Issue: Whether or not requiring the Seventh-day Adventist Church members to attend classes (for

students in public and private schools) and employees (in public and private firms) to work on Saturday

as the day of their worship violate their Religious Freedom.

Rule:
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes

freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others

and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and

observance.” Article 18.

2. “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” Art. II, Sec. 6, 1987 Philippine

Constitution.

3. “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.” Art. III, Sec.5, 1987 Philippine Constitution.

4. Estrada v. Escritor, AM No. P‐02‐1651, August 4, 2003, June 20, 2006

Facts: Escritor, a member of the Jehovah’s Witness, was charged for immoral conduct for

co‐habiting with a man without the benefit of a marriage, their relationship bearing a child. She secured

a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness,” indicating their church’s approval of their union in accordance
with the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witness.

Issues: Whether or not Escritor may be sanctioned in light of the Free Exercise clause.

Ruling: No. The state has the burden of satisfying the “compelling state interest” test to justify

any possible sanction to be imposed upon Escritor. This test involves three steps:

(1) The courts should look into the sincerity of the religious belief without inquiring into the truth of

the belief.

(2) The state has to establish that its purposes are legitimate and compelling.

(2) The state used the least intrusive means possible. The case was remanded to the Office of the

Court Administrator so that the government would have the opportunity to demonstrate the compelling

state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing Escritor’s position that her conjugal arrangement is not

immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection. Since neither Estrada,

Escritor nor the government has filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the August 4, 2003 ruling,

the 2003 decision has attained finality and constitutes the law of the case. Any attempt to reopen this

ruling constitutes a contravention of elementary rules of procedure. Worse, insofar as it would overturn

the parties’ right to rely upon the Supreme Court’s interpretation which has long attained finality, it also

runs counter to substantive due process.

In its June 20, 2006 ruling, the Supreme Court held that, Escritor’s sincerity is beyond serious

doubt. She procured the certificate 10 years after their union began and not merely after being

implicated. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred position in the

hierarchy of rights. The state’s broad interest in protecting the institutions of marriage and the family is

not a compelling interest enforcing the concubinage charges against Escritor.

The Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for

accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. Even assuming that there

was a compelling state interest, the state failed to show evidence that the means the state adopted in
pursuing this compelling interest is the least restrictive to Escritor’s religious freedom.

Hence, Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption

from the law based on her right to freedom of religion.

5. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)

Facts: Appellant(Adeil Sherbert), a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, was

discharged by her South Carolina employer because she would not work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day

of her faith. She was unable to obtain other employment because she would not work on Saturday, and

she filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment

Compensation Act, which provides that a claimant is ineligible for benefits if he has failed, without good

cause, to accept available suitable work when offered him. The State Commission denied appellant's

application on the ground that she would not accept suitable work when offered, and its action was

sustained by the State Supreme Court.

Issue: Did the denial of unemployment compensation violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Ruling: As so applied, the South Carolina statute abridged appellant's right to the free exercise

of her religion, in violation of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth

Amendment. Pp. 399-410.

(a) Disqualification of appellant for unemployment compensation benefits, solely because of her

refusal to accept employment in which she would have to work on Saturday contrary to her religious

belief, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion. Pp. 403-406.

(b) There is no compelling state interest enforced in the eligibility provisions of the South

Carolina statute which justifies the substantial infringement of appellant's right to religious freedom

under the First Amendment. Pp. 406-409.

(c) This decision does not foster the "establishment" of the Seventh-Day Adventist religion in South
Carolina contrary to the First Amendment. Pp. 409-410.

6. Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256 ; G.R. NO. 95770; 1
MAR 1993.
Facts: Two special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition were filed

and consolidated for raising same issue. Petitioners allege that the public

respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of

discretion. Respondents ordered expulsion of 68 HS and GS students of Bantayan,

Pinamungajan, Caracar, Taburan and Asturias in Cebu. Public school authorities

expelled these students for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and

recite the “Panatang Makabayan” required by RA1265. They are Jehovah’s 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.

The respondents relied on the precedence of Gerona et al v. Secretary of

Education. Gerona doctrine provides that we are a system of separation of the

church and state and the flag is devoid of religious significance and it doesn’t involve

any religious ceremony. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the

Constitution does not mean exception from non-discriminatory laws like the saluting

of flag and singing national anthem. This exemption disrupts school discipline and

demoralizes the teachings of civic consciousness and duties of citizenship.

Issue: Whether or Not religious freedom has 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 one’s 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.

The 30 yr old previous GERONA decision of expelling and dismissing students and

teachers who refuse to obey RA1265 is violates exercise of freedom of speech and

religious profession and worship. Jehovah’s 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 doesn’t present

any danger so evil and imminent to justify their expulsion. What the petitioner’s

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 citizen’s 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.