Section 4- ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

US vs Cruikshank

 Defendants were charged with hindering and preventing citizens from freely exercising their
right of assembly.
 SC declared the indictment as defective because it did not specify that the assembly was for the
purpose of petitioning the government.

De Jonge vs Oregon

 The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is
equally fundamental.

Since the right of assembly and petition is equally fundamental as freedom of expression, the standards
for allowable impairment of speech and press are also those for assembly and petition.

US vs Apurado

 A spontaneous gathering of some 500 men to demand the ouster of certain municipal officials.
 No permit was involved
 In a prosecution for sedition, the Court was willing to allow for a certain amount of disorder.
 If disorderly conduct occurs, guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor, but
utmost discretion must be exercised in drawing the line between disorderly conduct and
seditious conduct and between an essentially peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising.

Evangelista vs Earnshaw

 The limit to the tolerable amount of disorder was set in this case
 First leading case in public meetings
 Communist leader requested permission to hold a meeting in Plaza Moriones and the Mayor
refused permission and prohibited all Communist meetings. Previously, seditious speeches were
made urging the labouring class to unite by affiliating to the Communist Party to overthrow
present government.
 The Court upheld the Mayor’s refusal, claiming that if the effect of the act is seditious, the
constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition must yield to the
punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of the constituted authority, the
supremacy of the constitution and the laws and the existence of the state.
 Used the clear and present danger rule

Primacias vs Fugoso

 First case of public meetings under 1935 Constitution

 Petition for mandamus to compel Mayor to issue a permit for the holding of a public meeting at
Plaza Miranda as indignation rally in protest against the alleged fraud of the Liberal party. The
Mayor refused the permit as there was reasonable ground to believe based on the previous
 utterances and upon the fact that passions on the losing groups remain bitter and high and that
the speeches will tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government
and in the duly constituted authorities which might threaten breaches of the peace and
disruption of the public order
 The Court rejected the Mayor’s contention, pointing out that the right of the applicant to the
permit was subject only to his reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public
places to be used for that purpose and to minimize risk of disorder.
 There must be reasonable ground to believe that the serious evil will result if free speech is
practiced. There must be a reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is
imminent, and that the evil sought to be prevented is a serious one.

Ignacio vs Ela

 Members of the Jehovah witness was denied the permit to hold a meeting in the Kiosk of the
Public plaza of Zambales. The grant was instead given to them for the use of the northwestern
part of the plaza.
 The court upheld the grant as they were not denied their constitutional right to assemble, and
such right is subject to regulation to maintain public order and safety, as the tenets of their
congregation are derogatory to the Roman Catholic Church.

Navarro vs Villegas

 Student leader applied for a permit to hold a rally on a week-day at plaza Miranda, which the
Mayor offered to be conducted on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday instead, following the
background of the recent violent and disorderly student sponsored rallies. The mayor offered
Sunken gardens as an alternative location.
 The SC upheld the Mayor’s contention saying that he possessed reasonable discretion to
determine or specify the streets and public places to be used for the assembly in order to secure
convenient use thereof, and to minimize risks of disorder and maintain public safety and order

Rules on Assembly and Petition:

1. The applicant for permit should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place
where and the time when it will take place. For private place, only the consent of the owner or
the one entitled to its legal possession is required.
2. Application should be filed ahead in time to enable public official to appraise valid objections, if
any.
3. Clear and present danger test should be the standard for the decision reached.
4. Presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of liberty.
5. If the view is that there is such an imminent and grave danger of substantive evil, applicants
must be heard on the matter.
6. Decision must be transmitted to the applicants at the earliest opportunity, so they can have
recourse to the proper judicial authority.
Supreme Court Rule on Demonstrations in the vicinity of the Court
Demonstrators, picketers, rallyists and all other similar persons are enjoined from holding any activity on
the sidewalks and streets adjacent to, in front of, or within a radius of two hundred meters from, the
outer boundary of the Supreme Court building, any Hall of Justice and any other building that houses at
least one court sala.

 Challenges on the validity of the SC rule:

1. An arrogation of legislative power thereby violating separation of powers
2. It transgressed freedom of expression

Section 5 – FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Free Exercise and Non-establishment
 The twin clause express an underlying relational concept of separation between religion and
secular government.
 The determination of whether a certain ritual is or is not a religious ceremony must rest with the
Courts.
 Theistic definition of religion: Reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the
obligations that they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his
will.

Free Exercise Clause

 Basis is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.
 Reynolds vs US, landmark decision
o Adopted the rule that the Free Exercise Clause completely insulated the realm of belief
from state action, leaving religiously motivated action, including expression, subject to
police power.
 The judicial task in free exercise cases is one balancing the secular interest of the state with the
interest of religion.
o Balancing test to measure three elements of competing governmental interest.
1. The importance of the secular value underlying the governmental regulation
2. The degree of proximity and necessity that the chosen regulatory means bear to the
underlying value
3. The impact that an exemption for religious reasons would have over-all regulatory
program
o Two factor calculation:
1. The sincerity and importance of the religious practice for which special protection is
claimed
2. The degree to which the governmental regulation interferes with that practice
 Cantwell vs Connecticut
o Heart of the doctrine on freedom of religion:
 Forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of
any form of worship
 Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or
form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. It
safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.
 Two concepts:
o Freedom to believe – absolute. The government may look into
the good faith of a person but cannot inquire into the person’s
religious pretensions.
o Freedom to act – not absolute. The moment belief flows into
actions, it becomes subject to government regulation
 Whether an act is immoral or within the meaning of the statute is not to be
determined by the accused’s concept of morality. Congress has provided the
standard. The offense is complete if the accused intended to perform, and did in
fact perform, the act which the statute condemns.

 Employment Division vs Smith

o Fired by a private rehabilitation organization for ingesting peyote, a hallucinogenic drug,

for worship purposes for their Native American Church. Unemployment compensation
was denied on the legal ground that their dismissal was for work-related misconduct.
o Court upheld the disqualification and said that the free exercise clause permits the state
to prohibit peyote use and to deny unemployment benefits to those discharged for
violation of the prohibition.
o Religion clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that
incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act which his religious belief
requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is
otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified acts for non-
religious reasons.

 People vs Fabillar

o Old Marriage law, Section 34 was challenged on the ground that the power granted to
the Director of the National Library to enquire into the organization and doctrine of the
church or sect.
o SC ruled that the duty conferred is not enquiry but to distinguish and discriminate
between legitimacy of established religion and the one who pretends as such, as a
prerequisite to the issuance of a certificate of authority.
o The law does not prohibits or impairs the free exercise of any religion.
o Statute was an instance of police power.
 American Bible Society vs City of Manila
o Non-stock, non-profit, religious Missionary Corporation which sold bibles and gospel
portions of the bible. City of Manila attempted to compel them to obtain a Mayor’s
permit and municipal license required of those who engage in the business of general
merchandise.
o SC ruled that the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious
information. Any restraint of such right is a restraint of freedom of expression on the
grounds that there is a clear and present danger of the substantive evil that the State
has the right to prevent.

 Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance

o Philippine Bible Society questioned the validity of the registration provisions of the VAT
Law as a prior restraint.
o Court explained that the Free Exercise of religion clause does not prohibit imposing a
generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of religious materials by a religious
organization.
o The registration fee is thus a mere administrative fee , one not imposed on the exercise
of a privilege, much less a constitutional right

 Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos
o Solicitation of contributions in general, which may include contributions for religious
purposes, may be regulated by general law for the protection of the public.

 Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope

o Free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of
conflict, the former prevails.
o Religious freedom is a fundamental personal right and liberty, and has a preferred
position in the hierarchy of values.
o Only where unavoidably necessary to prevent immediate and grave danger to security
and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified,
and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.
o Religious conviction can be a justifiable basis for classification of special treatment.

 Iglesia ni Kristo v Gironella

o Freedom of religion implies respect for every creed.
o No one is privileged to characterize actuations of its adherents in a derogatory sense.
o Attacks about purely doctrinal matters invalidated the action of the censorship board

 Burden of proof in prior restraint cases

o In religious speech context, it can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the
clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the state is duty bound to
prevent, ie serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, morals or
welfare.
  Estrada vs Escritor
o A clerk of court was living with a man without benefit of marriage. Situation was
thought to be incompatible with her office in court and her dismissal was sought.
o The SC remanded the case to the Office of the Court Administrator and SolGen was
ordered to intervene in the case.
 Examine the sincerity and centrality of the respondent’s claimed religious belief
and practice
 Present evidence on the state’s compelling interest to override respondent’s
religious belief and practice
 Show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least
restrictive to respondent’s religious freedom.
 Basis was benevolent neutrality

Non establishment Clause

 State cannot establish or sponsor an official religion

1. Prohibits only direct support of institutional religion but not indirect support accumulating
to churches and church agencies through support given to members
2. Both direct and indirect aid to religion are prohibited only if the support involves preference
of one religion over another, or preference of religion over irreligion.

 Values sought to be protected

1. Voluntarism
a. Personal and social value.
i. Personal: Inviolability of the human conscience which is also protected by
the free exercise clause
ii. Social: Protected by non-establishment clause, the growth of a religious sect
as a social force must come from the voluntary support of its members 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

 Neutrality in Religious Matters

o 4 general propositions: (F-A-P-E)

1. Government must not prefer one religion over another because such preference
would violate voluntarism and breed dissension
 2. Government funds must not be applied to religious purposes because this would
violate voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension
3. Government action must not aid religion
4. Government action must not result in excessive entanglement with religion

o Religious liberty, not mere toleration is what’s guaranteed.

o Religious freedom is not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a
denial of its influence in human affairs.
o Municipal corporation has a dual character and the purchase of the statue is a
proprietary act

 Pamil vs Teleron

o Disqualification of ecclesiastics from being appointed or elected as municipal officer is

unconstitutional

Non-discriminatory concessions: tax exemptions and chaplaincies

 Non-profit cemeteries exempted from tax

 Actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes
 Only for taxes assessed as property taxes distinguished from excise taxes