freedom of religion

FREEDOM OF RELIGION A.C. No. L-350. August 7, 1959 Genaro Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al. 106 Phil 2 FACTS: RA 1265 is a law that makes a flag ceremony compulsory for schools. The implementing

rule Dep Order 8 says that the anthem must be played while the flag is raised. It also says that everyone must salute the flag and no one is to do anything while the ceremony is being held. After the flag everyone is to recite the patriotic pledge. Geronas children attending the Buenavista Community School in Uson, Masbate refused to salute the flag, sing the anthem and recite the pledge. They did not do so out of religious belief. They are Jehovah's Witnesses. They consider the flag to be an image in the context of what is prohibited in their religion and because of this they were expelled from the school. Gerona wrote to Sec of Ed that their children be exempt from the law and just be allowed to remain silent and stand at attention. Sec of Ed denied the petition. Writ of preliminary injunction was petitioned and issued.
ISSUE: Is Dep Order 8 unconstitutional? RULING: Flag salute ceremony is secular and the dep order non-

Discriminatory therefore it is constitutional. The freedom of belief is limitless and boundless but its exercise is not. If the belief clashes with law then the former must yield. Petitioners salute the flag during boy scout activities. Their objection then rests on the singing of anthem and recitation of pledge. The pledge is judged to be completely secular. It does not even pledge allegiance to the flag or to the Republic. The anthem is also secular. It talks about patriotism. It does not speak of resorting to force, military service, or duty to defend the country. There was no compulsion involved in the enforcement of the flag salute. They were not criminally prosecuted under a penal sanction. If they chose not to obey the salute regulation they merely lost the benefits of public education.
330 US 1 February 10, 1947 Arch R Everson v. Board of Education Facts: NJ enacted a law that gave School Dist authority to make rules and cases pertaining to the

transportation of children to and from schools. Board of Ed authorized reimbursement of money paid by parents for bus transportation of their kids who rode public transit to school. Some of this money was paid for the transportation of some kids to parochial schools Catholic.

Issue: Whether the NJ statute or the Board resolution, authorizing the reimbursement of tax

funds to parents with students of parochial schools, unconstitutionally regulates the establishment of religion?
Ruling: No, under the facts the 1

Amend does not bar NJ from spending tax funds to pay the bus fares of parochial students under a general program that reimburses the fares of students who attend other schools. As a general program NJ law is neutral in its application.
319 US 624 June 14, 1943 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette Facts. In 1942, the Petitioner adopted a rule that forced all teachers and pupils to pledge

st

allegiance the nations flag each day. If the student refused he would be found insubordinate and expelled from school. He would not be readmitted to school until he conformed. Meanwhile, he was considered to be unlawfully absent and subject to delinquency hearings. The parents could be fined $50 per day with a jail term not to exceed 30 days. The Respondent asked for an exception for all Jehovahs Witnesses because this pledge goes against their religious belief. But he was denied an exception. Issue. Does this rule compelling a pledge violate the First Amendment of the Constitution?
Ruling: Yes. Compelling a salute to the flag infringes upon an individual s intellect and right to

choose their own beliefs. The majority focuses on the right of persons to choose beliefs and act accordingly. As long as the actions do not present a clear and present danger of the kind the state is allowed to prevent, then the Constitution encourages diversity of thought and belief. The state has not power to mandatee allegiance in hopes that it will encourage patriotism. This is something the citizens will choose or not.
G.R. NO. 95770 March 1, 1993 Ebralinag v division superintendent of schools of cebu 219 SCRA 256

FACTS: Respondents ordered expulsion of 68 HS and GS students of Cebu. Public school authorities expelled these students for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the pledge required by RA1265. They are Jehovahs Witnesses believing that by doing these is religious worship/devotion akin to idolatry against their teachings. They contend that to compel transcends constitutional limits and invades protection against official control and religious freedom.
Issue: Has religious freedom been violated? Held: Religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority.

The 2 fold aspect of right to religious worship is: 1.) Freedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought. 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 expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified. 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 flagceremonies 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 theschool curricula. Therefore, expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified. Expulsion is ANNULLED.
G.R. NO. 45459 MARCH 13, 1937 AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ 64 PHIL 201 Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts

from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner contends that such act is a violation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any church, system of religion, etc. This provision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church, or vice versa, as a weapon to further their ends and aims. Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government.
Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion. Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious

toleration. It is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. The phrase in Act No. 4052 advantageous to the government does not authorize violation of the Constitution. The issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. They were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. The postage stamps, instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila, with the words Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress. The focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila, being the seat of that congress. This was to to advertise the Philippines

and attract more tourists, the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance. Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church, any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the Government.
G.R. No. 113092 September 1, 1994 MARTIN CENTENO, vs. HON. VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS 236 SCRA 197 Facts: The officers of a group of elderly men of a civic organization known as the

Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the chapel of Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. Martin Centeno, the chairman of the group, approached Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, a resident of Tikay, and solicited from her a contribution of P1,500.00. It is admitted that the solicitation was made without a permit from the Department of Social Welfare and Development. As a consequence, an information was filed against Centeno, for violation of PD No. 1564 or the Solicitation Permit Law. Centeno filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute an offense, claiming that PD No. 1564 only covers solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes, but not those made for a religious purpose such as the construction of a chapel. Issue: Should the phrase "charitable purposes" be construed in its broadest sense so as to include a religious purpose? Ruling: No and that legislative enactments specifically spelled out "charitable" and "religious" in an enumeration, whereas Presidential Decree No. 1564 merely stated "charitable or public welfare purposes," only goes to show that the framers of the law in question never intended to include solicitations for religious purposes within its coverage. Otherwise, there is no reason why it would not have so stated expressly. Solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of police power. However, in the case at bar, considering that solicitations intended for a religious purpose are not within the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 1564, as earlier demonstrated, petitioner cannot be held criminally liable therefor and therefore acquitted.
Cox v. New Hampshire 312 U.S. 569 (1941) Facts: A group of Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted for engaging in a public parade without

obtaining a permit. The defendants assembled at their church and divided into smaller groups that marched along sidewalks, displayed signs, and handed out leaflets announcing a later meeting. They claimed that their Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated including their rights to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly.
Issue: Whether time, place, and manner restrictions on holding a parade violate the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly. Ruling: No. A unanimous Supreme Court, via Justice Charles Evans Hughes, held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable

time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. The Court held that the New Hampshire law was not meant to prohibit speech, but simply to regulate it when it took the form of a parade or other form of large gathering. The Court said that the government had a legitimate interest in keeping order at such events, and it could impose a fee for the license that was proportional to the amount of police presence that would be required to ensure the peaceable nature of the event. G.R. L-5917 JANUARY 28, 1955 FONACIER VS. COURT OF APPEALS 96 PHIL 417 Facts: Case was filed by Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI), represented by its supreme bishop

Gerardo Bayaca, against Bishop Fonacier seeking to render an accounting of his administration of all the temporal properties and to recover the same on the ground that he ceased to be the supreme bishop of IFI. Isabelo De los Reyes Jr. had been elected as the Supreme Bishop. Petitioner claims that he was not properly removed as Supreme Bishop and his legal successor was Juan Jamias. He claims that the there was anaccounting of his administration and was turned over to bishop Jamias. Also, that Isabelo De los Reyes and Bayaca have abandoned their faith and formally joined the Prostestant Episcopal Church of America. CFI rendered judgment declaring Isabelo De Los Reyes, Jr. as the sole and legitimate Supreme Bishop of IFI and ordered Fonacier to render anaccounting of his admistration. CA affirmed the decision of the CFI Issue: Whether or not the petitioner should still be regarded as the legitimate supreme bishop of IFI. Held: Supreme Court affirmed CAs decision. The legitimate Supreme Bishop of IFI is Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr. The Supreme Court affirms the validity of the election of Bishop Delos Reyes as the Supreme Bishop based on their internal laws To finally dispose of the property issue, the Court, citing Watson v. Jones,368 declared that the rule in property controversies within religious congregations strictly independent of any other superior ecclesiastical association (such as the Philippine Independent Church) is that the rules for resolving such controversies should be those of any voluntary association. If the congregation adopts the majority rule then the majority should prevail; if it adopts adherence to duly constituted authorities within the congregation, then that should be followed.
G.R. L-53487 MAY 25, 1981 GARCES VS. ESTENZO 104 SCRA 510 Facts: Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City were passed. These

resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and projects were implemented. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea refused to return the image to the barangay council, as it was

the churchs property since church funds were used in its acquisition. Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image. Resolution No. 12 appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case. The priest, in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest with Andres Garces, a member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that Sec. 8 Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated. Issue: Was any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated. Held: No. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the image. The image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or beliefs of the barrio residents. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint(such as the acquisition) is not illegal. Practically, the image was placed in a laymans custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. It was the councils funds that were used to buy the image, therefore it is their property. Right of the determination of custody is their right, and even if they decided to give it to the Church, there is no violation of the Constitution , since private funds were used. Not every government 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.
G.R. NO. 68828 MARCH 27, 1985 GERMAN VS. BARANGAN 135 SCRA 514 Facts: Petitioners converged at J.P. Laurel Street to hear Mass at the

St. Jude Chapel, which adjoined Malacaang. Respondent barred them for security reasons. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus. Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the constitutional freedom. Held: Petitioners' intention was not really to perform an act of religious worship but to conduct an anti- government demonstration since they wore yellow T-shirts, raised their clenched fists and shouted anti- government slogans. While every citizen has the right to religious freedom, the exercise must be done in good faith. Besides, the restriction was reasonable as it was designed to protect the lives of the President and his family, government officials and diplomatic and foreign guests transacting business with Malacanang. The restriction was also intended to secure the executive offices within the Malacanang grounds from possible external attacks and disturbances. (Minority opinion) The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of the freedom of religion is the existence of a 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 to prevent. The burden to show the existence of grave and imminent danger lies on the officials who would restrain petitioners. Respondents were in full control and had the capability to stop any untoward move. There was no clear and present danger of any serious evil to public safety or the security of Malacanang.

51 Phil 420 RAUL GONZALEZ v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA. Facts: Gonzalez brought the suit against the archbishop in the CFI of Manila and prayed for

judgment declaring that he, the lawful heir to the chaplaincy and its income; establishing the right of the petitioner and his successors to be appointed to and receive the income of the chaplaincy during their infancy whenever it may be vacant and, pending such appointment, to receive the income for their maintenance and support. The trial court directed the archbishop to appoint Gonzalez as chaplain; and ordered payment to him the sum being the aggregate net income of the chaplaincy during the vacancy, less the expense of having the prescribed masses celebrated in each year. It reserved to the petitioner any legal right he may have to proceed in the proper court for cancellation of the certificate of registration of the property in the name of the archbishop.
Issue: Is the Gonzalez legally entitled to be appointed the chaplain? Ruling: The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands reversed the judgment and absolved the

archbishop from the complaint, 'without prejudice to the right of proper persons in interest to proceed for independent relief,' in respect to the income accrued during the vacancy, or in respect to the reformation of the certificate of registration so as to show the fiduciary character of the title. Without deciding whether such disposition of the surplus was proper or what
should be its disposition in the future, that a son of the last incumbent, who was properly refused appointment as chaplain because he had not the qualifications prescribed by the Canon Law, was not entitled, as the nearest relative, to the accrued surplus. GR 119673 IGLESIA NI KRISTO vs. Court of Appeals Facts: Iglesia ni Cristo has a television program entitled "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" aired on Channel 2

every Saturday and on Channel 13 every Sunday. The program presents and propagates INC's religious beliefs, doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions. Sometime in the months of September, October and November 1992 INC submitted to the MTRCB the VTR tapes of its TV program. The Board classified the series as "X" or not for public viewing on the ground that they "offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law." Issue: Is a prior submission to MTRCB a case of prior restraint? Ruling: The records show that the decision of the respondent Board, affirmed by the CA is completely bereft of findings of facts to justify the conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute impermissible attacks against another religion. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the life of a reality already on ground. Finally, it is also opined that "the determination of the question as to whether or not such vilification, exaggeration or fabrication falls within or lies outside the boundaries of protected speech or expression is a judicial function which cannot be

arrogated by an administrative body such as a Board of Censors and that a system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies.