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