ON MANDATORY VACCINATION AND RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION

Cruz, John Chloe

There are those who hinge on their argument towards freedom of religion.
The Philippine Constitution guarantees the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, freedom of religion has been accorded preferred
status by the framers of the Constitution. Section 5, Article III of the Constitution specifically
states that no law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 1
The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the primacy of religious liberty. The free exercise
clause is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to
believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live,
consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good." (par. 34) 2
However, those who raise the free exercise clause as a defense, have a mountain of arguments to
hurdle. As of writing, there is not one single religious group, denomination, or church that
publicly advocates against COVID 19 vaccination.
On the contrary, several religious leaders promote the vaccine as the fastest way to end the
global pandemic.
Pope Francis, in a tweet, said that getting vaccinated is a moral obligation and an act of love. He
said that “vaccination is a simple way of promoting the common good and caring for each other,
especially the most vulnerable.” 3
The Pope, who himself is vaccinated, reiterated his appeal for the quick distribution of COVID
vaccines and even asked for amendments in patent laws so poorer nations with low vaccination
rates could develop and produce their own vaccines.
Franklin Graham, an evangelical leader, also said that “I want people to know that COVID-19
can kill you, but we have a vaccine out there that could possibly save your life. And if you wait,
it could be too late." 4
While others have a strong stance on whether to support or not the vaccination, some religious
leaders have expressed hesitation not in the vaccine itself but rather only in mandatory
inoculation.

1
PH.CONST. Art. III, Sec. 5
2
Valenciano v. QC Hall, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC (2017)
3
Pope Francis, Twitter.com (Aug 18,2021, 02:09 PM) https://twitter.com/pontifex/status/1427875189509984261?
lang=en
4
Mike Allen, Franklin Graham prods Christians to vaccinate or "it could be too late" (May 14, 2021)
https://www.axios.com/franklin-graham-christians-vaccines-ebc4fa46-4e83-419b-a63f-031e061ef914.html
“Indeed, the common good is the second greatest commandment listed by Jesus Christ: to love
our neighbors as ourselves... Christians thinking about the issue of the vaccine must weigh this
key biblical principle as part of their thinking.” 5 Albert Mohler, president of The Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, quoted this statement in an interview with him as he encouraged
believers of Christ to take the vaccine at their own prerogative while being against the mandatory
inoculation of it.
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary sued the Biden administration after the creation of
the mandate by the OSHA (Office of Security and Health Administration) that provided no
exemptions for religious employers as some of whom have expressed religious objections to the
vaccines. Mohler stressed that “The Biden administration’s workaround would violate religious
liberty and conscience rights.” 6
The Supreme Court has developed three questions to determine the validity of using the
argument of the free exercise clause. First, "has the statute or government action created a burden
on the free exercise of religion?"
Second, the court asks: "is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this
infringement of religious liberty?
Third, the court asks: "has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive
means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the
legitimate goal of the state?" 7
To Muslims, every aspect of life should align with Islamic law. Protecting the human race
through efforts to preserve it are highly encouraged in Islam, such as taking vaccines. Muslims
who refuse to receive COVID-19 vaccines may be regarded as acting against Sharia law. Halal
certification, along with the anti-vaccination movement and concerns about long-term side
effects, pose additional challenges that can affect vaccine uptake. 8 Shaykh Amin Kholwadia, a
Muslim scholar and founder of Darul Qasim, an institute of traditional Islamic teachings based in
Glendale Heights, Illinois, explained that under Islamic law, “No part of the human body
(including fetuses) can be used for experimentation.” 9

5
Heather Chapman, Baptist seminary president’s guidance to Christians on vaccines still drawing high readership,
eight months after publication, (Aug. 11, 2021) https://ci.uky.edu/kentuckyhealthnews/2021/08/11/baptist-seminary-
presidents-guidance-to-christians-on-vaccines-still-drawing-high-readership-eight-months-after-publication/
6
Albert Mohler, A mandate for constitutional government, (Feb. 14, 2022) https://albertmohler.com/2022/02/14/a-
mandate-for-constitutional-government
7
Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, (2003)
8
Yan Mardian, et.al, Sharia (Islamic Law) Perspectives of COVID-19 Vaccines, (Dec. 20, 2021)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fitd.2021.788188/full#B3
9
Tasmiha Khan, Muslim leaders and activists tackle opposition to COVID-19 vaccines, (Jul. 12, 2021)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/news/article/muslim-vaccine-response
The morality of the use of aborted fetal cells in the research, development, and production of
vaccines has sprung up and it has been one of the main arguments of some religions as to why
they are against vaccines. Some Catholics express vaccine hesitancy by saying that vaccines are
produced based on research that uses cells from aborted fetuses. However, the Vatican’s doctrine
office says it is “morally acceptable” to receive vaccines based on that research. 10 Muslims have
the same argument and are warned against the usage of certain vaccine brands by their religious
leaders and certain Islamic studies groups due to the moral issue of using cell lines (aborted
fetuses) for its production. 11 Some Christians have hesitated a lot of times in taking the vaccine
as well because of the same issue since it contradicts their stance about being pro-life.
There is no doctrine, creed, confession of faith, or religious document, as of today, that
specifically prohibits the faithful from taking the vaccine. Also, as of writing, there exists no
such official religious dogma that deals with the issue of vaccines for Coronavirus and the
compulsory inoculation thereof.
A verse from any religious writ taken out of context is open to various interpretations – hence is
susceptible and vulnerable which then can lead to confusion.
In the Qur'ān, for instance, specifically in 30:30, it says that “So direct your face toward the
religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the fitrah of Allāh upon which He has created [all]
people. No change should there be in the creation of Allāh. That is the correct religion, but most
of the people do not know.”12 This verse is quoted by many Muslims who decline the
vaccination. Their stance is also backed up by 16:116, which states that “He has made unlawful
for you only (carcass) that which dies of itself and blood and the flesh of swine and that on
which the name of any other than Allāh has been invoked. But he who is driven by necessity,
being neither disobedient nor exceeding the limit.”13 The Halal-certification of vaccines took
time before it was officially released, but since then, Muslims considered the vaccines as a
foreign object entering their body, that can change Allah’s creation since it can be mixed with
pork without their knowledge.
Some Christians take a verse like, the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, as justification for
refusing to take the vaccine.
These personal interpretations of the scripture cause a lot of confusion within the congregation of
religious sects. The widespread personal stance with their religious basis as their objection has

10
Vatican News, Vatican CDF says use of anti-Covid vaccines “morally acceptable” (Dec. 21, 2020 12:18 AM)
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2020-12/vatican-cdf-note-covid-vaccine-morality-abortion.html
11
See Footnote 8
12
Grabenstein JD. What the world's religions teach, applied to vaccines and immune globulins. Vaccine.31 (Apr
12, 2013)
13
See Footnote 11
been adopted by a huge chunk of society. In the US, 24% of white evangelicals declined the
vaccine, according to a study by the Public Religion Research Institute. 14
Is freedom of religion then subservient to police power in matters of public health and safety?
The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution does not and cannot mean
exemption from or non-compliance with reasonable and non-discriminatory laws, rules and
regulations promulgated by competent authority. (para. 23) 15
Such a scenario poses an important argument: How then, can any person raise the defense that
the mandatory vaccination is a violation of his freedom to believe, if, in the first place, there is
no religion that preaches against the use of the vaccine?
For instance, can a practicing Catholic ask for religious accommodation in refusing a jab when
no less than the head of his church is campaigning for the use of the vaccines?
Following the rule laid in Estrada v Escritor16, a religious objector must present evidence proving
sincere adherence to a specific church dogma or creed. He cannot hold a conviction that is
inexistent. A religious belief must be proven by evidence.
This now would raise the question: What if a conscientious objector would use the religious card
as a defense, basing his objection not on a specific church dogma but solely on his personal
interpretation of the Holy Bible, Quran, or any other sacred writ as such? Can a person base his
objection on his own interpretation of the Scriptures even without a specific declaration from his
church?
This issue is yet to be raised and answered by the Supreme Court.
Looking into the context of the United States, a religious objector does not have to be a part of an
organized religion or sect. The objection may be based on a sincerely held personal belief. As
held in United States v. Ballard “heresy trials are foreign to the Constitution. Men may believe
what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or
beliefs."17
What if only a very small minority or even one single person claims an exemption based on a
sincere personal religious belief?
The "constitution commands the positive protection by the government of religious freedom -not
only for a minority, however small- not only for a majority, however large- but for each of us." 18

14
Ian Lovett, White Evangelicals Resist Covid-19 Vaccine Most Among Religious Groups, (Jul. 28, 2021, 07:06 PM)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-evangelicals-resist-covid-19-vaccine-most-among-religious-groups-
11627464601
15
Ebralinag v. Cebu, G.R. NO. 95770, (1993)
16
Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, (2003)
17
See Footnote 11
Assuming arguendo that a person can invoke freedom of religion by imposing his personal
interpretation of the Scriptures and not based on a church teaching, still such is subject to
balancing of State’s compelling interest and the free exercise of religious profession. Settled is
the rule that while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act on one’s belief is not
absolute.
Thus, the free exercise clause embraces two concepts - freedom to believe and freedom to act.
The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to
regulation for the protection of society. In every case, the power to regulate must be so exercised
as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom.19
The limitations of freedom of religious expression can be cited in the case of German v.
Barangan which poses a ‘Clear and Present Danger’. “For freedom of religious expression, the
Constitution assures generous immunity, unless it can be shown that there is a clear and present
danger of substantive evil which the state has the right to prevent.” 20 Ebralinag vs. Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu also showed that “Religious freedom is a fundamental right
which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it
involves the relationship of man to his Creator… The sole justification for a prior restraint or
limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger of 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 (and duty) to prevent.”21
Benevolent neutrality has been one of the attempts of the government to combine one or another
approach. This combines the ideas of neutrality and accommodationism. 22 This theory affirms
that with respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not
to promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to
exercise their religion without hindrance.
As held in the case of Imbong vs. Ochoa, 23the theory of benevolent neutrality holds that between
religious practice and government action, the former is accommodated so that groups can
exercise their religion without hindrance.
Gleaning from the above, an individual does not have to point to a specific church doctrine or
teaching in order to be considered and protected as a conscientious objector. To rule otherwise
would inevitably encroach upon the basic freedom of an individual ‘’to believe’’ and ‘’to act

18
See Footnote 7
19
See Footnote 15
20
German v. Barangan, G.R. No. L-68828, (1985)
21
See Footnote 15
22
John R. Vile, Benevolent Neutrality, (n.d.) https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/826/benevolent-
neutrality
23
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819 (2014)
upon his belief.’’ The former may not be encroached upon in any and all circumstances, while
the latter may be limited ‘’only’’ when it poses injures or encroaches upon another’s rights.
Now, this boils down to the question of whether or not one’s ‘’action upon his belief’’ would
injure the rights of another in the context of the ‘’vaccination mandates’’ imposed by the
government. This may be true or not based on the ‘’reasonableness test’’ of police power. The
question is ‘’whether or not vaccination mandates are reasonable enough in order to encroach
upon one’s basic freedoms such as religious freedom.’’ The burden is upon the government to
hurdle the said test.
 REFERENCES

Allen, M. (2021) Franklin Graham prods Christians to vaccinate or "it could be too late"
(May 14, 2021) https://www.axios.com/franklin-graham-christians-vaccines-ebc4fa46-4e83-
419b-a63f-031e061ef914.html

Chapman, H. (2021) Baptist seminary president’s guidance to Christians on vaccines still

drawing high readership, eight months after publication, (Aug. 11, 2021)
https://ci.uky.edu/kentuckyhealthnews/2021/08/11/baptist-seminary-presidents-guidance-to-
christians-on-vaccines-still-drawing-high-readership-eight-months-after-publication/

Ebralinag v. Cebu, G.R. NO. 95770, (1993)

Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, (2003)

German v. Barangan, G.R. No. L-68828, (1985)

Grabenstein JD. (2013) What the world's religions teach, applied to vaccines and immune
globulins. Vaccine. 2011-23.

Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819 (2014)

Khan, T. (2021) Muslim leaders and activists tackle opposition to COVID-19 vaccines,
(Jul. 12, 2021) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/news/article/muslim-vaccine-
response

Lovett, I. (2021) White Evangelicals Resist Covid-19 Vaccine Most Among Religious
Groups, (Jul. 28, 2021, 07:06 PM) https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-evangelicals-resist-covid-
19-vaccine-most-among-religious-groups-11627464601

Mardian, Y. (2021) et.al, Sharia (Islamic Law) Perspectives of COVID-19 Vaccines, (Dec.
20, 2021) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fitd.2021.788188/full#B3

Mohler, A. (2022) A mandate for constitutional government, (Feb. 14, 2022)

https://albertmohler.com/2022/02/14/a-mandate-for-constitutional-government

Ph. Const. Art. III, Sec. 5

 Pope Francis, Twitter.com (Aug 18,2021, 02:09 PM)
https://twitter.com/pontifex/status/1427875189509984261?lang=en

Valenciano v. QC Hall, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC (2017)

Vatican News, Vatican CDF says use of anti-Covid vaccines “morally acceptable” (Dec.
21, 2020 12:18 AM) https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2020-12/vatican-cdf-
note-covid-vaccine-morality-abortion.html

Vile, J. (n.d) Benevolent Neutrality,

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/826/benevolent-neutrality