Separation of

Church and State

Laicite
Non-Establishment
Estrada v. Escritor
Laïcité
1. Secularism or the absence of religious involvement in
government affairs, especially the prohibition of religious
influence in the determination of state policies;
2. the absence of government involvement in religious
affairs, especially the prohibition of government
influence in the determination of religion
3. Historically refers to the removal of religious teachers
and instruction from elementary schools
4. the government must refrain from taking positions on
religious doctrine and only consider religious subjects for
their practical consequences on inhabitants' lives.
Non-establishment principle
The state cannot set up a church,
pass laws that aid one religion or
prefer one over another. (Everson v.
Board of Education, 30 US 1)
Constitutional Provisions
1. Non-establishment and free exercise clauses
(Section 5, Article III)
2. Non-registration as political party of a sect or
denomination (Section 2[5], Article IX-C)
3. Disqualification as sectoral representative of a
religious leader (Section 5[2], Article VI)
4. Prohibition on use of public funds to benefit
religion (Section 29[2], Article VI)
“Exceptions”
1. Exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly
and exclusively used for religious purposes (Sec 28 [3],
Article VI)
2. Exception to citizenship requirement of ownership of
educational institutions when established by religious
groups (Section 4[2], Article XIV)
3. Optional religious instruction in public elementary and
high schools (Section 3[3], Article XIV)
4. Allowance of appropriation to pay ministers and
ecclesiastics assigned to the AFP, penal institution of
government-owned orphanage or leprosarium (Section
29[2], Article VI)
Church Insulation from
State Control
The expulsion or excommunication of
members of a religious institution is
a matter best left to the discretion of
the officials, the laws and canons of
such institution. It is for members of
religious institutions. (Taruc v.
Bishop Porfirio de la Cruz, G.R. No.
114801, March 10, 2005)
Free Exercise
1. Right to believe is absolute
2. Right to act on one’s beliefs is
subject to regulation
Cases on Free Exercise

1. Refusal to salute the Philippine flag

on account of religious scruples
(Ebralinag v. Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu,
overturning Gerona v. Secretary of
Education)
2. Prohibition from joining labor
unions (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope
Workers, 59 SCRA 54)
Right to Proselytize and the Clear and Present

Danger Test

1. Invalidation of ordinance imposing fees

on religious materials (American Bible Society
v. Manila; note Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance where the SC
upheld the constitutionality of VAT on sale of religious
articles)
2. The right to disseminate may only be
restrained upon a showing of a clear
and present danger of an evil which the
State has the right to present (INC v. CA)
Lemon Test
1. it has a secular legislative purpose;
2. it neither advances nor inhibits
religion; and
3. it does not foster an excessive
entanglement with religion.
Estrada v. Escritor, The Compelling State
Interest Test

1. Administrative charge of
immorality for living with a married
man not her husband;
2. “Declaration of Pledging
Faithfulness”
Benevolent Neutrality Approach
1. Recognition that the 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
2. I.e., while promotion of morality may be a
secular purpose, benevolent neutrality may
accommodate religious (adjusted) morality
provided it does not offend compelling state
interest (necessity + least restrictive means)
3. Burden-Sincerity Test
2006 Resolution, “to subscribe to the
infinite”
1. Escritor made out a case for exemption from
the law. The burden is great and the sincerity is
unquestionable
2. In the area of religious exercise as a preferred
freedom, man stands accountable to an
authority higher than the state, and so the
state interest sought to be upheld must be so
compelling that the violation will erode the very
fabric of the state that will also protect the
freedom.
Independent Foreign
Policy
Self-Reliant and
Independent
Economic Order
Tanada v. Angara
Tanada v. Angara
1. That the WTO Agreement violates the mandate
of the Constitution to develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos, give preference to
qualified Filipinos and promote the preferential
use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and
locally produced goods.
2. That the “national treatment” and “parity
provisions” of the WTO Agreement place
nationals and products of member countries on
the same footing as Filipinos and local
products, in contravention of the “Filipino First”
policy.
Tanada v. Angara
1. The WTO Agreement is not
unconstitutional. Section 19, Article II
and sections 10 and 12 of Article of
Article XII should be read in relation to
Sections 1 and 13 of Article XII;
2. Article II as not self-executing principles
ready for enforcement;
3. Lack of judicial authority to wade into
the uncharted ocean of social and
economic policy making
Section 19, Article II
To develop a self-reliant and Sections 1 and 13,
independent national Article XII
economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos. Pursuit of a trade
Sections and 10 policy that serves the
…In the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions general welfare and
covering the national utilizes all forms and
economy and patrimony, the
State shall give preference to arrangements of
qualified Filipinos. exchange on the basis
Section 12, Article XII of equality and
promote the preferential use of
Filipino labor, domestic reciprocity
materials and locally
produced goods,
Social Justice
Article II
 Just and dynamic social order (Section 9)
 Social Justice in all phases of national development (Section
10)
 Full respect for human rights (Section 11)
 Protection of labor as a primary social economic force (Section
18)
 Agrarian Reform (Section 21)
Article XIII
1. Social Justice and Human Rights
a. Labor
b. Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform
c. Urban Land Reform and Housing
d. Health, Women
e. People’s Organizations
f. Human Rights
Social Justice as Protection
1. More in law to those who have less
in life
2. “not equality but protection”
(Ondoy v. Ignacio, 97 SCRA 611)
Calalang v. Williams
1. Not communism, despotism,
atomism or anarchy;
2. Humanization of laws;
3. Equalization of social and economic
forces by the State;
4. In that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may
at least be approximated.
1. Promotion n of the welfare of the people;
2. Adoption of measures to insure economic
stability of all elements of society;
3. Maintenance of proper economic and social
equilibrium;
4. Through measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally through the powers underlying
the existence of governments “salus populi est
suprema lex”
Association of Small Landowners v. Sec. of
Agrarian Reform

1. Constitutionality of the CARP Law

2. Due Process (Property Rights)
3. Equal Protection (Singling out of Agri
land owners)
4. Improper Eminent Domain exercise
5. No just compensation (payment should
be in money)
“To the extent that the measures under
challenge merely prescribe retention
limits for landowners, there is an exercise
of the police power for the regulation of
private property in accordance with the
Constitution. But where, to carry out such
regulation, it becomes necessary to
deprive such owners of whatever lands
they may own in excess of the maximum
area allowed, there is definitely a taking
under the power of eminent domain …”
“ However, we do not deal here with the
traditional excercise of the power of
eminent domain. This is not an ordinary
expropriation where only a specific
property of relatively limited area is
sought to be taken by the State from its
owner for a specific and perhaps local
purpose.
What we deal with here is a revolutionary
kind of expropriation.”
Balanced and Healthful
Ecology
Oposa v. Factoran
Oposa v. Factoran
 The plaintiffs in this case are all
minors duly represented and joined
by their parents.
 To cancel all existing Timber License
Agreement (TLA) in the country and
to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new TLAs.
Oposa v. Factoran on Standing
 The complaint focuses on one
fundamental legal right -- the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology which is
incorporated in Section 16 Article II of the
Constitution. The said right carries with it
the duty to refrain from impairing the
environment and implies, among many
other things, the judicious management
and conservation of the country's forests
Intergenerational Responsibility
 We find no difficulty in ruling that they can (represent the
generations yet unborn), for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit.
Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means
the created world in its entirety.
 Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the
judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters,
fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to
the end that their exploration, development and utilization be
equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.
 While the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the
Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political
rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right
belongs to a different category of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and
fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the
advancement of which may even be said to
predate all governments and constitutions.
Feliciano, concurring opinion
 The Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of
Article II of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially
enforceable even in their present form. The implications of this
doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those
implications are too large and far-reaching in nature even to be
hinted at here.
 It seems to me important that the legal right which is an
essential component of a cause of action be a specific, operable
legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at
least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed
to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in
operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend
themselves intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are
due process dimensions to this matter.
Autonomy of Local
Governments
Sema v. Comelec
Whether Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054,
delegating to the ARMM Regional Assembly the
power to create provinces, cities, municipalities
and barangays, is constitutional; and if in the
affirmative, whether a province created by the
ARMM Regional Assembly under MMA Act 201
pursuant to Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 is
entitled to one representative in the House of
Representatives without need of a national law
creating a legislative district for such province."
Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, insofar as it grants to
the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create
provinces and cities, is void… Only Congress can create
provinces and cities because the creation of provinces and
cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative
districts, a power only Congress can exercise ... The ARMM
Regional Assembly cannot create a province without a
legislative district because the Constitution mandates that
every province shall have a legislative district. Moreover,
the ARMM Regional Assembly cannot enact a law creating
a national office like the office of a district representative
of Congress because the legislative powers of the ARMM
Regional Assembly operate only within its territorial
jurisdiction as provided in Section 20, Article X of the
Constitution.
Autonomy v. Sovereignty
1. Local autonomy means
decentralization. It does not make
the LGUs sovereign within the
State or an imperium in imperio
(Basco v. Pagcor, 197 SCRA 52;
see also North Cotabato v. GRP)
Decentralization of Administration v.
Decentralization of Power
Decentralization of Administration is the
delegation of administrative powers to the
LGUs in order to broaden the base of
government powers
Decentralization of Power is the abdication
by the national government of
governmental powers (Limbonas v.
Mangelin, 170 SCRA 786)
The Legislative Dept and LGUs
 Powers incidental (and not expressly
vested in the LGUs by the
Constitution) to the grant of
autonomy is limited to the “power of
control” by the national government
through the Congress. (Dadole v.
COA, G.R. No. 125350, December 3,
2002)
The Executive Dept and the LGUs
1. The President exercises power of
general supervision, and not power
of control, over the LGUs.
2. Otherwise, the principles of local
autonomy and separation of
powers will be violated (Dadole v.
COA)
Transparency
Chavez v PCGG
Valmonte v. Belmonte
Freedom of Information
Chavez v. PCGG
1. That respondents make public any and all
negotiations and agreements pertaining to
PCGGs task of recovering the Marcoses ill-
gotten wealth. He claims that any compromise
on the alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth
involves an issue of paramount public interest,
since it has a debilitating effect on the countrys
economy that would be greatly prejudicial to
the national interest of the Filipino people.
2. The matter of recovering the ill-gotten wealth
of the Marcoses is an issue of transcendental
importance to the public
In “splendid symmetry”
 Sec. 7, Article III. The right of the people to information
on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
 Sec. 28, Article II. Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a
policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.
“Recognized limitations on the right to
information”:
 National Security Matters
 Trade secrets and banking transactions
 Criminal matters
"that it is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well
as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient
public information on any proposed settlement they have
decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders
of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must
pertain to definite propositions of the government,
not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency
recommendations or communications during the stage
when common assertions are still in the process of being
formulated or are in the "exploratory" stage.
on on-going evaluation or review
of bids or proposals being
undertaken by the bidding or review
committee is not immediately
accessible under the right to
information. While the evaluation or
review is still on-going, there are no
"official acts, transactions, or
decisions" on the bids or proposals.
Valmonte v. Belmonte
1. The right to information is an essential premise
of a meaningful right to speech and expression.
2. The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the
government and its employees and the
administrator of various insurance programs for
the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds
assume a public character.
3. The public nature of the loanable funds of the
GSIS and the public office held by the alleged
borrowers make the information sought clearly
a matter of public interest and concern. No law
on confidentiality of these funds
When the information requested from the
government intrudes into the privacy of a
citizen, a potential conflict between the rights to
information and to privacy may arise. However,
the competing interests of these rights need not
be resolved in this case. Apparent from the
above-quoted statement of the Court in Morfe is
that the right to privacy belongs to the individual
in his private capacity, and not to public and
governmental agencies like the GSIS. Moreover,
the right cannot be invoked by juridical entities
like the GSIS.