Consti 18414
or organizations, there is one area which the Court should
Freedom of Religion
Art. III, Sec. 5
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil
or political rights.
Non-establishment of region
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201- the respondent director of posts
announced and commenced a special commemorative stamp in
celebration of the 33rd international Eucharistic congress. Petitioner
contends that such acts were against section 23, subsection 3, Article VI,
of the Constitution which forbid any support of religious sect using
public funds.
THE COURT held that the commemorative post was not a support for
the religious sect but rather to advertise the Philippines and attract more
tourists. Furthermore, such acts of the respondent were pursuant to Act
No. 4052 which gave the director of posts P60,000 to spend for such
activities.
- Special considerations for religious sects
o Tax exemptions
o Sectarian aid is not prohibited when a priest, preacher,
minister or other religious teacher or dignitary as such is
assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution,
orphanage or leprosarium
o Optional religious instruction in the public schools is by
constitutional mandate allowed
o Thursday and Friday of Holy Week, Thanksgiving Day,
Christmas Day, and Sundays and made legal holidays
o The law allows divorce but punishes polygamy and bigamy;
and certain crimes against religious worship are considered
crimes against the fundamental laws of the state
Taruc v. de la Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 – when the petitioner celebrated mass
through Fr. Ambong, they were issued an order of expulsión/
excommunication by the comanding bishop, herein respondent.
Petitioners raised in courst the damages they recieved.
THE COURT held that civil courts do not interfere with matters that
pertain to discretion of their respective officials.
- Fonacier v. Court of Appeals
o the doctrine that in disputes involving religious institutions
not touch: doctrinal and disciplinary differences
o he power of excluding from the church those allegedly
unworthy of membership, are unquestionably ecclesiastical
matters which are outside the province of the civil courts
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510 – through a local plebiscite, the
barangay of Valencia, Ormoc City, agreed to acquire an religious figure a
create a waiting shed for the same. It was agreed upon that the figure
would be lent to the local parish but would return the same after a
designated period. When the parish priest refused to return the religious
figure, and spoke defamatory words against the respondents, they
initiated the suit against the priest.
THE COURT the religious figure must be returned to respondents since
the same was acquired through private funds and thus the property of
the barangay council.
- Not every governmental activity which involves the expenditure of
public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the
constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state,
freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or
property.
School District v. Schempp, 10 L 2d 844 – the petitioner started a
practice where in the teachers would read 10 bible verses at the
beginning of each day. The petitioners were the students that were
directly affected by the practice and their parents. Together, the contest
that such practice violated their fourteenth and in relation thereto, their
first amendment.
THE COURT held that such practices were indeed violated the rights of
the individuals granted to them by both constitutional amendments.
- Everson v. Board of Education
o a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another."
o requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups
of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require
the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be
used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.
- Mr. Justice Rutledge
o "The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely
at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion,
outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in
England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to
uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader
than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was
 to create a complete and permanent separation of the
spheres of religious activity and civil authority by
comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or
support for religion."
- Mr. Justice Rutledge,
o "Our constitutional policy . . . does not deny the value or the
necessity for religious training, teaching or observance.
Rather it secures their free exercise. But to that end it does
deny that the state can undertake or sustain them in any
form or degree. For this *219 reason the sphere of religious
activity, as distinguished from the secular intellectual
liberties, has been given the twofold protection and, as the
state cannot forbid, neither can it perform or aid in
performing the religious function. The dual prohibition
makes that function altogether private."
- McGowan v. Maryland
o the First Amendment, in its final form, did not simply bar a
congressional enactment establishing a church; it forbade all
laws respecting an establishment of religion. Thus, this
Court has given the Amendment a `broad interpretation . . .
in the light of its history and the evils it was designed
forever to suppress. . . .'
- "Although these two clauses may in certain instances overlap, they
forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment
upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free
Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct
governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws
which establish an official religion whether those laws operate
directly to coerce non-observing individuals or not. This is not to
say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of
religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When
the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed
behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure
upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially
approved religion is plain.
- While the Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state
action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never
meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to
practice its beliefs.
- Establishement Clause when the government supports one sect
over the others
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 – two acts were held as controversy of
the case. The first act provided additional salaries to private school
teachers that taught using secular materials, then there was an act that
authorized the superintendent to purchase secular educational services
and reimbursed the schools by providing their teachers salaries and
materials.
THE COURT held that both statues were unconstitutional for being an
excessive government entanglement with religion
- three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was
intended to afford protection: "
o sponsorship,
o financial support, and
o active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
- Three tests
o First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
o second, its principal or primary effect must be one that
neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v.
Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 392 U. S. 243 (1968);
o finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government
entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 397 U. S. 674.
- political division along religious lines was one of the principal evils
against which the First Amendment was intended to protect.
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672 – a law was passed that provided
additional funds for the establishment of universities for further studies.
Such benefit was specifically excluded from those university that had a
religious affiliation. Petitioners therefore contest that, even though their
universities were affiliated with a religious sect, the same were not
evident in any many in their premises or curriculum.
THE COURT held that the laws that excluded the petitioners were
unconstitutional as it violated their right to free exercise of religion
- Four tests
o first, does the Act reflect a secular legislative purpose?
o Second, is the primary effect of the Act to advance or inhibit
religion?
o Third, does the administration of the Act foster an excessive
government entanglement with religion?
o Fourth, does the implementation of the Act inhibit the free
exercise of religion?
Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94 June 18, 1993 – the petitioner was a deaf
student that was availing the services of the a government Project that
allowed an interpretor to assist him during his studies. When he
transfered to a private, catholic school, the interpretor was not allowed.
The Respondent asserts that the presence of the interpretor would show
the favoritisim of the goverment towards the catholic faith since the
interpretor would be in charge of the religious studies of the petitioner.
THE COURT held that the presence of the interpretor does not violate
 the neutrality of the goverment. It was held that the interpretor does not
support the school but rather, he supports the pettitioner in his studies.
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette & Ku Klux Klan – U.S. No. 94-
780 June 29, 1995 – the petitioner refused the permit of the respondent to
erect a cross in a public area in fear that the public would take it as the
government’s support to the beliefs of the respondent.
THE COURT held that in application of the ‘endorsement test’ the
contention of the petitioner has no merit.
- American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 104 Phil. 386 – Respondent
Islamic Da’wah v. Executive Secretary, GR 153888, July 9, 2003
Free exercise of religion
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 – On the day of their arrest, the
appellants were engaged in going singly from house to house on Cassius
Street in New Haven. They were individually equipped with a bag
containing books and pamphlets on religious subjects, a portable
phonograph, and a set of records, each of which, when played,
introduced, and was a description of, one of the books. Each appellant
asked the person who responded to his call for permission to play one of
the records. If permission was granted, he asked the person to buy the
book described, and, upon refusal, he solicited such contribution
towards the publication of the pamphlets as the listener was willing to
make. If a contribution was received, a pamphlet was delivered upon
condition that it would be read.
THE COURT held that it was the solicitation that brought the appellants
within the sweep of the Act, that prohibited soliciting money for any
religious, charitable or philanthropic, and not their other activities in the
dissemination of literature. It declared the legislation constitutional as an
effort by the State to protect the public against fraud and imposition in
the solicitation of funds for what purported to be religious, charitable, or
philanthropic causes. However, on the issue that the content of their
message was to provoke other, the court held that such acts were
synonymous to an attempt of persuading a person of a different view.
- Thus, the Amendment embraces two concepts
o freedom to believe and
 The first is absolute
o freedom to act.
 in the nature of things, the second cannot be.
Conduct remains subject to regulation for the
protection of society. The freedom to act must have
appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement
of that protection.
US. v. Ballard, 322 US 78 – respondents represented themselves as
divine messengers and used such representation as a means to obtain a
following from which they solicited money.
THE COURT held the main issue in the case is not the veracity of their
doctrines but the good faith of the respondents in preaching such
doctrines. If they had actual good faith in their practice then no fraud
could be attributed to them. As such, the case was remanded to the
Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings
demanded from petitioner to pay the corresponded fees related to their
business of distributing bibles in varying Philippine dialects. Petitioner
contends that it has never been asked to pay fees and that the authority
to demand taxes given to the respondent was unconstitutional.
THE COURT held that the respondent could not classify the petitioner’s
products as general merchandise and likewise demand tax from them.
- The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries with it the right to
disseminate religious information. Any restraints of such right can
only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the
grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive
evil which the State has the right to prevent".
Ang LADLAD v. Comelec – Petitioner group sought to be accredited
through the COMELEC as a representative of the LGBT community. The
petition for accreditation was denied on moral grounds, stating that the
accreditation of the group would be offensive against the Muslim and
Christian Faith.
THE COURT held that respondent erred in denying the accreditation on
the grounds that the same was offensive to the Muslim and Christian
religion.
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent, 219 SCRA 256 and December 29,
1995 – petitioners were suspended student and their parents that
question their suspension on the ground that they did not cooperate with
the requirements of the flag ceremony.
THE COUR held that the petitioners refusal to salute to the flag was
greatly anchored in their religious belief and that the same should not be
held against them.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 205
Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413
McDaniel v. Paty, 435 US 618
Goldman v. Weinberger, 54 LW 4298
Lee v. Weisman, U.S. No. 90-1014 June 24, 1992
Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach - No. 91-948 June 11, 1993
Lamb’s Chapel v. School District, No. 91-2024 June 7, 1993
INC v. CA, 259 SCRA 529
Estrada v. Escritor, AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003 and 429 SCRA 1