You are on page 1of 7

Andres Garces, et. al, petitioners, vs. Numeriano G. Estenzo, et. al, respondents G.R.

L-53487 May 25, 1881 Facts: The case revolves around the Two resolutions of the Valencia Barangay Council, Ormoc City namely: Resolution No. 5; Reviving its traditional fiesta every fifth of April which allowed the barangay the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. The funds for such purpose will be raised through the selling of tickets and and solicit of cash donations and; Resolution No. 6 within which the fiesta chairman would be the caretaker of the procured image and that such would remain in his residence for one year and until the election of the next chairman. The image of San Vicente Ferrer was made made available to the local Catholic Church during the celebration of the saint’s feast day.

Sufficient amount of voters ratified the resolution, and said projects were implemented. The image, at the mean time, was placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio Marilao Osmeña, one of the respondents, refused to return the image to the council, as they contend that was church’s property already since church funds were used in its acquisition. 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. The CFI of Ormoc denied the motion of the respondents. A Petition from the judgement of the said Court was elevated to the Supreme Court.

and even if they decided to give it to the Church. were used to procure the image. since private funds. The use of public funds to buy religious items does not automatically mean that it is favouring the religious sect to which such image is associated. . the image was placed in a layman’s custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. not for the purpose of leaning to any religion or meddeling with religious beliefs residents. The Court held that the image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta. Ruling: No.Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated. there could be no Constitutional violation. and not church funds. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as the acquisition) is not illegal. Practically. The right of determining the custody of the procured image is within the council.

sing the national anthem and recite the “Panatang Makabayan” required by RA 1265.Ebralinag vs. The respondents. the freedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought and second. 1993 219 SCRA 261 Issue: Petitioners allege that the public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. It laid down the two fold aspect of right to religious worship is first. The petitioners contend that to require them to participate in such acts will violate their constitutionally granted right against involuntary servitude and religious freedom. on the other hand. Held: The Court ruled that religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority. The only limitation laid down by . believing that by doing such acts would be contrary to the teachings of their religion. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu March 1. The petitioners were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Such authorities expelled these students for refusing to salute the flag. Secretary of Education wherein the 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 respondent. relied on the precedence of Gerona et al v. ordered the expulsion of 68 primary and secondary level students of several towns in Cebu. the freedom to act on one’s belief regulated and translated to external acts. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu. Issue: Whether or Not religious freedom has been violated.

the Constitution is that the State has the right to defend itself from religious ceremonies and practices if such practice would breach the security or threaten the safety of the State. they were just silently standing and observing the activity. in fact. The Gerona doctrine used by the respondents has already been deemed by the Court as passé and that Jehovah’s Witnesses may be exempt from the flag raising ceremony provided that they will not disrupt such ceremony. In the case at bar. . the expelled students were not endangering or threatening the safety and integrity of the State when they did not participate in the flag raising ceremony.

Soledad S. 2003 Facts: Respondent Escritor was court interpreter of the Las Pinas City Regional Trial Court. P-02-1651 August 4. alleged by the respondent. According to him. Respondent claims that her conjugal arrangement with her partner is valid under her religion. a man who is not her husband. No. respondent Escritor should not be allowed to remain employed in the said RTC for it will appear that it is as if the Court allows such immoral acts within its walls. She has been living with her partner Quilapio. vs. Respondent Estrada’s husband died a year before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still legally married to another woman when they had their relationship. Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent. Such partnership. They have been living for more than twenty five years already and had a son.M. complainant. Escritor. respondent A. Issue: Whether the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement. in .Alejandro Estrada.” Such a declaration is effective when legal impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society. is a “Declaration of Pled ge of Faithfulness” which is sanctioned by their congragation.

and that the public and secular morality are the only moralities that are within the province of the Court . the State has found any solid point within which it can impose enforcing the adultery or bigamy charges against respondent or to her partner.effect besmirching the respondents right to freedom of religion? Held: No. The Court went insofar as to distinguish public morality and religious morality. The Court held that the State cannot penalize the penalize respondent for she is exercising her constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion The State’s interest in imposing its prohibition cannot be merely abstract. In the case at bar.

Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines. an association of seventy Muslim organizations. Vs. Ruling: The Court held in favour of the petitioner. but also with wanton disregard to the feelings of the Muslim people. Issue: Whether the Respondents can be entitled to award for damages due to the alleged libellous acts of the petitioner regarding the Muslim religion. Incorporated G. reversed the RTC decision. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case. Inc. It said that mere words that are insulting in character. 13506 January 28. as long as it is not directed to any specific person or entity is not automatically tantamount to libel or slander. Respondent MVRS on the other hand contends that their article was a mere statement of their opinions and was published without fault nor malice. . on the other hand. the respondent. therefore they are not entitiled to award for damages.MVRS Publlications. the petitioner.R. The respondents allege that the petitioner published insulting articles regarding Muslims and such articles were not only published with deliberate arrogance. The Court of Appels. The respondent also contends that it did not specifically mention the respondents as the subject of the article. 2003 Facts: The Islamic Da’wah Council. stating the respondents lack of evidence in proving a sufficient cause of action. together with several individuals filed in the Manila RTC a complaint for damages against MVRS publication.