Magno, Ihra Faith C.

JD III
Ebralinag v Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No. 9577O | December 29, 1995 Facts: Petitioners were minor children and members of the sect, Jehovahs witnesses (assisted by their parents) who were expelled form their classes by various public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA No 1265 of July 11, 1955 and by DO No. 8 dated July 21, 1955 issued by the Department of Education. Aimed primarily at private educational institutions which did not observe the flag ceremony exercises, Republic Act No. 1265 penalizes all educational institutions for failure or refusal to observe the flag ceremony with public censure on first offense and cancellation of the recognition or permit on second offense. The implementing regulations issued by the Department of Education thereafter detailed the manner of observance of the same. Immediately pursuant to these orders, school officials in Masbate expelled children belonging to the sect of the Jehovah's Witnesses from school for failing or refusing to comply with the flag ceremony requirement. Upholding religious freedom as a fundamental right deserving the "highest priority and amplest protection among human rights Issue: Whether religious freedom has been violated? Ruling: Yes. The freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution should be seen as the rule, not the exception. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority. The two (2) fold aspect of right to religious worship is: 1) freedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought; and 2) freedom to act on ones belief regulated and translated to external acts. The only limitation to religious freedom is the existence of grave and present danger to public safety, morals, health and interests where State has right to prevent. The refusal of the children to participate in the flag salute ceremony would not interfere with or deny the rights of other school children to do so. It bears repeating that their absence from the ceremony hardly constitutes a danger so grave and imminent as to warrant the state's intervention. The 30 yr old previous GERONA decision of expelling and dismissing students and teachers who refuse to obey RA1265 violates exercise of freedom of speech and religious profession and worship. Jehovahs Witnesses may be exempted from observing the flag ceremony but this right does not give them the right to disrupt such ceremonies. In the case at bar, the students expelled

were only standing quietly during ceremonies. By observing the ceremonies quietly, it doesnt present any danger so evil and imminent to justify their expulsion. What the petitioners request is exemption from flag ceremonies and not exclusion from public schools. The expulsion of the students by reason of their religious beliefs is also a violation of a citizens right to free education. The non-observance of the flag ceremony does not totally constitute ignorance of patriotism and civic consciousness. Love for country and admiration for national heroes, civic consciousness and form of government are part of the school curricula. Therefore, expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified. Thus, the expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified.

Estrada v Escritor A.M. No. P-02-1651 | August 4, 2003 Facts: Complainant Alejandro Estrada requested to RTC Br 253 of Las Pinas for an investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. Estrada is not personally related either to Escritor or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the charge against Escritor as he believes that she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court. Respondent Escritor testified that when she entered the judiciary, she was already a widow. She admitted that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage for twenty years and that they have a son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness. At the time Escritor executed her pledge, her husband was still alive but living with another woman. Quilapio was likewise married at that time, but had been separated in fact from his wife. However, Escritors and Quilapios declarations were approved by the congregation where they belong. Respondent Escritor reiterates the validity of her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio based on the belief and practice of her religion, the Jehovahs Witnesses Estrada in his part contented that even assuming arguendo that the declaration is valid and binding in Escritors congregation, it is binding only to her co-members in the congregation and serves only the internal purpose of displaying to the rest of the congregation that she and her mate are a respectable and morally upright couple. Issue: Whether Escritors right to religious freedom should carve out an exception from the prevailing jurisprudence on illicit relations for which government employees are held administratively liable? Ruling: No. The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. The free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in our Constitution. As Jefferson put it, it is the most inalienable and sacred of human rights. The States interest in enforcing its prohibition cannot be merely abstract or symbolic in order to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh a free exercise claim. In the case at bar, the State has not evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the concubinage or bigamy charges against respondent

or her partner. Thus the States interest only amounts to the symbolic preservation of an unenforced prohibition. A distinction between public and secular morality and religious morality should be kept in mind. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests. It still remains to be seen if respondent is entitled to such doctrine as the state has not been afforded the chance has demonstrate the compelling state interest of prohibiting the act of respondent. Benevolent neutrality is inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause as far as it prohibits such exercise given a compelling state interest. It is the respondents stance that the respondents conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection. Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, the Courts action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom. The Court cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondents claim of religious freedom, but must instead apply the compelling state interest test. The government must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of demonstrating the states compelling interest which can override respondents religious belief and practice. Assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest, it has to further demonstrate that the state has 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. Thus the conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for it constitutes an exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of religion. Thus, the case is remanded to the RTC.