U.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5, Art. III. 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.
Religion
defined
·
“any specific system of belief, worship,
conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and philosophy” (defined by
Cruz)
·
In Aglipay vs Ruiz religion is
defined as “a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates
man to his Creator.
Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the
Constitution
(1) Non-establishment clause
(2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship
1.
Non-establishment Clause
- reinforces Sec.
6, Art. II on the separation of church and State
- other provisions
which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or
denomination cannot be registered as a political party], Sec 5(2), Art.
VI [no sectoral representative from the religious sector], and Sec
29 (2), Art. VI [prohibition against the use of public money or
property for the benefit of any religion, or of any priest, minister or
ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI [exemption from taxation of
properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes,
Sec 4(2), Art XIV [citizenship requirement of ownership of
educational institutions except those owned by religious groups], Sec
29(2), Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is employed in
the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned orphanage or
leprosarium]
Scope: The State
(a) cannot set up a church;
(b) cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or
prefer one over another;
(c) cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from
church against his will; nor
(d) force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
religion.
Rationale:
·
to delineate boundaries between the
two institutions; and
·
to avoid encroachment by one against the
other.
- A union of
Church and State would either:
◦
tend
to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
◦
result in a conspiracy because of its
composite strength
- separation of
church and state is not a wall of hostility
- The Government
is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and disparages none.
- Freedom of
religion includes freedom from religion; the right to worship includes
right not to worship
Two values sought to be
protected by the non-establishment clause:
(1) Voluntarism – the growth of a religious sect as a social force must
come from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief that both
spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to compete
on their own intrinsic merit without benefit of official patronage.
(2) Insulation of the
political process from interfaith dissension –
voluntarism cannot be achieved unless the political process is insulated from
religion and unless religion is insulated politics.
|
Engel vs Vitale
|
recitation by
students in public schools in New York of a prayer composed by the Board of
Regents was unconstitutional
|
|
Everson vs Board
of Education
|
US Supreme Court
sustained the law providing free transportation for all schoolchildren
without discrimination, including those attending parochial schools
|
|
Board of
Education vs Allen
|
US Supreme Court
sustained the law requiring the petitioner to lend textbooks free of charge
to all students from grades 7-12, including those attending private schools
|
|
In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given
directly to the student and parents, not to the church-related school
|
|
Adong vs Cheong
Seng Gee
|
in line with the
constitutional principle of equal treatment of all religions, the State
recognizes the validity of marriages performed in conformity with the rites
of Mohammedan religion
|
|
Rubi vs
Provincial Board
|
the expression
“non-Christian” in “non-Christian tribes” was not meant to discriminate. It
refers to degree of civilization, not to the religious belief.
|
|
Islamic Da'wah
Council of the Philippines vs Office of Exec. Sec.
|
by arrogating to
itself the task of issuing halal certifications, the State has, in effect,
forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunna on halal
food.
|
·
Intramural Religious Dispute – outside the jurisdiction of the secular
authorities
|
Gonzales vs Archbishop of Manila
|
where a civil
right depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, the
civil tribunal tries the civil right and nothing more.
|
|
Fonacier v CA
|
where the dispute
involves the property rights of the religious group, or the relations of the
members where the property rights are involved, the civil courtws may assume
jurisdiction.
|
2. Free Exercise Clause
Two Aspects of Free Exercise Clause:
1. Freedom to Believe
(a)
absolute
(b)
includes
not to believe
(c) “everyone has a
right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot
prove what he believes”
2. Freedom to Act
According to One's Beliefs
(a)
happens
when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions
(b)
subject
to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of others
(c)
Justice
Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated
disabilities, it did not create new privileges... its essence is freedom from
conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of
religious dogma
|
German vs Barangan
|
SC found that
petitioners were not sincere in their profession of religious liberty and
were using it merely to express their opposition to the government
|
|
Ebralinag vs
division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
|
SC reversed
Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. , and upheld the right of petitioners to refute to
salute the Philippine flag on account of their religious scruples. To compel students to take part in a flag
ceremony when it is against their religious beliefs will violate their
religious freedom.
|
|
People vs Zosa
|
invocation of
religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed aside by
the SC
|
|
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers Union
|
SC upheld the
validity of RA 3350, exempting members of a religious sect from being
compelled to join a labor union
|
|
American Bible Society vs City of Manila
|
the
constitutional guarantee of free exercise carries with it the right to disseminate
information, and any restraint of such right can be justified only on the
ground that there is a clear and
present danger of an evil which the State has the right to prevent;
Hence, City
ordinance imposing license fees to on sale is inapplicable to the society
|
|
Tolentino vs Sec.
of Finance
|
the free exercise
clause does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on
the sale of religious materials;
the registration
fee is not imposed for the exerise of a privilege, but only for the purpose
of defraying part of the cost of registration
|
·
Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vs
Escritor]
·
the
constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu a benevolent
neutrality (which recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals
and interests, but at the same time, strive to uphold religious liberty to the
greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits
·
benevolent
neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on religion provided it
does not offend the compelling state interest test.
·
two
steps (as regards the test):
▪ inquire whether
respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdened; and
▪ ascertain
respondent's sincerity in her religious belief.
·
In
Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos, the Court held that solicitiations for
religious purposes requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is not included
in solicitations for “charitable or public welfare purposes.”
Religious
Tests
·
Purpose:
to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from exercising
his civil of political rights because of his religious beliefs.
·
In
Pamil v. Teleron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is
questioned whether or not it is consistent with the religious clause of the
Constitution. Said Code disqualifies an
“ecclesiastic” from being elected or appointed to a municipal office. Seven Justices voted to consider this a
prohibited “religious test.” Five
justices said it is not a religious test but a safeguard against the constant
threat of union of Church and State that has marked the Philippine
history. (Hence, since the majority vote
needed under the 1973 Constitution to nullify a statute was not reached, the
disqualification remains enforceable.)
|
People vs Zosa
|
invocation of
religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed aside by
the SC
|
