman's custody, could to give the image to the Catholic church
easily be made available to any family that action would not violate the
desiring to borrow the image in Constitution because the image was
connection with prayers and novenas. acquired with private funds and is its
private property.
The contradictory positions of the
petitioners are shown in their affidavits. The council has the right to take measures
Petitioner Garces swore that the said to recover possession of the image by
resolutions favored the Catholic church. enacting Resolutions Nos. 10 and 12. Not
On the other hand, petitioners Dagar and every governmental activity which
Edullantes swore that the resolutions involves the expenditure of public funds
prejudiced the Catholics because they and which has some religious tint is
could see the image in the church only violative of the constitutional
once a year or during the fiesta. The provisions regarding separation of
Court finds that the momentous issues church and state, freedom of worship
Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and banning the use of public money or Free Exercise Clause.

property.
a) Aspects of freedom of religious
In Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201, what profession and worship:
was involved was Act No. 4052 which
appropriated sixty thousand pesos for
the cost of plates and the printing of Right to believe, which is absolute.
postage stamps with new designs. Under
ii) Right to act according to one’s beliefs,
the law, the Director of Posts, with the
which is subject to regulation. In German
approval of the Department Head and the
v. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, the Supreme
President of the Philippines, issued in
Court found that the petitioners were not
1936 postage stamps to commemorate
sincere in their profession of religious
the celebration in Manila of the 33rd
liberty * and were using it merely to
International Eucharistic Congress
express their opposition to the
sponsored by the Catholic Church. The
government.
purpose of the stamps was to raise
revenue and advertise the Philippines. But see the dissenting opinion of Justice
The design of the stamps showed a map Teehankee: religious freedom may be
of the Philippines and nothing about the regulated only upon the application of the
Catholic Church. No religious purpose “clear and present danger rule”. In
was intended. The instant case is easily Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of
distinguishable from Verzosa vs. Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256, the
Fernandez, 49 Phil., 627 and 55 Phil. 307, Supreme Court reversed Gerona v.
where a religious brotherhood, La Secretary of Education, 106 Phil 2, and
Archicofradia del Santisimo Sacramento, the Balbuna decision, and upheld the right
organized for the purpose of raising funds of the petitioners to refuse to salute the
to meet the expenses for the annual fiesta Philippine flag on account of their
in honor of the Most Holy Sacrament and religious scruples.
the Virgin Lady of Guadalupe, was held
accountable for the funds which it held as In People v. Zosa, supra.,the invocation of
trustee. Finding that the petitioners have religious scruples in order to avoid
no cause of action for the annulment of military service was brushed aside by the
the barangay resolutions, the lower Supreme Court. In Victoriano v. Elizalde
court's judgment dismissing their Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54, the
amended petition is affirmed. Supreme Court upheld the validity of R.A.
3350, exempting members of a religious
sect from being compelled to join a labor
union.
NACHURA:
In Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413, a
Page | 10
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
Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
embraced in the occupation of selling this activity is unimportant if it does not

books and pamphlets. do so. But that is to disregard the nature
of this tax. It is a license tax — a flat tax
imposed on the exercise of a privilege
Then the Court continued: granted by the Bill of Rights . . . The power
to impose a license tax on the exercise of
'We do not mean to say that religious
these freedoms is indeed as potent as the
groups and the press are free from all
power of censorship which this Court has
financial burdens of government. See
Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297 U.S., repeatedly struck down. . . . It is not a
233, 250, 80 L. ed. 660, 668, 56 S. Ct. 444. nominal fee imposed as a regulatory
We have here something quite different, measure to defray the expenses of
policing the activities in question. It is in
for example, from a tax on the income of
no way apportioned. It is flat license tax
one who engages in religious activities or
levied and collected as a condition to the
a tax on property used or employed in
pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is
connection with those activities. It is one
guaranteed by the constitutional liberties
thing to impose a tax on the income or
of press and religion and inevitably tends
property of a preacher. It is quite another
thing to exact a tax from him for the to suppress their exercise. That is almost
privilege of delivering a sermon. The tax uniformly recognized as the inherent vice
imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat and evil of this flat license tax.' Nor could
dissemination of religious information be
license tax, payment of which is a
conditioned upon the approval of an
condition of the exercise of these
official or manager even if the town were
constitutional privileges. The power to tax
the exercise of a privilege is the power to owned by a corporation as held in the
case of Marsh vs. State of Alabama (326
control or suppress its enjoyment. . . .
U.S. 501) or by the United States itself as
Those who can tax the exercise of this
held in the case of Tucker vs. Texas (326
religious practice can make its exercise so
costly as to deprive it of the resources U.S. 517).
necessary for its maintenance. Those who
can tax the privilege of engaging in this In the former case the Supreme Court
expressed the opinion that the right to
form of missionary evangelism can close
enjoy freedom of the press and religion
all its doors to all 'those who do not have
occupies a preferred position as against
a full purse. Spreading religious beliefs in
the constitutional right of property
this ancient and honorable manner would
owners. When we balance the
thus be
constitutional rights of owners of
denied the needy. . . .
property against those of the people to
It is contended however that the fact that enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we
the license tax can suppress or control must here, we remain mindful of the fact
that the latter occupy a preferred
Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
position. . . . In our view the circumstance

that the property rights to the premises "An ordinance by the City of Griffin,
where the deprivation of property here declaring that the practice of distributing
involved, took place, were held by others either by hand or otherwise, circulars,
than the public, is not sufficient to justify handbooks, advertising, or literature of any
the State's permitting a corporation to kind, whether said articles are being
govern a community of citizens so as to delivered free, or whether same are being
restrict their fundamental liberties and sold within the city limits of the City of
the enforcement of such restraint by the Griffin, without first obtaining written
application of a State statute.'" (Tañada permission from the city manager of the
and Fernando on the Constitution of the City of Griffin, shall be deemed a nuisance
Philippines, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 304-306). and punishable as an offense against the
City of Griffin, does not deprive defendant
It may be true that in the case at bar the of his constitutional right of the free
price asked for the bibles and other exercise and enjoyment of religious
religious pamphlets was in some profession and worship, even though it
instances a little bit higher than the actual prohibits him from introducing and
cost of the same, but this cannot mean carrying out a scheme or purpose which he
that appellant was engaged in the sees fit to claim as a part of his religious
business or occupation of selling said system."
"merchandise" for profit. For this reason
We believe that the provisions of City of It seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance
Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, No. 3000 cannot be considered
cannot be applied to appellant, for in unconstitutional, even if applied to
doing so it would impair its free exercise plaintiff Society. But as Ordinance No.
and enjoyment of its religious profession 2529 of the City of Manila, as amended, is
and worship as well as its rights of not applicable to plaintiff-appellant and
dissemination of religious beliefs. defendant-appellee is powerless to
license or tax the business of plaintiff
With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as Society involved herein for, as stated
amended, which requires the obtention of before, it would impair plaintiff's right to
the Mayor's permit before any person can the free exercise and enjoyment of its
engage in any of the businesses, trades or religious profession and worship, as well
occupations enumerated therein, We do as its rights of dissemination of religious
not find that it imposes any charge upon beliefs, We find that Ordinance No. 3000,
the enjoyment of a right granted by the as amended, is also inapplicable to said
Constitution, nor tax the exercise of business, trade or occupation of the
religious practices. In the case of Coleman plaintiff.
vs. City of Griffin, 189 S.E. 427, this point
was elucidated as follows:
Page | 13
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
Page | 14
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 -
Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, THOUGH

privilege granted by the Bill of Rights . . . ENJOYS PREFERENTIAL
The power to impose a license tax on CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, MAY
the exercise of these freedoms is indeed BE REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
as potent as the power of censorship We reject petitioner's submission which
which this Court has repeatedly struck need not set us adrift in a constitutional
down. . . . It is not a nominal fee imposed voyage towards an uncharted sea.
as a regulatory measure to defray the Freedom of religion has been accorded a
expenses of policing the activities in preferred status by the framers of our
question. It is in no way apportioned. It is fundamental laws, past and present. We
flat license tax levied and collected as a have affirmed this preferred status well
condition to the pursuit of activities aware that it is "designed to protect the
whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to
constitutional liberties of press and allow each man to believe as his
religion and inevitably tends to suppress conscience directs, to profess his beliefs,
their exercise. That is almost uniformly and to live as he believes he ought to live,
recognized as the inherent vice and evil of consistent with the liberty of others and
this flat license tax.' with the common good." We have also
laboriously defined in our jurisprudence
Nor could dissemination of religious the intersecting umbras and penumbras
information be conditioned upon the of the right to religious profession and
approval of an official or manager even worship. To quote the summation of Mr.
if the town were owned by a Justice Isagani Cruz, our well-known
corporation as held in the case of Marsh constitutionalist:
vs. State of Alabama (326 U.S. 501) or by
the United States itself as held in the case Religious Profession and Worship
of Tucker vs. Texas (326 U.S. 517). In the The right to religious profession and
former case the Supreme Court expressed worship has a two-fold aspect, viz.,
the opinion that the right to enjoy freedom to believe and freedom to act on
freedom of the press and religion one's beliefs. The first is absolute as long
occupies a preferred position as against as the belief is confined within the realm
the constitutional right of property of thought. The second is subject to
owners. regulation where the belief is translated
into external acts that affect the public
welfare.
DOCTRINE
(1) Freedom to Believe
Iglesia Ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals The individual is free to believe
[G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996] (or disbelieve) as he pleases
concerning the hereafter. He
Page | 16
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
Page | 17
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
Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
by another religion. Religious dogmas and

beliefs are often at war and to preserve Moreover, Article 201 (2) (b) (3) of the
peace among their followers, especially Revised Penal Code should be invoked to
the fanatics, the establishment clause of justify the subsequent punishment of a
freedom of religion prohibits the State show which offends any religion. It cannot
from leaning towards any religion. Vis-a- be utilized to justify prior censorship of
vis religious differences, the State enjoys speech. It must be emphasized that E.O.
no banquet of options. Neutrality alone is 876, the law prior to PD 1986, included
its fixed and immovable stance. "attack against any religion" as a ground
for censorship. The ground was not,
In fine, respondent board cannot squelch however, carried over by PD 1986. Its
the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo deletion is a decree to disuse it. There can
simply because it attacks other religions, be no other intent.
even if said religion happens to be the
most numerous church in our country. In
a State where there ought to be no
difference between the appearance and
the reality of freedom of religion, the
remedy against bad theology is better IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. COURT OF
theology. The bedrock of freedom of APPEALS
religion is freedom of thought and it is G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996, Puno, J.
best served by encouraging the
marketplace of dueling ideas. When the Facts: Petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo, a duly
luxury of time permits, the marketplace of organized religious organization, has a
ideas demands that speech should be met television program entitled "Ang Iglesia ni
by more speech for it is the spark of Cristo" aired on Channel 2 every Saturday
opposite speech, the heat of colliding and on Channel 13 every Sunday. The
ideas that can fan the embers of truth. It is program presents and propagates
opined that the respondent board can still petitioner's religious beliefs, doctrines
utilize "attack against any religion" as a and practices often times in comparative
ground allegedly ". . . because section 3 (c) studies with other religions. Petitioner
of PD No. 1986 prohibits the showing of submitted to the respondent Board of
motion pictures, television programs and Review for Moving Pictures and
publicity materials which are contrary to Television the VTR tapes of its TV
law and Article 201 (2) (b) (3) of the program Series Nos. 116, 119, 121 and
Revised Penal Code punishes anyone who 128. The Board classified the series as "X"
exhibits "shows which offend any race or or not for public viewing on the ground
religion." We respectfully disagree for it is that they "offend and constitute an attack
plain that the word "attack" is not against other religions which is expressly
synonymous with the word "offend." prohibited by law."
Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
on TV of its religious program brings it

In its first course of action against out of the bosom of internal belief.
respondent Board, INC appealed to the Television is a medium that reaches
Office of the President where it was even the eyes and ears of children. The
favored and then again, before the Court reiterates the rule that the
Quezon City RTC alleging that the exercise of religious freedom can be
respondent Board acted without regulated by the State when it will bring
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of about the clear and present danger of
discretion in requiring petitioner to some substantive evil which the State is
submit the VTR tapes of its TV program duty bound to prevent , i.e., serious
and in x-rating them, where it INC again detriment to the more overriding
won but was directed to refrain from interest of public health, public morals,
attacking other religions. The Court of or public welfare.
Appeals reversed the same.
A laissez faire policy on the exercise of
Issue: religion can be seductive to the liberal
1. Whether the MTRCB has jurisdiction to mind but history counsels the Court
review petitioner's TV program entitled against its blind adoption as religion is
"Ang Iglesia ni Cristo? and continues to be a volatile area of
2. Whether the action of respondent concern in our country today. Across the
MTRCB x-rating petitioner's TV Program sea and in our shore, the bloodiest and
Series Nos. 115, 119, and 121 should be bitterest wars fought by men were caused
sustained? by irreconcilable religious differences.
Our country is still not safe from the
Held: recurrence of this stultifying strife
considering our warring religious beliefs
1. YES. The right to religious profession and the fanaticism with which some of us
and worship has a TWOFOLD ASPECT, cling and claw to these beliefs.
viz ., (1) freedom to believe and (2)
freedom to act on one's beliefs. Even now, we have yet to settle the near
century old strife in Mindanao, the roots
The “ first is absolute” as long as the of which have been nourished by the
belief is confined within the realm of mistrust and misunderstanding between
thought. The “ second is subject to our Christian and Muslim brothers and
regulation” where the belief is sisters. The bewildering rise of weird
translated into external acts that affect religious cults espousing violence as an
the public welfare. We thus reject article of faith also proves the wisdom of
petitioner's postulate that its religious our rule rejecting a strict let alone policy
program is per se beyond review by the on the exercise of religion. For sure, we
respondent Board. Its public broadcast shall continue to subject any act pinching
Page | 20
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
Page | 21
MENDIOLA, MANILA
speech, cannot be justified by rights, for it involves the relationship of

hypothetical fears but only by the man to his Creator (Chief Justice Enrique
showing of a substantive and imminent M. Fernando's separate opinion in
evil which has taken the life of a reality German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514,
already on ground. 530-531).
"The right to religious profession and

DOCTRINE worship has a two-fold aspect, vis.,
Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent freedom to believe and freedom to act on
of Cebu [G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993] one's belief. The first is absolute as long as
the belief is confined within the realm of
thought. The second is subject to
SINGING OF NATIONAL ANTHEM AND
regulation where the belief is translated
SALUTING THE FLAG MAY NOT BE
into external acts that affect the public
IMPOSSED AGAINST CITIZENS WHOSE
welfare" (J. Cruz, Constitutional Law,
RELIGIOUS BELIEF PROHIBIT THE
1991 Ed., pp. 176-177).
SAME. It is somewhat ironic however,
that after the Gerona ruling had received
legislative cachet by its incorporation in Petitioners stress, however, that while
the Administrative Code of 1987, the they do not take part in the compulsory
present Court believes that the time has flag ceremony, they do not engage in
"external acts" or behavior that would
come to reexamine it. The idea that one
offend their countrymen who believe in
may be compelled to salute the flag, sing
expressing their love of country through
the national anthem, and recite the
patriotic pledge, during a flag ceremony the observance of the flag ceremony. They
quietly stand at attention during the flag
on pain of being dismissed from one's job
ceremony to show their respect for the
or of being expelled from school, is alien
right of those who choose to participate in
to the conscience of the present
generation of Filipinos who cut their teeth the solemn proceedings (Annex F, Rollo
on the Bill of Rights which guarantees of G.R. No. 95887, p. 50 and Rollo of G.R.
their rights to free speech ** and the free No. 95770, p. 48). Since they do not
engage in disruptive behavior, there is no
exercise of religious profession and
warrant for their expulsion.
worship (Sec. 5, Article III, 1987
Constitution; Article IV, Section 8, 1973
"The sole justification for a prior restraint
Constitution; Article III, Section 1[7],
or limitation on the exercise of religious
1935 Constitution).
freedom (according to the late Chief
Justice Claudio Teehankee in his
Religious freedom is a fundamental right
which is entitled to the highest priority dissenting opinion in German vs.
and the amplest protection among human Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 517) is the
existence of a grave and present danger of
Page | 22
MENDIOLA, MANILA
a character both grave and imminent, of a

serious evil to public safety, public morals,
public health or any other legitimate
public interest, that the State has a right EBRALINAG et. al. vs. THE DIVISION
(and duty) to prevent." Absent such a SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF
threat to public safety, the expulsion of CEBU
the petitioners from the schools is not G.R No. 95770, March 1, 1993
justified.
FACTS: All the petitioners in these two
We hold that a similar exemptions may be cases were expelled from their classes by
accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with the public school authorities in Cebu for
regard to the observance of the flag refusing to salute the flag, sing the national
ceremony out of respect for their anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as
religious beliefs, however "bizarre" those
required by Republic Act No. 1265 and by
beliefs may seem to others. Nevertheless,
Department Order No. 8 of DECS making
their right not to participate in the flag the flag ceremony compulsory in all
ceremony does not give them a right to educational institutions. Jehovah's
disrupt such patriotic exercises. Witnesses admittedly teach their children
Paraphrasing the warning cited by this not to salute the flag, sing the national
Court in Non. vs. Dames II, 185 SCRA 523, anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for
535, while the highest regard must be they believe that those are "acts of
afforded their right to the exercise of their worship" or "religious devotion" which
religion, "this should not be taken to they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to
mean that school authorities are anyone or anything except God". They feel
powerless to discipline them" if they
bound by the Bible's command to "guard
should commit breaches of the peace by ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They
actions that offend the sensibilities, both consider the flag as an image or idol
religious and patriotic, of other persons. If representing the State.
they quietly stand at attention during the
flag ceremony while their classmates and They think the action of the local
teachers salute the flag, sing the national authorities in compelling the flag salute
anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we and pledge transcends constitutional
do not see how such conduct may limitations on the State's power and
possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a invades the sphere of the intellect and
grave and present danger of a serious evil spirit which the Constitution protect
to public safety, public morals, public against official control However, the
health or any other legitimate public
petitioners herein have not raised in issue
interest that the State has a right (and the constitutionality of the above
duty) to prevent" (German vs. Barangan, provision of the new Administrative Code
135 SCRA 514, 517).
Page | 23
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
ISSUE: Whether or not the expulsion of TWO-FOLD ASPECT, vis., freedom to

students by reason of not upholding the believe and freedom to act on one's
flag salute law is unconstitutional? belief.
The first is absolute as long as the belief
HELD: YES. The 30-year old decision of SC is confined within the realm of thought.
in Gerona upholding the flag salute law The second is subject to regulation
and approving the expulsion of students where the belief is translated into
who refuse to obey it, is not lightly to be external acts that affect the public
trifled with. It is somewhat ironic welfare The sole justification for a prior
however, that after the Gerona ruling had restraint or limitation on the exercise of
received legislative cachet by its in religious freedom (according to the late
corporation in the Administrative Code of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in his
1987, the present Court believes that the dissenting opinion in German vs. Barangan,
time has come to reexamine it. 135 SCRA 514, 517) is the existence of a
grave and present danger of a
The idea that one may be compelled to character both grave and imminent, of
salute the flag, sing the national a serious evil to public safety, public
anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, morals, public health or any other
during a flag ceremony on pain of being legitimate public interest, that the State
dismissed from one's job or of being has a right (and duty) to prevent."
expelled from school, is alien to the Absent such a threat to public safety,
conscience of the present generation of the expulsion of the petitioners from the
Filipinos who cut their teeth on the Bill schools is not justified.
of Rights which guarantees their rights
to free speech ** and the free exercise of The SC is not persuaded that by
religious profession and worship (Sec. 5, exempting the Jehovah's Witnesses
Article III, 1987 Constitution; Article IV, from saluting the flag, singing the
Section 8, 1973 Constitution; Article III, national anthem and reciting the
Section 1[7], 1935 Constitution). patriotic pledge, this religious group
which admittedly comprises a "small
Religious freedom is a fundamental portion of the school population" will
right which is entitled to the highest shake up our part of the globe and
priority and the amplest protection suddenly produce a nation "untaught
among human rights, for it involves the and uninculcated in and unimbued with
relationship of man to his Creator (Chief reverence for the flag, patriotism, love
Justice Enrique M. Fernando's separate of country and admiration for national
Page | 24
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 .
When they [diversity] are so harmless to It is appropriate to recall the Japanese

others or to the State as those we deal occupation of our country in 1942-1944
with here, the price is not too great. But when every Filipino, regardless of
Page | 25
MENDIOLA, MANILA
religious persuasion, in fear of the invader, influence of religion in society, the

saluted the Japanese flag and bowed constitution’s religion clauses prescribe
before every Japanese soldier. Perhaps, if not a strict but a benevolent neutrality.
petitioners had lived through that dark
period of our history, they would not Benevolent neutrality recognizes that
quibble now about saluting the Philippine government must pursue its secular goals
flag. and interests, but at the same time, strive
to uphold religious liberty to the greatest
For when liberation came in 1944 and our extent possible within flexible
own flag was proudly hoisted aloft again, constitutional limits. Thus, although the
it was a beautiful sight to behold that morality contemplated by laws is secular,
made our hearts pound with pride and joy benevolent neutrality could allow for
over the newly-regained freedom and accommodation of morality based on
sovereignty of our nation. Although the religion, provided it does not offend
Court upholds in this decision the compelling state interest, in applying the
petitioners' right under our Constitution test, the first inquiry is whether
to refuse to salute the Philippine flag on respondent’s right to religious freedom
account of their religious beliefs, we hope, has been burdened. There is no doubt that
nevertheless, that another foreign between keeping her employment and
invasion of our country will not be abandoning her religious belief and
necessary in order for our countrymen to practice and family on the one hand, and
appreciate and cherish the Philippine flag. giving up her employment and keeping
her religious belief and practice and
family on the other, puts a burden on her
NACHURA: free exercise of religion. The second step
is to ascertain respondent’s sincerity in
The compelling State interest test. In
her religious belief. Respondent appears
Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, to be sincere in her religious belief and
August 4, 2003, respondent was
practice, and is not merely using the
administratively charged with immorality
“Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” to
for living with a married man not her
avoid punishment for immorality. This
husband. As members of the Jehovah’s being a case of first impression, the
Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible
parties were not aware of the burden of
Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement
proof they should discharge in the Court’s
was in conformity with their religious use of the “compelling state interest” test.
beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living It is apparent that the state interest it
together, they executed a “Declaration of upholds is the preservation of the
Pledging Faithfulness” before their integrity of the judiciary by maintaining
religious elders. Recognizing the religious
among its ranks a high standard of
nature of the Filipinos and the elevating
morality and decency. However, there is

Page | 26
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,

Page | 27
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.
Page | 28
MENDIOLA, MANILA
arrangement she had was “illegal per se

To paraphrase Justice Blackmun’s because, by universally recognized
application of the compelling interest test, standards, it is inherently or by its very
the State’s interest in enforcing its nature bad, improper, immoral and
prohibition, in order to be sufficiently contrary to good conscience,” the Solicitor
compelling to outweigh a free exercise General failed to appreciate that
claim, cannot be merely abstract or benevolent neutrality could allow for
symbolic. The State cannot plausibly accommodation of morality based on
assert that unbending application of a religion, provided it does not offend
criminal prohibition is essential to fulfill compelling state interests.
any compelling interest, if it does not, in
fact, attempt to enforce that prohibition.
In the case at bar, the State has not ESTRADA VS. ESCRITOR
evinced any concrete interest in enforcing A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006
the concubinage or bigamy charges
against respondent or her partner. (NOTE: Strict neutral benevolence vis-
à-vis Strict Separation/ Strict
The State has never sought to prosecute Neutrality)
respondent nor her partner. The State’s
asserted interest thus amounts only to the FACTS: In a sworn-letter complaint dated
symbolic preservation of an unenforced July 27, 2000, complainant Alejandro
prohibition. Incidentally, as echoes of the Estrada requested Judge Jose F. Caoibes,
words of Messrs. J. Bellosillo and Vitug, in Jr., presiding judge of Branch 253,
their concurring opinions in our Decision, Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, for
dated August 4, 2003, to deny the an investigation of respondent Soledad
exemption would effectively break up “an Escritor, court interpreter in said court,
otherwise ideal union of two individuals for living with a man not her husband,
who have managed to stay together as and having borne a child within this live-
husband and wife [approximately in arrangement. Estrada believes that
twentyfive years]” and have the effect of Escritor is committing an immoral act
defeating the very substance of marriage that tarnishes the image of the court, thus
and the family. she should not be allowed to remain
employed therein as it might appear that
As previously discussed, our Constitution the court condones her act.[2]
adheres to the benevolent neutrality Consequently, respondent was charged
approach that gives room for with committing “disgraceful and
accommodation of religious exercises as immoral conduct” under Book V, Title I,
required by the Free Exercise Clause. Chapter VI, Sec. 46(b)(5) of the Revised
Thus, in arguing that respondent should Administrative Code.
be held administratively liable as the
Page | 29
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
Page | 30
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(1) BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY OR principle of church-state separation with

ACCOMMODATION, whether mandatory a rigid reading of the principle.
or permissive, is the spirit, intent and
framework underlying the religion 2. On the other hand, the second
clauses in our Constitution; and standard, the BENEVOLENT
(2) in deciding respondent’s “plea of NEUTRALITY OR ACCOMMODATION, is
exemption based on the Free Exercise buttressed by the view that the wall of
Clause” (from the law with which she is separation is meant to protect the
administratively charged), it is the church from the state.
COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST ,
the strictest test, which must be applied . FIRST STANDARD: Strict Separation
and Strict Neutrality/Separation The
In sum, a review of the Old World STRICT SEPARATIONIST believes that
antecedents of religion shows the the Establishment Clause was meant to
movement of establishment of religion as protect the state from the church, and
an engine to promote state interests, to the state’s hostility towards religion
the principle of non-establishment to allows no interaction between the two.
allow the free exercise of religion. According to this Jeffersonian view, an
“absolute barrier” to formal
Religion Clauses in the U.S. Context U.S. interdependence of religion and state
history has produced TWO identifiably needs to be erected. Religious
different, even opposing , strains of institutions could not receive aid,
jurisprudence on the religion clauses. whether direct or indirect, from the
state. Nor could the state adjust its
1. First is THE STANDARD OF secular programs to alleviate burdens
SEPARATION, which may take the form of the programs placed on believers. Only
either the complete separation of religion from
politics would eliminate the formal
(a) strict separation or influence of religious institutions and
(b) the tamer version of strict neutrality provide for a free choice among political
or separation , or what Mr. Justice views, thus a strict “wall of separation” is
Carpio refers to as the second theory of necessary.
governmental neutrality .
Strict separation faces difficulties, however,
Although the latter form is not as hostile to as it is deeply embedded in American
religion as the former , both are anchored history and contemporary practice that
on the Jeffersonian premise that a “wall enormous amounts of aid, both direct and
of separation” must exist between the indirect, flow to religion from government
state and the Church to protect the state in return for huge amounts of mostly
from the church . Both protect the indirect aid from religion. For example,
Page | 31
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
Page | 32
MENDIOLA, MANILA
while the Jeffersonian wall of Protestant denomination, to lead

separation “captures the spirit of the representatives in prayer. These practices
American ideal of church-state clearly show the preference for one
separation,” in real life, church and theological viewpoint— the existence of
state are not and cannot be totally and potential for intervention by a god
separate. This is all the more true in — over the contrary theological viewpoint
contemporary times when both the of atheism. Church and government
government and religion are growing agencies also cooperate in the building of
and expanding their spheres of low-cost housing and in other forms of
involvement and activity, resulting in poor relief, in the treatment of alcoholism
the intersection of government and and drug addiction, in foreign aid and
religion at many points. other government activities with strong
moral dimension.
SECOND STANDARD: Benevolent
Neutrality/Accommodation Examples of accommodations in
The theory of benevolent neutrality or American jurisprudence also abound,
accommodation is premised on a different including, but not limited to the U.S.
view of the “wall of separation,” Court declaring the following acts as
associated with Williams, founder of the constitutional: a state hiring a
Rhode Island colony. Unlike the Presbyterian minister to lead the
Jeffersonian wall that is meant to legislature in daily prayers, or
protect the state from the church, the requiring employers to pay workers
wall is meant to protect the church from compensation when the resulting
the state Benevolent neutrality inconsistency between work and
recognizes that religion plays an Sabbath leads to discharge; for
important role in the public life of the government to give money to
United States as shown by many religiously-affiliated organizations to
traditional government practices which, teach adolescents about proper sexual
to strict neutrality, pose Establishment behavior; or to provide religious school
Clause questions. Among these are the pupils with books; or bus rides to
inscription of “In God We Trust” on religious schools; or with cash to pay for
American currency; the recognition of state-mandated standardized tests.
America as “one nation under God” in the
official pledge of allegiance to the flag; the
Supreme Court’s time-honored practice of Legislative Acts and the Free
opening oral argument with the invocation Exercise Clause
“God save the United States and this
Honorable Court”; and the practice of
Congress and every state legislature of As with the other rights under the
paying a chaplain, usually of a particular Constitution, the rights embodied in the
Page | 33
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Religion clauses are invoked in relation to would otherwise thereby be infringed,

governmental action, almost invariably in or to create without state involvement
the form of legislative acts. Generally an atmosphere in which voluntary
speaking, a legislative act that religious exercise may flourish.” In the
purposely aids or inhibits religion will ideal world, the legislature would
be challenged as unconstitutional, recognize the religions and their
either because it violates the Free practices and would consider them,
Exercise Clause or the Establishment when practical, in enacting laws of
Clause or both. This is true whether one general application. But when the
subscribes to the separationist legislature fails to do so, religions that
approach or the benevolent neutrality are threatened and burdened may turn
or accommodationist approach. to the courts for protection.
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 .
Page | 34
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
Page | 35
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
Page | 36
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
Page | 37
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
Page | 38
MENDIOLA, MANILA
exemption. These conclusions, however, cover both mandatory and permissive

are not and were never warranted by the accommodations.
1987, 1973 and 1935 Constitutions as
shown by other provisions on religion in To illustrate, in American Bible Society v.
all three constitutions. It is a cardinal rule City of Manila, the Court granted to
in constitutional construction that the plaintiff exemption from a law of general
constitution must be interpreted as a application based on the Free Exercise
whole and apparently conflicting Clause. In this case, plaintiff was required
provisions should be reconciled and by an ordinance to secure a mayor’s
harmonized in a manner that will give to permit and a municipal license as
all of them full force and effect. ordinarily required of those engaged in
the business of general merchandise
From this construction, it will be under the city’s ordinances. Plaintiff
ascertained that the intent of the argued that this amounted to “religious
framers was to adopt a benevolent censorship and restrained the free exercise
neutrality approach in interpreting the and enjoyment of religious profession, to
religious clauses in the Philippine wit: the distribution and sale of bibles and
constitutions, and the enforcement of other religious literature to the people of
this intent is the goal of construing the the Philippines.” Although the Court
constitution categorically held that the questioned
ordinances were not applicable to
We therefore reject Mr. Justice Carpio’s plaintiff as it was not engaged in the
total adherence to the U.S. Court’s business or occupation of selling said
interpretation of the religion clauses to “merchandise” for profit, it also ruled that
effectively deny accommodations on the applying the ordinance to plaintiff and
sole basis that the law in question is requiring it to secure a license and pay a
neutral and of general application. For license fee or tax would impair its free
even if it were true that “an unbroken line exercise of religious profession and
of U.S. Supreme Court decisions” has worship and its right of dissemination of
never held that “an individual’s religious religious beliefs “as the power to tax the
beliefs [do not] excuse him from exercise of a privilege is the power to
compliance with an otherwise valid law control or suppress its enjoyment.” The
prohibiting conduct that the State is free decision states in part,
to regulate,” our own Constitutions have
made significant changes to viz:
accommodate and exempt religion.
Philippine jurisprudence shows that the The constitutional guaranty of the free
Court has allowed exemptions from a exercise and enjoyment of religious
law of general application, in effect, profession and worship carries with it
interpreting our religion clauses to the right to disseminate religious
Page | 39
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,
Page | 40
MENDIOLA, MANILA
all clearly demonstrate the State’s need to

protect these secular interests. Be that as To paraphrase Justice Blackmun’s
it may, the free exercise of religion is application of the compelling interest test,
specifically articulated as one of the the State’s interest in enforcing its
fundamental rights in our Constitution. prohibition, in order to be sufficiently
It is a fundamental right that enjoys a compelling to outweigh a free exercise
preferred position in the hierarchy of claim, cannot be merely abstract or
rights — “the most inalienable and symbolic. The State cannot plausibly
sacred of human rights,” in the words of assert that unbending application of a
Jefferson. Hence, it is not enough to criminal prohibition is essential to
contend that the state’s interest is fulfill any compelling interest, if it does
important, because our Constitution not, in fact, attempt to enforce that
itself holds the right to religious prohibition.
freedom sacred. The State must
articulate in specific terms the state In the case at bar, the State has not
interest involved in preventing the evinced any concrete interest in
exemption, which must be compelling, enforcing the concubinage or bigamy
for only the gravest abuses, charges against respondent or her
endangering paramount interests can partner. The State has never sought to
limit the fundamental right to religious prosecute respondent nor her partner.
freedom. To rule otherwise would be to The State’s asserted interest thus
emasculate the amounts only to the symbolic
preservation of an unenforced prohibition.
Free Exercise Clause as a source of right
by itself. Thus, it is not the State’s broad Incidentally, as echoes of the words of
interest in “protecting the institutions Messrs. J. Bellosillo and Vitug, in their
of marriage and the family,” or even “in concurring opinions in our Decision,
the sound administration of justice” dated August 4, 2003, to deny the
that must be weighed against exemption would effectively break up “an
respondent’s claim, but the State’s otherwise ideal union of two individuals
narrow interest in refusing to make an who have managed to stay together as
exception for the cohabitation which husband and wife [approximately twenty-
respondent’s faith finds moral. In other five years]” and have the effect of
words, the government must do more defeating the very substance of marriage
than assert the objectives at risk if and the family.
exemption is given; it must precisely
show how and to what extent those The Solicitor General also argued against
objectives will be undermined if respondent’s religious freedom on the
exemptions are granted. This, the basis of morality, i.e., that “the conjugal
Solicitor General failed to do. arrangement of respondent and her live-
Page | 41
MENDIOLA, MANILA
in partner should not be condoned morality, on the other, should be kept in

because adulterous relationships are mind;
constantly frowned upon by society”; and
“that State laws on marriage, which are (b) Although the morality contemplated
moral in nature, take clear precedence by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality
over the religious beliefs and practices of could allow for accommodation of
any church, religious sect or morality based on religion, provided it
denomination on marriage. Verily, does not offend compelling state
religious beliefs and practices should not interests;
be permitted to override laws relating to
public policy such as those of marriage.” (c) The jurisdiction of the Court extends
only to public and secular morality.
The above arguments are mere Whatever pronouncement the Court
reiterations of the arguments raised by makes in the case at bar should be
Mme. Justice Ynares-Santiago in her understood only in this realm where it
dissenting opinion to our Decision dated has authority.
August 4, 2003, which she offers again in
toto. These arguments have already been (d) Having distinguished between public
addressed in our decision dated August 4, and secular morality and religious
2003. In said Decision, we noted that morality, the more difficult task is
Mme. Justice Ynares-Santiago’s dissenting determining which immoral acts under
opinion dwelt more on the standards of this public and secular morality fall under
morality, without categorically holding the phrase “disgraceful and immoral
that religious freedom is not in issue.] We, conduct” for which a government
therefore, went into a discussion on employee may be held administratively
morality, in order to show that: liable. Only one conduct is in question
(a) The public morality expressed in the before this Court, i.e., the conjugal
law is necessarily secular for in our arrangement of a government employee
constitutional order, the religion clauses whose partner is legally married to
prohibit the state from establishing a another which Philippine law and
religion, including the morality it jurisprudence consider both immoral and
sanctions. Thus, when the law speaks of illegal.
“immorality” in the Civil Service Law or
“immoral” in the Code of Professional While there is no dispute that under
Responsibility for lawyers, or “public settled jurisprudence, respondent’s
morals” in the Revised Penal Code, or conduct constitutes “disgraceful and
“morals” in the New Civil Code, or “moral immoral conduct,” the case at bar
character” in the Constitution, the involves the defense of religious
distinction between public and secular freedom, therefore none of the cases
morality on the one hand, and religious cited by Mme. Justice Ynares-Santiago
Page | 42
MENDIOLA, MANILA
apply. There is no jurisprudence in As previously discussed, our Constitution

Philippine jurisdiction holding that the adheres to THE BENEVOLENT
defense of religious freedom of a NEUTRALITY APPROACH that gives
member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses room for accommodation of religious
under the same circumstances as exercises as required by the Free
respondent will not prevail over the Exercise Clause. Thus, in arguing that
laws on adultery, concubinage or some respondent should be held
other law. administratively liable as the
arrangement she had was “illegal per se
We cannot summarily conclude because, by universally recognized
therefore that her conduct is likewise so standards, it is inherently or by its very
“odious” and “barbaric” as to be nature bad, improper, immoral and
immoral and punishable by law. contrary to good conscience,” the Solicitor
General failed to appreciate that
In this case, the government’s conduct benevolent neutrality could allow for
may appear innocent and accommodation of morality based on
nondiscriminatory but in effect, it is religion, provided it does not offend
oppressive to the minority. In the compelling state interests.
interpretation of a document, such as
the Bill of Rights, designed to protect Finally, even assuming that the OSG has
the minority from the majority, the proved a compelling state interest, it
question of which perspective is has to further demonstrate that the
appropriate would seem easy to answer. state has used the least intrusive means
Moreover, the text, history, structure and possible so that the free exercise is not
values implicated in the interpretation of infringed any more than necessary to
the clauses, all point toward this achieve the legitimate goal of the state,
perspective. Thus, substantive equality— i.e., it has chosen a way to achieve its
a reading of the religion clauses which legitimate state end that imposes as
leaves both politically dominant and the little as possible on religious liberties.
politically weak religious groups equal in Again, the Solicitor General utterly
their inability to use the government failed to prove this element of the test.
(law) to assist their own religion or Other than the two documents offered as
burden others—makes the most sense in cited above which established the
the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, a sincerity of respondent’s religious belief
document designed to protect and the fact that the agreement was an
minorities and individuals from internal arrangement within respondent’s
mobocracy in a democracy (the congregation, no iota of evidence was
majority or a coalition of minorities). offered. In fact, the records are bereft of
even a feeble attempt to procure any such
evidence to show that the means the state
Page | 43
MENDIOLA, MANILA
adopted in pursuing this compelling could allow for accommodation of

interest is the least restrictive to morality based n religion (religious
respondent’s religious freedom. secularity), provided it does not offend
compelling state interests.
Thus, we find that in this particular
case and under these distinct The COMPELLING STATE INTEREST
circumstances, respondent Escritor’s TEST involves a three-step process. The
conjugal arrangement cannot be Court explained this process in detail, by
penalized as she has made out a case showing the questions which must be
for exemption from the law based on answered in each step, viz:
her fundamental right to freedom of
religion. The Court recognizes that state 1. “Has the statute or government action
interests must be upheld in order that created a burden on the free exercise of
freedoms - including religious freedom - religion?” The courts often look into the
may be enjoyed. In the area of religious sincerity of the religious belief, but without
exercise as a preferred freedom, inquiring into the truth of the belief. The
however, man stands accountable to an FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE prohibits
authority higher than the state, and so inquiring about its truth.
THE STATE INTEREST sought to be
upheld must be so compelling that its 2. The Court then asks: “Is there a
violation will erode the very fabric of sufficiently compelling state interest to
the state that will also protect the justify the infringement of religious liberty?”
freedom. In this step, THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO
ESTABLISH THAT ITS PURPOSES ARE
IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT LEGITIMATE FOR THE STATE AND
SUCH STATE INTEREST EXISTS, MAN THAT THEY ARE
MUST BE ALLOWED TO SUBSCRIBE TO COMPELLING.
THE INFINITE.
3. The Court asks: “Has the state in
achieving its legitimate purposes used the
ESTRADA vs. ESCRITUR SUMMARY: least instrusive means possible so that the
free exercise is not infringed any more than
Benevolent Neutrality recognizes that necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of
the government must pursue its secular the state?” The analysis requires the state
goals and interests, but at the same time, to show that the means in which it is
strive to uphold religious liberty to the achieveing its legitimate state objective is
greatest extent possible within flexible the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS, i.e., it has
constitutional limits. Thus, although the chosen a way to achieve its legitimate
morality contemplated by laws is secular state end that imposes as little as possible
(secular morality), benevolent neutrality on religious liberties.
Page | 44
MENDIOLA, MANILA
before fertilization should be deemed

non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally
permissible. Nachura
IMBONG V. OCHOA
G.R. NO.204819, APRIL 8, 2014 The RH Law actually prohibits abortion.
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.
Held: NO. Sec. 7 of the RH Law which excludes

parental consent in cases where a minor
The framers of the Constitution intended undergoing a procedure is already a
for: parent or has had miscarriage is anti-
family and violates Sec.12, Art.II (1987
“conception” to refer to the Constitution). In addition, the portion of
moment of “fertilization”; Sec.23(a)(ii) which reads: “in the case of
the protection of the unborn child minors, the written consent of parents or
upon fertilization. legal guardian or, in their absence,
persons exercising parental authority or
They did not intend to ban all next-f-kin shall be required only in
contraceptives for being unconstitutional; elective surgical procedures” is invalid, as
only those that kill or destroy the it denies the right of parental authority in
fertilized ovum would be prohibited. cases where what is involved is “non-
Contraceptives that actually prevent the surgical procedures”.
union of the male sperm and the female
ovum, and those that similarly take action The SC recognized 2 exceptions:
Page | 45
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.

Page | 46
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ALBA-NOTES: Superintendent of Schools of

Cebu, supra).
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

Page | 47
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Q— When is there violation of the and the power of excluding from

free exercise clause? such associations those deemed
unworthy of membership. (Black’s
ANS: There is violation of the free Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition
exercise of religion clause when [1979], p. 460). Based on this
the element of coercion is present. definition, an ecclesiastical affair
involves the relationship between
the church and its members and
Q— When is the non-establishment relate to matters of faith, religious
clause violated? doctrines, worship and governance
of the congregation. To be concrete,
ANS: The non-establishment of religion examples of this so-called
clause is violated when the State ecclesiastical affairs to which the
uses its rights, authority, funds and State cannot meddle are
resources behind an activity that is proceedings for excommunication,
essentially and intrinsically ordinations of religious ministers,
religious. administration of sacraments and
other activities with attached
religious significance.
Q— Is the freedom to believe
absolute?
Q— Islamic Da’wah Council of the
ANS: Yes, the freedom to believe is
Philippines, Inc. (IDCP) is a non-
absolute as long as the belief is
governmental organization
confined within the realm of
licensed under the DSWD. It
thought. Ebralinag, et al., vs.
extends voluntary services to
Division Superintendent of
the Filipino people, especially
Schools of Cebu, March 1, 1993). the Muslim communities. It is a
member of a federation of
Islamic organizations and an
Q— What is an ecclesiastical affair? active member of international
Give examples. organizations such as the
Regional Islamic Da’wah Council
ANS: An ecclesiastical affair is one that of Southeast Asia and the Pacific
concerns doctrine, creed, or form (RISEAP) and the World
of worship of the church, or the Assembly of Muslim Youth. The
adoption and enforcement within a RISEAP accredited petitioner to
religious association of needful issue halal certifications in the
laws and regulations for the Philippines. On October 26,
government of the membership,
Page | 48
MENDIOLA, MANILA
2001, the Office of the Executive as halal. Rule on the contention

Secretary issued E.O. No. 46 and explain.
creating the Philippine Halal
Certification Scheme and ANS: The contention is correct.
designating the Office of the Classifying a food as halal is a
Muslim Affairs to oversee its religious function because the
implementation. Under the EO, standards used are drawn from the
OMA has the exclusive authority Qur’an and Islamic beliefs. By
to issue halal certificates and giving OMA the exclusive power to
perform other regulatory classify food products as halal, E.O.
activities. OMA sent letters to No. 46 encroached on the religious
food manufacturers asking them freedom of Muslim organizations
to secure halal certification only like petitioner to interpret for
from OMA lest they violate E.O.
Muslim Filipinos what food
No. 46 and R.A. No. 4109. As a
products are fit for Muslim
result, petitioner lost revenues consumption. By arrogating to
after food manufacturers itself the task of issuing halal
stopped securing certifications certifications, the State has in
from it, hence, it filed a petition effect forced Muslims to accept its
for prohibition. It contended own interpretation of Qur’an and
that the EO violated the Sunnab on halal food. (Islamic
constitutional provision on the Da’wah Council of the Philippines
separation of church and state. Inc. vs. Office of the Executive
It is unconstitutional for the Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 153888,
government to formulate
July 9, 2003).
policies and guidelines on the
halal certification scheme
because it is a function only
religious organizations, entities Q— To justify E.O. No. 46’s intrusion
or scholars can lawfully and into the subject religious
validly perform for the Muslims. activity the Solicitor General
A food product becomes a halal argued that the freedom og
only after the performance of religion is subservient to the
Islamic religious ritual and police power of the State. By
prayer. Thus, only practicing delegating to the OMA the
Muslims are qualified to authority to issue halal
slaughter animals for food. A certifications, the government
government agency cannot sought to protect and promote
perform religious functions like the muslim Filipinos’ right to
certifying qualified food product health, and to instill health

Page | 49
MENDIOLA, MANILA
consciousness in them. Is the do not encroach on the religious

contention correct? Why? freedom of muslims.
ANS: No. Only the prevention of an

immediate and grave danger to the
security and welfare of the Q— A minister of the Seventh Day
community can justify the Adventists was terminated due
infringement of religious freedom. to misappropriation of funds,
(Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope willful breach of trust, serious
Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54). misconduct and gross and
habitual neglect of duties. Is this
If the government fails to show the an ecclesiastical affair which
seriousness and immediacy of the cannot be interfered with the
threats, State intrusion is State? Explain.
constitutionally unacceptable. In a
society with a democratic ANS: No, for while the matter at hand
framework, the State must relates to church and its religious
minimize its interference with the minister, it does not ipso facto give
affairs of its citizens and instead the case a religious significance.
allow them to exercise reasonable Simply stated, what is involved
freedom of personal and religious here is the relationship of the
activity. church as an employer and the
minister of an employee. It is
There is no compelling justification purely secular and has no relation
for the government to deprive whatsoever with the practice of
Muslim organizations of their faith, worship or doctrines of the
religious right to classify a product church. In this case, petitioner was
as halal, even on the premise that not excommunicated or expelled
the health of Muslim Filipinos can for the membership of the SDA
be effectively protected by (Seventh Day Adventists) but was
assigning the OMA the exclusive terminated from employment.
power to issue halal certifications. Indeed, the matter of terminating
The protection and promotion of an employee, which is purely
their right to health are already secular in nature, is different from
provided for in existing laws the ecclesiastical act of expelling a
administered by government member from the religious
agencies charged with ensuring congregation.
that food products released in the
market are fit for human When the SDA terminated the
consumption, properly labeled and services of petitioner, it was
safe. Unlike E.O. No. 46, these laws merely exercising its management

Page | 50
MENDIOLA, MANILA
prerogative to fire an employee Q— X, a courts stenographer, a

which it believes to be unfit for the member of the Seventh Day
job. As such, the State, through the Adventists, requested for
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, has exemption from work on
the right to take cognizance of the Saturday because she has to
case and to determine whether the accommodate her religious
SDA, as employer, rightfully needs. If you were the judge,
exercised its management would you grant it? Why?
prerogative to dismiss an
employee. This is in consonance ANS: Yes, because that is part of the
with the mandate of the exercise of the freedom of religion,
Constitution to afford protection to subject to the condition that she
labor. should make up. (Adm. Matter No,
88-2-5546-RTC, Exemption from
With this clear mandate, the SDA Duty on Rotation on Saturday,
cannot hide behind the mantle of June 2, 1988).
protection off the doctrine of
separation of church and state to
avoid its responsibilities under the Q— The Philippine Postal Office
Labor Code. (Pastor Dionisio V. printed stamps commemorating
Austria vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124382, the 33rd International
110 SCAD 785, Aug. 16, 1999). Eucharistic Congress in the
Philippines. It was challenged
on the ground that it was
Q— If the image of St. Vincent Ferrer violative of the separation of the
is acquired through solicitations Church and State and that the
from the community with a non-establishment clause has
resolution of the barangay, is been violated. Is the contention
this violative of the correct? Why?
Constitution?
ANS: No, because it merely advertised
ANS: No, because even if the acquisition the Philippines as the site of the
was through solicitations from the Eucharistic Congress to attract
community with a resolution from more tourists. (Aglipay vs. Ruiz,
the barangay, the same was done 64 Phil. 201).
without tax money, hence, it is
constitutional. (Garces vs. Estenzo,
May 25, 1981). Q— May school children who are
members of a religious sect

Page | 51
MENDIOLA, MANILA
known as Jehovah’s Witnesses child of eighteen to twenty years

he expelled from school (both old. Estrada is not personally
public and private) for refusing, related either to Escritor or her
on account of their religious partner and is a resident of Las
belief, to take part in the flag Piñas but of Bacoor, Cavite.
ceremony which includes Nevertheless, he filed the charge
playing (by a band) or singing against Escritor as he believes
the Philippine National Anthem, that she is committing an
saluting the Philippine flag, and immoral act that tarnishes the
reciting the patriotic pledge? image of the court, thus she
Explain. should not be allowed to remain
employed therein as it might
ANS: No, because that is part of the appear that the court condones
exercise of their religious freedom. her act. Consequently,
Religious freedom is a respondent was charged with
fundamental right which is entitled committing “disgraceful and
to highest priority and the amplest immoral conduct” under Book V,
protection among human rights for Title I, Chapter VI, Sec. 46(b)(5)
it involves the relationship of man of the Revised Administrative
and his Creator. (See German vs. Code. Respondent Escritor
Barangan, 135 SCRA 514; testified that when she entered
Ebralinag vs..Division the judiciary in 1999, she was
Superintendent of Schools of already a widow, her husband
Cebu, supra). having died in 1998. She
admitted that she has been
living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.
without the benefit of marriage
for twenty years and that they
Q— In a sworn letter-complaint have a son. But as a member of
dated July 27, 2000, the religious sect known as the
complainant Alejandro Estrada Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
wrote Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., Watch Tower and Bible Tract
presiding judge of Branch 253, Society, their conjugal
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas arrangement is in conformity
City, requesting for an with their religious beliefs. In
investigation of rumors that fact, after ten years of living
respondent Soledad Escritor, together, she executed on July
court interpreter in said court, 28, 1991 a “Declaration of
is living with a man not her Pledging Faithfulness.”
husband. They allegedly have a

Page | 52
MENDIOLA, MANILA
For Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Moreover, the Jehovah’s

Declaration allows members of congregation believes that once
the congregation who have been all legal impediments for the
abandoned by their spouses to couple are lifted, the validity of
enter into marital relations. The the declarations ceases, and the
Declaration thus makes the couple should legalize their
resulting union moral and union. In Escritor’s case,
binding within the congregation although she was widowed in
all over the world except in 1998, thereby lifting the legal
countries where divorce is impediment to marry on her
allowed. As laid out by the part, her mate was still not
tenets of their faith, the capacitated to remarry. Thus,
Jehovah’s congregation requires their declarations remained
that at the time the declarations valid. Insofar as the
are executed, the couple cannot congregation is concerned there
secure the civil authorities’ is nothing immoral about the
approval of the marital conjugal arrangement between
relationship because of legal them and they remained
impediments. Only couple who members of good standing in the
have been baptized and in good congregation. The Court
standing may execute the remanded the case to the OCA
Declarations, which requires the for the task subjecting the case
approval of the elders of the to the application of the
congregation. As a matter of compelling state interest test,
practice, the marital status of i.e., determining whether
the declarants and their respondent is entitled to
respective spouses’ commission exemption from the
of adultery are investigated administrative case and instead,
before the declarations are invoke her freedom of religion.
executed. Escritor and At the hearing, the OSG
Quiliapio’s declaration were presented a letter of Bro.
executed in the usual and Ramong Leach, Legal
approved form prescribed by Representative of the Watch
the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Tower Bible and Tract Society
approved by elders of the that efforts were exerted to
congregation where the examine the sincerity and
declaration were executed, and centrality of her claim to
recorded in the Watch Tower religious belief and practice and
Central Office. a certification duly notarized to
substantiate the sincerity and
Page | 53
MENDIOLA, MANILA
centrality of the claimed ANS: No. There is no question that the

religious practice and belief and State has an interest in protecting
to prove that the Declaration of the institution of marriage and the
Pledging Faithfulness being family or even in the sound
purely internal arrangement administration of justice.
within the congregation cannot
be a source of any legal Be that as it may, the free exercise
protection to the respondent. On of religion is specifically
the basis of the evidence of the articulated as one of the
OSG contended that there was a fundamental rights in our
compelling interest to override Constitution. It is a fundamental
the claimed religious belief and right that enjoys a preferred
practice in order to protect position in the hierarchy of rights-
marriage and the family as basic “the most inalienable and sacred of
social institution. It was all human rights,” in the words of
contended that marriage and Jefferson. Hence, it is not enough to
the family are so crucial to the contend that the State’s interest is
stability and peace of the nation important, because our
that the conjugal arrangement Constitution itself holds the right
embraced in the Declaration of to religious freed sacred. The State
Pledging Faithfulness should not must articulate in specific terms of
be recognized or given effect as the State interest involved in
it is utterly destructive of the preventing the exemption, which
avowed institutions of marriage must be compelling, for only the
and the family for it reduces to gravest abuses, endangering
mockery these legally exalted paramount interests can limit this
and socially significant fundamental right to religious
institutions which in their freedom. To rule otherwise would
purity demand respect and be to emasculate the Free Exercise
dignity. In short, there is a Clause as a source of right by itself.
compelling state interest to Thus, it is not the State’s broad
preserve the marriage and the interest in “protecting the
family as basic social institution of marriage and the
institutions which is ultimately family,” or even “in the sound
the public policy underlying the administration of justice” that
criminal sanctions against must be weighed against
bigamy and concubinage. Is the
respondent’s claim, but the State’s
contention of the OSG correct? narrow interest in refusing to
Why? make an exception for the

Page | 54
MENDIOLA, MANILA
cohabitation which respondent’s of the words of Messrs. J. Bellosillo

faith finds moral. In other words, and Vitug, in their concurring
the government must do more opinions in our Decision, dated
than assert the objectives at risk if August 4, , to deny the exemption
exemption is given; it must would effectively break up “an
precisely show how and to what otherwise ideal union of two
extent those objectives will be individuals who have managed to
undermined if exemptions are stay together as husband and wife
granted. This, the Solicitor General [approximately twenty-five years]”
failed to do. (Estrada vs. Escritor, and have the effect of defeating the
A.M. No. P--, June 22, 2006). very substance of marriage and the
family. (Estrada vs. Escritor,
supra.).
Q— What must the State do in
invoking the application of
compelling interest test? Q— The Solicitor General also
Explain. argued against respondent’s
religious freedom on the basis of
ANS: The State’s interest in enforcing its morality, i.e., that “the conjugal
prohibition, in order to be arrangement of respondent and
sufficiently compelling to outweigh her live-in partner should not be
a free exercise claim, cannot be condoned because adulterous
merely abstract or symbolic. The relationships are constantly
State cannot plausibly assert that frowned upon by society;” and
unbending application of a “that State laws on marriage,
criminal prohibition is essential to which are moral in nature, take
fulfill a compelling interest, if it clear precedence over the
does not, in fact, attempt to religious beliefs and practices of
enforce that prohibition. In the any church, religious sect or
case at bar, the State has not denomination on marriage.
evinced any concrete interest in Verily, religious beliefs and
enforcing the concubinage or practices should not be
bigamy charges against permitted to override laws
respondent and her partner. The relating to public policy such as
State never sought to prosecute those of marriage.” Rule on the
respondent nor her partner. The contention. Explain.
State’s asserted interest thus
amounts only to the symbolic ANS: The contention is not correct.
preservation of an unenforced
prohibition. Incidentally, as echoes
Page | 55
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(a) The public morality expressed (d) Having distinguished between

in the law is necessarily secular public and secular morality and
for in our constitutional order, religious morality, the more
the religion clauses prohibit difficult task is determining
the state from establishing a which immoral acts under this
religion, including the morality public and secular morality fall
it sanctions. Thus, when the under the phrase “disgraceful
law speaks of “immorality” in and immoral conduct” for
the Civil Service Law or which a government employee
“immoral” in the Code of may be held administratively
Professional Responsibility for liable. Only one conduct is in
lawyers, or “public morals” in question before this Court, i.e.,
the Revised Penal Code, or the conjugal arrangement of a
“morals” in the New Civil Code, government employee whose
or “moral character” the partner is legally married to
Constitution, the distinction another which Philippine law
between public and secular and jurisprudence consider
morality on the one hand, and both immoral and illegal.
religious morality, on the other, (e) While there is no dispute that
should be kept in mind; under settled jurisprudence,
(b) Although the morality respondent’s conduct
contemplated by laws is constitutes “disgraceful and
secular, benevolent neutrality immoral conduct,” the case at
could allow for accommodation bar involves the defense of
of morality based on religion, religious freedom, therefore
provided it does not offend none of the cases cited by Mme.
compelling state interests; Justice Ynares-Santiago apply.
(c) The jurisdiction of the Court There is no jurisprudence in
extends only to public and Philippine jurisdiction holding
secular morality. Whatever that the defense of religious
pronouncement the Court freedom of a member of the
makes in the case at bar should Jehovah’s Witnesses under the
be understood only in this same circumstances as
realm where it has authority. respondent will not prevail
over the laws on adultery,
Page | 56
MENDIOLA, MANILA
concubinage or some other law. legal impediments for the couple

It cannot be summarily are lifted, the validity of the
concluded therefore that her Declaration ceases, and the
congregation requires that the
conduct is likewise so “odious”
couple legalize their union.
and “barbaric” as to be
immoral and punishable by law. At bottom, the slippery slope
(Estrada vs. Escritor, supra.). argument is speculative. (Estrada
vs. Escritor, supra.).
Q— It was argued that if the Court

granted exemption to Q— If the respondent is given the
respondent from the law under benefit of exemption from the
which she was charged, the charge, is this not giving under
exemption would not apply to advantage to religion as against
Catholics who have secured other bases of action? Explain.
Church annulment of their ANS: No, because the Religion Clauses,
marriage even without a final merely single out religion for both
annulment form from a civil benefit and a burden. The
court. Rule on the contention. Constitution provides that “nolaw
Explain. shall be made respecting an
ANS: The argument is non-sequitur. First, establishment of religion, or
unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses, the prohibiting the free exercise
Catholic faith considers thereof…” on its face, the language
cohabitation without marriage as grants a unique advantage to
immoral. Second, but more religious conduct, protecting it
important, the Jehovah’s Witnesses from governmental imposition;
have standards and procedures and imposes a unique
which must be followed before disadvantage preventing the
cohabitation without marriage is government from supporting it. To
given the blessing of the understand this as a provision
congregation. This includes an which puts religion on an equal
investigative process whereby the footing with other bases for action
elders of the congregation verify seems to be a curious reading.
the circumstances of the There are no “free exercise” of
declarants. Also, the Declaration is “establishment” provisions for
not a blanket authority to cohabit science, sports, philosophy, or
without marriage because once all family relations. The language
itself thus seems to answer

Page | 57
MENDIOLA, MANILA
whether we have a paradigm of end that imposes as little as

equality or liberty; the language of possible on religious liberties.
the Clause is clearly in the form of Again, the Solicitor General utterly
a grant of liberty. (Estrada vs. failed to prove this element of test.
Escritor, supra.). Other than the two documents
offered as cited above which
established the sincerity of
respondent’s religious belief and
Q— It was argued by the OSG that
respondent should be held the fact that the agreement was an
administratively liable as the internal arrangement within
arrangement she had was illegal respondent’s congregation, no iota
of evidence was offered. In fact, the
per se because, by universally
records are bereft of even a feeble
recognizes standards, it is
attempt to procure any such
inherently or by its very nature
evidence to show that the means
bad, improper, immoral and
the state adopted in pursuing this
contrary to good conscience. Is
compelling interest is the least
the contention correct? Why?
restrictive to respondent’s
ANS: No, because the Constitution religious freedom.
adheres to the benevolent
Thus, we find that in this particular
neutrality approach that gives
case and under these distinct
room for accommodation of
religious exercises as required by circumstances, respondent
the Free Exercise Clause. The Escritor’s conjugal arrangement
cannot be penalized as she has
benevolent neutrality could allow
made out a case for exemption
for accommodation of morality
based on religion, provided it does from the law based on her
fundamental right to freedom of
not offend compelling State
religion. Thus Court recognizes
interests.
that state interests must be upheld
Even assuming that he OSG has in order that freedoms- including
approved a compelling state religious freedom- may be enjoyed.
interest, it has to further In the area of religious exercise as
demonstrate that the state has a preferred freedom, however,
used the least intrusive means man stands accountable to an
possible so that the free exercise is authority higher than the state,
not infringed any more than and so the state interest sought to
necessary to achieve the legitimate be upheld must be so compelling
goal of the state, i.e., it has chosen a that its violation will erode the
way to achieve its legitimate state very fabric of the state that will

Page | 58
MENDIOLA, MANILA
also protect the freedom. In the selling said “merchandise” for

absence of a showing that such profit, it also ruled that applying
state interest exists, man must be the ordinance to plaintiff and
allowed to subscribe to the requiring it to secure a license and
Infinite.(Estrada vs. Escritor, pay a license fee or tax would
supra.). impair its free exercise religious
profession and worship and its
right of dissemination of religious
Q— Give examples of situations in beliefs “as the power to tax the
the constitution where the exercise of a privilege is the power
benevolent neutrality- to control or suppress its
enjoyment.” The decision states in
accommodation has been
part, viz:
adopted.
ANS: (1) In American Bible Society v. “The constitutional
guaranty of the free
City of Manila, G.R. No. 95770,
March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 256, exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and
the Court granted to plaintiff
worship carries with it the
exemption from a law of general
right to disseminate
application based on the Free
religious information. Any
Exercise Clause. In this case,
restraint of such right can
plaintiff was required by an
ordinance to secure a mayor’s only be justified like other
permit and a municipal license as restraints of freedom of
expression on the grounds
ordinarily required of those
that there is a clear and
engaged in the business of general
merchandise under the city’s present danger of any
substantive evil which the
ordinances. Plaintiff argued that
State has the right to
this amounted to “religious
censorship and restrained the free prevent.”
exercise and enjoyment of (2) Another case involving mandatory
religious profession, to wit: the accommodation is Ebralinag v.
distribution and sale of bibles and
other religious literature to the The Division Superintendent of
people of the Philippines.” Schools of Cebu, G.R. No.
Although the Court categorically 95770,March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA
held that the questioned 256. The case involved several
ordinances were not applicable to Jehovah’s Witnesses who were
plaintiff as it was not engaged in expelled from school for refusing
the business or occupation of
Page | 59
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
Page | 60
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

Page | 61
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
Page | 62
MENDIOLA, MANILA
it on appeal with modification. The nature, since religious activities depend

petitioner Centeno questioned the their support on voluntary contributions.
applicability of P.D No. 1564 to However, “religious purpose” is not
solicitations for contributions interchangeable with the expression
intended for religious purposes “charitable purpose". While it is true that
contending that: there is no religious purpose which is not
also a charitable purpose, yet the
1. The term religious purpose is converse is not equally true, for there may
not expressly included in the be a purpose which is not “religious” in
provisions of the Statute; the legal sense of the term. Although the
2. If the solicitation for religious term "charitable may include matters
which are “religious”, it is a broader term
purpose is subject to regulation, then,
and includes matters which are not
that would constitute an abridgment of
“religious”, and, accordingly, there is a
the right of freedom of religion.
distinction between charitable purpose
and religious purpose except where the
two (2) terms are obvious synonymously,
(1) Decide whether the phrase or where the distinction has been done
"charitable purposes" should be away with by statute. The word
interpreted to include religious "charitable”, therefore, like most other
purposes. words, is of different significations. For
example, in the law exempting charitable
(2) Is solicitation for religious
uses from taxation has a very wide
purposes subject to regulation?
meaning, but under Presidential Decree
ANS- (1) No, "charitable purposes does No. 1564 which is a penal law, it cannot
not include "religious purposes for they be given such a broad application since it
are separately and in treated in the would be prejudicial to petitioners.
Constitution, There are also legislations (Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 55 SCAD
which spelled out "charitable and 100, GR No. 113092, Sept. 1994)
religious differently. P.D. Na 1564 merely
(2) Yes, for while the freedom to believe is
stated “charitable or public welfare
absolute, the freedom to act is not.
purposes” and this merely shows that the
Conduct remains subject to regulation for
framers of the law never intended to
the protection of society.The freedom to
include solicitations for religious act must have appropriate definitions to
purposes within its coverage. Otherwise,
preserve the enforcement of that
there is no reason why it would not have
protection. In every case, the power to
so stated expressly.
regulate must be so exercised, in attaining
All contributions designed to promote the a permissible end, as not to unduly
work of the church are “charitable" in infringe on the protected freedom.

Page | 63
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

Page | 64
MENDIOLA, MANILA
permits, the marketplace of ideas (7) Religious program is not per se

demands that speech should be met by beyond review by the Board. Television is
more speech for it is the spark of the a medium that reaches out even to the
opposite speech, the heat of colliding eyes and ears of children. The exercise of
ideas that can fan the embers of truth. religious freedom can be regulated by the
State when it will bring about the clear
(5) American society vs. city of and present danger of some substantive
Manila, 101 Phil. 386, was said that the evil which the State is duty bound to
constitutional guarantee of free exercise prevent, serious detriment to the more
and enjoyment of religious profession and overriding interest of public health, public
worship comes with it the right to morals or public welfare. A laissez faire
disseminate religious information. Any policy on the exercise of religious
restraint can be justified by the clear and freedom can be seductive to the liberal
present danger of any substantive evil mind but history counsels the Court
which the State had the right to prevent. against its blind adoption as religion is
(Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Worker's and continues to be a valid area of
Union, 59 SCRA 54). There was no concern in our country today. Across the
showing in this case. sea and in our shore, the bloodiest and
Prior restraint on speech, including bitterest wars fought by men were caused
religious speech, cannot be justified by by irreconcilable religious differences.
(Iglesia ni Kristo vs CA, et al., 72 SCAD
hypothetical fears but only by the
showing of a substantive and imminent 678, GR No. 119673, July 26, 1996).
evil which has taken the life of a reality
already on ground.
Q- Do courts have jurisdiction to hear a
(6) The right to religious case involving the
profession and worship has two-fold expulsion/excommunication of
aspect: members of a religious institution?
Explain.
ANS- No. The Church and the State to be

(a) freedom to believe and;
separate and distinct from each other.
(b) freedom to act on one's belief. "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to
God what is God's." In a case, it has been
The first is absolute. The second is said that upon the examination of the
subject to regulation where the belief is decisions it will be readily apparent that
transmitted into external acts that affect cases involving questions relative to
the public welfare. ecclesiastical rights have always received
the profoundest attention from the courts,
not only because of their inherent interest,
Page | 65
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

Page | 66

Sec 5 - Freedom of Religion - 10 - 14 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sec 5 - Freedom of Religion - 10 - 14 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec 5 - Freedom of Religion - 10 - 14 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

taxation of properties actually, directly

Non-establishment clause. This (iv) Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI [appropriation

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Based on this definition, an ecclesiastical RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. It should be

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

thereby manifested their intense religious

Issue: Whether or not there was a It should be stated that what is

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

beliefs of the barrio residents . One of of separation of church and state,

and banning the use of public money or Free Exercise Clause.

embraced in the occupation of selling this activity is unimportant if it does not

position. . . . In our view the circumstance

a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, THOUGH

by another religion. Religious dogmas and

on TV of its religious program brings it

speech, cannot be justified by rights, for it involves the relationship of

"The right to religious profession and

a character both grave and imminent, of a

ISSUE: Whether or not the expulsion of TWO-FOLD ASPECT, vis., freedom to

When they [diversity] are so harmless to It is appropriate to recall the Japanese

religious persuasion, in fear of the invader, influence of religion in society, the

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

arrangement she had was “illegal per se

(1) BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY OR principle of church-state separation with

while the Jeffersonian wall of Protestant denomination, to lead

Religion clauses are invoked in relation to would otherwise thereby be infringed,

exemption. These conclusions, however, cover both mandatory and permissive

all clearly demonstrate the State’s need to

in partner should not be condoned morality, on the other, should be kept in

apply. There is no jurisprudence in As previously discussed, our Constitution

adopted in pursuing this compelling could allow for accommodation of

before fertilization should be deemed

Held: NO. Sec. 7 of the RH Law which excludes

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

ALBA-NOTES: Superintendent of Schools of

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Q— When is there violation of the and the power of excluding from

2001, the Office of the Executive as halal. Rule on the contention

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

consciousness in them. Is the do not encroach on the religious

ANS: No. Only the prevention of an

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

prerogative to fire an employee Q— X, a courts stenographer, a

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

known as Jehovah’s Witnesses child of eighteen to twenty years

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

For Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Moreover, the Jehovah’s

centrality of the claimed ANS: No. There is no question that the

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

cohabitation which respondent’s of the words of Messrs. J. Bellosillo

(a) The public morality expressed (d) Having distinguished between

concubinage or some other law. legal impediments for the couple

Q— It was argued that if the Court

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

whether we have a paradigm of end that imposes as little as