You are on page 1of 19


Shortly after the President signed the law, 14

petitions and 2 petitions-in intervention were
PETITIONER: James M. Imbong and spouse
filed. These petitions are mostly for certiorari
Lovely-Ann Imbong, et al.
and prohibition.
RESPONDENTS: Executive Secretary Hon.
6. Petitioners allege that the RH Law violates the
Paquito Ochoa
right to equal protection of the law. It is claimed
SUMMARY: Upon the enactment of the RH Law, that the RH Law discriminates against the poor
several petitioners for certiorari and prohibition as it makes them the primary target of the
were filed requesting to maintain the status quo. government program that promotes
Of the different rights that the petitioner claim contraceptive use. The petitioners argue that,
that the RH Law violates, they claim that RH Law rather than promoting reproductive health
violates the equal protection clause for among the poor, the RH Law seeks to introduce
discriminating against the poor. Petitioners claim contraceptives that would effectively reduce the
that the RH law seeks to introduce number of the poor. 􀀁
contraceptives to the poor to reduce their
7. Note: Equal protection is only one of the many
number. SC declares that the RH Law is not
rights the RH Law violated according to the
violative of the due process clause because there
petitioners. In the petitions, RH Law was also
is a distinct necessity in the constitution to
alleged to violate: right to life of the unborn,
address the needs of the underprivileged. RH
right to health, right to religious freedom,
Law is constitutional, with exceptions.
involuntary servitude, due process, right to
FACTS: privacy, non-delegation of legislative authority,
local autonomy.
1. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise
known as the Responsible Parenthood and 8. Meanwhile, the RH-IRR took effect.
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was
9. After considering the issues, the Court issued
enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012.
a Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO), enjoining the
2. The RH Law was enacted to provide Filipinos, effects and implementation of the assailed
especially the poor and the marginalized, access legislation for 120 days. After the lapse of time,
and information to the full range of modem the SQAO was ordered extended. Petitioners
family planning methods, and to ensure that its claim the maintenance of the status quo.
objective to provide for the peoples' right to
reproductive health be achieved.
WON RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is
3. To make it more effective, the RH Law made it
unconstitutional for violating the freedom of
mandatory for health providers to provide
information on the full range of modem family
planning methods, supplies and services, and for HELD:
schools to provide reproductive health
The Court cannot determine whether or not the
use of contraceptives or participation in support
4. To put teeth to it, the RH Law criminalizes of modern RH measures (a) is moral from a
certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates. religious standpoint; or, (b) right or wrong
according to one’s dogma or belief. However,
the Court has the authority to determine
whether or not the RH Law contravenes the HELD:
Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.
There was no violation.
The State may pursue its legitimate secular
The present controversy did not involve a
objectives without being dictated upon the
national or local law in conflict with the Free
policies of any one religion. To allow religious
Exercise Clause. Valenciano was merely
sects to dictate policy or restrict other groups
questioning the propriety of holding religious
would violate Article III, Section 5 of the
masses at the basement of the QC Hall of Justice.
Constitution or the Establishment Clause. This
would cause the State to adhere to a particular By allowing the holding of masses, the Court
religion, and thus, establishes a state religion. could not be said to have established Roman
Thus, the State can enhance its population Catholicism as an official religion or to have
control program through the RH Law even if the endorsed the same. It also allowed other
promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to religious denominations to practice their religion
the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners. within the courthouses.

Thus, the holding of religious rituals at the Halls

of Justice does not amount to a union of Church
IN RE: VALENCIANO (Letter of Tony Q.
and State. While the Church and State are
Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the
separate, the latter still recognizes the inherent
Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City)
right of the people to have some form of belief
FACTS: system. Such is enshrined in our Constitution.

Valenciano wrote several letters to former Chief Besides, allowing religion to flourish is not
Justice Renato S. Puno, complaining about the contrary to the principle of separation of Church
holding of masses during lunch break at the and State.
basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice. He
In order to give life to the constitutional right of
claimed that the religious icons placed there, the
freedom of religion, the State adopts a policy of
electric organ and other items related to the
accommodation - a recognition of the reality
celebration of masses therein violated the
that some governmental measures may not be
separation of the constitutional provision on the
imposed on a certain portion of the population
separation of the Church and State. He also
for the reason that these measures are contrary
claimed, among others, that the choir rehearsals
to their religious beliefs. As long as it can be
disturbed the other employees and that the
shown that the exercise of the right does not
other employees could no longer attend to their
impair the public welfare, the attempt of the
personal necessities as they cannot go to the
State to regulate or prohibit such right would be
lavatories which are located near the basement.
an unconstitutional encroachment.
There is in this case, merely an accommodation.
Whether there was a violation of the
First, there is no law, ordinance or circular issued
constitutional provision on the separation of the
by any duly constitutive authorities expressly
Church and State with the holding of masses
mandating that judicial employees attend the
during lunch break at the basement of the
Quezon City Hall of Justice.
Second, when judiciary employees attend the finding gainful employment which does not go
masses to profess their faith, it is at their own against their religious beliefs. The primary effect
initiative and on their own free will. is also the protection of the laborer from
menacing collective bargaining agreements. The
Third, no government funds are being spent
effect of favoring laborers of one religion is only
because the lighting and air-conditioning
continue to be operational even if there are no
religious rituals being observed. DOCTRINE: A statute, in order to withstand the
strictures of constitutional prohibition (on the
Fourth, the basement has neither been
no-establishment of religion clause of the
converted into a Roman Catholic Chapel not has
constitution), must have: (a) a secular purpose
it been permanently appropriated for the
and (b) a primary effect that neither advances
exclusive use of the faithful.
nor inhibits religion.
Fifth, the allowance of religious masses has not
prejudiced other religions.
1. Petitioner Benjamin Victoriano is a member of
the religious sect known as the Iglesia ni Cristo.
VICTORIANO V. ELIZALDE He had been in the employ of respondent
Elizalde Rope Factory Inc. (Company).
PETITIONER: Benjamin Victoriano
2. As such employee he was a member of the
RESPONDENTS: Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union (Union) which had
and Elizalde Rope Factory,Inc. with the Company a collective bargaining
SUMMARY: Petitioner Victoriano is a worker of agreement which reads: “Membership in the
Elizalde Roper Factory Inc., and thus was a Union shall be required as a condition of
member of the Company’s Labor Union. He was employment for all permanent employees
by default a member because of RA 875 which workers covered by this Agreement.”
allowed companies to require their employees 3. Under Republic Act No. 875, prior to its
to be part of their union upon employment. RA amendment by Republic Act No. 3350, the
875 was amended by RA 3350 however which employer was not precluded (prevented) from:
exempts employees with religions that prohibit Making an agreement with a labor organization
them from joining labor unions from the to require as a condition of employment
requirement of companies. Victoriano, being a membership therein, if such labor organization is
member of Iglesia ni Cristo which bans the representative of the employees.
membership in unions, files for resignation from
the Union. The Union however declined and 4. On June 18, 1961, however, Republic Act No.
questioned the constitutionality of the statute. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment
The lower court ruled in favor of petitioner to paragraph (4) subsection (a) of section 4 of
Victoriano. Republic Act No. 875, as follows: “But such
agreement shall not cover members of any
SC affirmed the CFI decision and ruled that RA religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their
3350 passed the two requirements to withstand members in any such labor organization.”
the constitutional prohibition on the no-
establishment of religion clause of the 5. Being a member of a religious sect that
Constitution. RA 3350 has a secular purpose of prohibits the affiliation of its members with any
labor organization, Petitioner Victoriano freedom of association, upholds and reinforces
presented his resignation to appellant Union. it.

6. The management of the Company in turn 4. It does not prohibit the members of said
notified Appellee and his counsel that unless the religious sects from affiliating with labor unions.
Appellee could achieve a satisfactory It still leaves to said members the liberty and the
arrangement with the Union, the Company power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor
would be constrained to dismiss him from the unions.
5. If the members of said religious sects prefer to
7. In its answer, the Union invoked the “union sign up with the labor union, they can do so. If in
security clause” of the collective bargaining deference and fealty to their religious faith, they
agreement and assailed the constitutionality of refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does
Republic Act No. 3350. not coerce them to join; neither does the law
prohibit them from joining; and neither may the
8. The lower court decided that Defendant
employer or labor union compel them to join.
Company is enjoined from dismissing plaintiff
Victoriano from his present employment. Hence 6. Republic Act No. 3350, therefore, does not
this appeal. violate the constitutional provision on freedom
of association.
7. On contract rights: the free exercise of
1. WoN Republic Act No. 3350 violates the
religious profession or belief is superior to
establishment clause of the Constitution – NO
contract rights. In case of conflict, the latter
RULING: must, therefore, yield to the former.

Instant appeal is dismissed. CFI decision is 8. The Supreme Court of the United States has
affirmed. also declared on several occasions that the rights
in the First Amendment, which include freedom
1. On freedom of association: Republic Act No. of religion, enjoy a preferred position in the
3350 merely excludes ipso jure from the constitutional system.
application and coverage of the closed shop
agreement the employees belonging to any 9. Religious freedom although not unlimited, is a
religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their fundamental personal right and liberty, and has
members with any labor organization. a preferred position in the hierarchy of values.

2. What the exception provides, therefore, is 10. It is only where unavoidable necessary to
that members of said religious sects cannot be prevent an immediate and grave danger to the
compelled or coerced to join labor unions even security and welfare of the community that
when said unions have closed shop agreements infringement of religious freedom may be
with the employers; that in spite of any closed justified and only to the smallest extent
shop agreement, members of said religious sects necessary to avoid the danger.
cannot be refused employment or dismissed
11. On violation of Sec. 1(7) of Article 3 of the
from their jobs on the sole ground that they are
1935 Constitution (which is Sec. 5 of Art. 3 of our
not members of the collective bargaining union.
1987 Constitution): Any legislation whose effect
3. It is clear, therefore, that the assailed Act, far or purpose is to impede the observance of one
from infringing the constitutional provision on or all religions, or to discriminate invidiously
between the religions, is invalid, even though the sects that prohibit their members from affiliating
burden may be characterized as being only with a labor organization, is the protection of
indirect. said employees against the aggregate force of
the collective bargaining agreement, and
12. But if the stage regulates conduct by
relieving certain citizens of a burden on their
enacting, within its power, a general law which
religious beliefs; and by eliminating to a certain
has for its purpose and effect to advance the
extent economic insecurity due to
state’s secular goals, the statute is valid despite
unemployment, which is a serious menace to the
its indirect burden on religious observance,
health, morals, and welfare of the people of the
unless the state can accomplish its purpose
State, the Act also promotes the well-being of
without imposing such burden.
13. The statute, in order to withstand the
19. It is our view that the exemption from the
strictures of constitutional prohibition, must
effects of closed shop agreement does not
directly advance, or diminish, the interests of
a) a secular (non-religious) legislative any particular religion.
20. Although the exemption may benefit those
b) a primary effect that neither advances
who are members of religious sects that prohibit
nor inhibits religion.
their members from joining labor unions, the
14. Assessed by these criteria, Republic Act No. benefit upon the religious sects is merely
3350 cannot be said to violate the constitutional incidental and indirect.
inhibition of the “no-establishment” (of religion)
21. On the violation of the constitutional
clause of the constitution.
prohibition against requiring a religious test fort
15. On the first requirement: The purpose of eh exercise of a civil right: The Act does not
Republic Act No. 3350 is secular, worldly, and require as a qualification, or condition, for
temporal, not spiritual or religious or holy and joining any lawful association membership in any
eternal. particular religion or in any religious sect.

16. It was intended to serve the secular purpose 22. Neither does the Act require affiliation with
of advancing the constitutional right to the free a religious sect that prohibits its members from
exercise of religion, by averting that certain joining a labor union as a condition or
persons be refused work, or be dismissed from qualification for withdrawing from a labor union.
work, or be dispossessed of their right to work
23. Joining or withdrawing from a labor union
and of being impeded to pursue a modest means
requires a positive act. Republic Act No. 3350
of livelihood, by reason of union security
only exempts members with such religious
affiliation from the coverage of closed shop
17. To help its citizens to find gainful agreements.
employment whereby they can make a living to
24. A conscientious religious objector need not
support themselves and their families is a valid
perform a positive act or exercise the right of
objective of the state.
resigning from the labor union; he is exempted
18. On the second requirement: The primary from the coverage of any closed shop agreement
effects of the exemption from closed shop that a labor union may have entered into.
agreements in favor of members of religious
25. Fernando, Concurring: Fernando concurrs burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by
fully and entirely with the Ponencia. Between the Constitution.
the freedom of belief and the exercise of said
belief, there is quite a stretch of road to travel. If
the exercise of said religious belief clashes with 1. 6294 of the General Statutes of Connecticut
the established institutions of society and with provides, that no person shall solicit money,
the law, then the former must yield, and give services, subscriptions, or any valuable thing for
way to the latter. The Government steps in and any alleged religious, charitable, or philanthropic
either restrains said exercise or even prosecutes cause, from other than a member of the
the one exercising it. organization whose benefit such person is
soliciting or within the country in which such
person or organization is located unless such
CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT cause shall have been approved by the secretary
of the public welfare council.
PETITIONER: Newton Cantwell, et al.
2. Petitioners were engaged in going singly from
RESPONDENTS: State of Connecticut
house to house on Cassius Street in New Haven.
SUMMARY: Petitioner Cantwell and his two sons They were individually equipped with a bag
Jesse and Russel, are members of a group known containing books and pamphlets on religious
as Jehovah’s witnesses, and are claimint to be subjects, a portable phonograph, and a set of
ordained ministers. They were arrested in New records, each of which, when played,
Haven, Connecticut, and each was charged by introduced, and was a description of, one of the
information in five counts, with statutory and books.
common law offenses. After trial, each of them
3. Petitioner Cantwell and each of his sons asked
was convicted on the third count, which charged
the person who responded to his call for
a violation of 6294 of the General Statutes of
permission to play one of the records. If
Connecticut, and on the fifth count, which
permission was granted, he asked the person to
charged commission of the common law offense
buy the book described and, upon refusal,
of inciting a breach of the peace. On appeal to
solicited such contribution towards the
the State SC, the conviction of all three on the
publication of the pamphlets as the listener was
third count was affirmed. Jesse’s conviction on
willing to make. If a contribution was received, a
the fifth count, was likewise affirmed.
pamphlet was delivered upon condition that it
Upon ruling of the US SC, the judgment is would be read.
reversed, they held that such acts of the
4. Cassius street is in a thickly populated
petitioners are very well protected by the First
neighborhood, where about 90% of residents are
and the Fourteenth Amendments, that such acts
Roman Catholics. A phonograph record,
do not pose as that of a clear and present
describing a book entitled “enemies”, included
menace to public peace and order.
an attack on the Catholic religion.
DOCTRINE: To condition the solicitation of aid for
5. Petitioners are claiming that their activities
a perpetuation of religious views or systems
were not within the statute but consisted only of
upon a license, the grant of which rests in the
distribution of books, pamphlets, and
exercise of a determination by state authority as
periodicals. They are likewise assailing the
to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden
statute’s validity as it constraints the freedom to 2. The First Amendment declares that Congress
exercise religion. shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
6. State Supreme Court construed the finding of
the trial court to be that “in addition to the sale 3. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered
of the books and the distribution of the legislatures of the statutes as incompetent as
pamphlets, the petitioners were also soliciting Congress to enact such laws. The Constitutional
distributions or donations of money for an inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion
alleged religious cause, and thereby came within has a double aspect.
the purview of the statute.
4. On one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law
7. State SC declared the statute constitutional as of the acceptance of any creed or practice of any
an effort by the State to protect the public form of worship. Freedom of conscience and
against fraud and imposition in the solicitation of freedom to adhere to such religious organization
funds for what purported to be religious, or form of worship as the individual may choose
charitable, or philanthropic causes. cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand,
it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen
8. As far as the fifth count is observed (the one
form of religion.
where Jesse was convicted), it was found that
Jesse stopped two men in the street, asked, and 5. The Amendment embraces two concepts:
received, permission to play a phonograph freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first
record, and played the record “enemies”, which is absolute but, in the nature of things, the
attacked the religion and church of the two men, second cannot be.
who were Catholics.
6. The freedom to act must have appropriate
9. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present definition to preserve the enforcement of that
motion. protection. In every case the power to regulate
must be so exercised as not, in attaining a
permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected
1. WoN the petitioner’s action was protected by freedom.
the First and the Fourteenth Amendments – YES
It is equally clear that a state may by general and
non-discriminatory legislation regulate the
times, the places, and the manner of soliciting
RULING: upon its streets, and of holding meetings
SC reversed the state SC ruling. thereon; and may in other respects safeguard
the peace, good order, and comfort of the
1. The statute, as construed and applied to the community without unconstitutionally invading
petitioners, deprives them of their liberty the liberties protected by the Fourteenth
without due process of law in contravention of Amendment.
the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental
concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment 8. The petitioners are right in their insistence
embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First that the Act in question is not such a regulation.
Amendment. If a certificate is procured, solicitation is
permitted without restrained but, int eh absence
of such certificate, solicitation is altogether
9. Petitioners claim that to require them to should in the interest of comfort or privacy be
obtain a certificate as a condition of soliciting limited or prevented.
support for their views amounts to a prior
15. SC noted that Jesse Cantwell, was upon a
restraint on the exercise of their religion within
public street, where he had a right to be, and
the meaning of the Constitution.
where he had a right peacefully to impart his
10. Penal laws are available to punish such views to others. There is no showing that his
conduct that may commit, with impunity, frauds deportment was noisy, truculent, overbearing,
upon the public. Even the exercise of religion or offensive. He requested two pedestrians to
may be at some slight inconvenience in order listen, which was granted. It is plain that he
that the state may protect its citizens from wished only to interest him with his propaganda,
injury. Without a doubt a state may protect its hence he invaded no right or interest of the
citizens from fraudulent solicitation by requiring public or of the men accosted.
a stranger in the community, before permitting
16. In the absence of a statute narrowly drawn
him publicly to solicit funds for any purpose, to
to define and punish specific conduct as
establish his identity and his authority to act for
constituting a clear and present danger to a
the cause which he purports to represent.
substantial interest of the State, the petitioner’s
11. The state is likewise free to regulate the time communication, considered in the light of the
and manner of solicitation generally, in the constitutional guarantees, raised no clear and
interest of public safety, peace, comfort, or present menace to public peace and order as to
convenience. render him liable to conviction of the common
law offense in question.
12. But to condition the solicitation of aid for the
perpetuation of religious views or systems upon
a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise
of a determination by state authority as to what
is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden PETITIONER: United States
upon the exercise of liberty protected by the
Constitution. RESPONDENTS: Guy Ballard, Edna and Donald
13. The SC held that the conviction of Jesse
Cantwell on the fifth count must be set aside. SUMMARY: Upon an indictment charging use of
The fundamental law declares that interest of the mails to defraud, and conspiracy so to do, the
the US that the free exercise of religion be not Ballards were convicted in the District Court. The
prohibited and that freedom to communicate indictment charged a scheme to defraud
information and opinion be not abridged. through representations—involving
Connecticut has an obvious interest in the respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs—
preservation and protection of peace and good which were alleged to be false and known by the
order within her borders. respondents to be false.

14. The conviction on the fifth count was not Holding that the District Court had restricted the
pursuant to a statute revealing a legislative jury to the issue of respondents' good faith and
judgment that street discussion of religious that this was error, the Circuit Court of Appeals
affairs, because of its tendency to provoke reversed and granted a new trial. The Supreme
disorder, should be regulated, or a judgment Court ruled that the action of the District Court
that the playing of a phonograph on the streets was valid and correct, because questions
regarding the truth and falsity of the Ballards’ 5. The Ballards moved to quash and they
religious beliefs or doctrines is protected under asserted that the indictment attacked their
the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious religious beliefs and sought to restrict the free
freedom. exercise of religion in violation of the
DOCTRINE: The Amendment embraces two
concepts: freedom to believe and freedom to 6. Their motions were denied by the District
act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of Court.
things, the second cannot be.
7. It stated that “As far as this Court sees the
FACTS: issue, it is immaterial what these defendants
preached or wrote or taught in their classes….
1. The Ballards were indicted and convicted for
Therefore, the religious beliefs of these
using, and conspiring to use, the mails to
defendants cannot be an issue in this court. The
issue is: Did they honestly and in good faith
2. They created the I Am movement, which believe those things? If they did, they should be
covered their religious beliefs. acquitted… If not, the jury should find them
guilty. Therefore, religion cannot come into this
Some of the charges stated that: case”
a) Guy Ballard was selected and designated 8. The Circuit CA reversed the judgment of
by “ascertained masters.” And St. conviction and granted a new trial.
Germain’s words would be transmitted
to mankind through the medium said In its view, the restriction of the issue in question
Guy Ballard to that of good faith was error.
b) That Guy Ballard, with Edna and Donald
9. Its reason was that the scheme to defraud
Ballard, by reason of their alleged high
contained allegations of false representations,
spiritual attainments and righteous
and that it was necessary to prove that they
conduct, had been selected as divine
schemed to make some of the representations,
messengers through which the words of
and that some were false.
the alleged “ascended masters” would
be communicated to mankind through 10. Hence, this petition for certiorari which the
the I Am movement Court granted due to importance of questions
c) That they said they had the power to presented.
heal persons of ailments and deceases
d) That the Ballards well knew their
representations were false 1. WoN the District Court was correct in
confining the issue to whether or not the
3. The charges stated that the Ballards made the
Ballards believed their representations to be
representations with the intention to cheat,
true – YES
wrong and defraud persons, to obtain from
those defrauded money, property and things of RULING:
The judgment is reversed and the cause is
4. The indictment contained 12 counts, one of remanded to the Circuit Court of
which charged a conspiracy to defraud.
Appeals for further proceedings in conformity to 8. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom
this opinion. of religious belief, is basic in a society of free
men. It embraces the right to maintain theories
1. The US contends that the District Court
of life and of death and of the hereafter, which
withdrew from the jury's consideration only the
are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox
truth or falsity of those representations which
related to religious concepts or beliefs and that
there were representations charged in the 9. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution.
indictment which fell within a different category. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They
may not be put to the proof of their religious
2. Hall v. US states
doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which
a. Where an indictment contained 'all the are as real as life to some may be
necessary averments to constitute an offense incomprehensible to others.
created by the statute', a conviction would not
10. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken
be set aside because a 'totally immaterial fact'
of mortals does not mean that they can be made
was averred but not proved.
suspect before the law. Many take their gospel
3. The Court is of the view that all of the from the New Testament. But it would hardly be
representations charged in the indictment which supposed that they could be tried before a jury
related at least in part to the religious doctrines charged with the duty of determining whether
or beliefs of the Ballards were withheld from the those teachings contained false representations.
11. The miracles of the New Testament, the
4. The trial judge did not differentiate them. He Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of
referred in the charge to the 'religious beliefs' prayer are deep in the religious convictions of
and 'doctrines taught by the defendants' as many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury
matters withheld from the jury. in a hostile environment found those teachings
false, little indeed would be left of religious
5. And in stating that the issue of good faith was freedom.
the 'cardinal question' in the case he charged, as
already noted, that 'The jury will be called upon 12. The Fathers of the Constitution were not
to pass on the question of whether or not the unaware of the varied and extreme views of
Ballards honestly and in good faith believed the religious sects, of the violence of disagreement
representations which are set forth in the among them, and of the lack of any one religious
indictment creed on which all men would agree.

6. A careful reading of the whole charge leads us 13. They fashioned a charter of government
to agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals on this which envisaged the widest possible toleration
phase of the case that the only issue submitted of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God
to the jury was the question as stated by the was made no concern of the state. He was
District Court, of Ballards' belief in their granted the right to worship as he pleased and
representations and promises.’ to answer to no man for the verity of his religious
7. The Amendment embraces two concepts:
freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first 14. The religious views espoused by the Ballards
is absolute but, in the nature of things, the might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to
second cannot be. most people. But if those doctrines are subject
to trial before a jury charged with finding their first is absolute as long as the belief is confined
truth or falsity, then the same can be done with within the realm of thought. The second is
the religious beliefs of any sect. subject to regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that affect the
15. When the triers of fact undertake that task,
public welfare.”
they enter a forbidden domain.
The First Amendment does not select any one
group or any one type of religion for preferred 1. All the petitioners in these two cases were
treatment. It puts them all in that position. expelled from their classes by the public school
authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag,
16. So the Court concludes that the District Court
sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic
ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all
pledge as required by RA 1265 of July 11, 1955,
questions concerning the truth or falsity of the
and by Department Order No. 8 dated July 21,
religious beliefs or doctrines of the Ballards.
1955 of the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports (DECS) making the flag ceremony
compulsory in all educational institutions.
2. RA 1265: “In case of failure to observe for the
PETITIONER: Roel Ebralinag et al. second time the flag ceremony provided by this
RESPONDENTS: The Division Superintendent of Act, the Secretary of Education, after proper
Schools of Cebu notice and hearing, shall cause the cancellation
of the recognition or permit of the private
SUMMARY: The Petitioners in this case are education institution responsible for such
school children under the religious sect known as failure.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Apparently, Jehovah’s
Witnesses teach their believers to refrain from 3. Jehovah’s Witnesses admittedly teach their
saluting the Philippine flag, sing the national children not to salute the flag, sing the national
anthem and recite the patriotic pledge. This is in anthem, and recit the patriotic pledge for they
line of their belief not to embrace idols. The believe that those are “acts of worship” or
Division superintendent then expelled them in “religious devotions” which they “cannot
accordance to the law. Hence this petition. conscientiously give xxx to anyone or anything
except God”
The SC held that to compel them to salute, sing,
and recite the pledge would be in violation of 4. They feel bound by the Bible’s command to
their constitutional rights to freedom of religion. “guard ourselves from idols – 1 John 5:21.” They
The sole justification for prior restraint is when consider the flag as an image or idol representing
there is a presence of grave danger. In this case, the State.
there is no danger; rather, the restraint would They think the action of the local authorities in
only create the danger being avoided. compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends
However, they have no right to cause any constitutional limitations on the State’s power
disruptions but must show respect instead. and invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit
which the Constitution protects against official
DOCTRINE: “The right to religious profession and control.
worship has a twofold aspect, vis., freedom to
believe and freedom to act on one’s belief. The
5. Gerona case: “The flag is not an image but a first is absolute as long as the belief is confined
symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, an within the realm of thought. The second is
emblem of national sovereignty, of national subject to regulation where the belief is
unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty translated into external acts that affect the
which it and the Constitution guarantee and public welfare.”
protect. Under a system of complete separation
4. The sole justification for a prior restraint or
of church and state in the government, the flag
limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is
is utterly devoid of any religious significance.
the existence of a grave and present danger of a
Saluting the flag does not involve any religious
character both grave and imminent, of a serious
ceremony. The flag salute is no more a religious
evil to public safety, public morals, public health
ceremony than the taking of an oath of office by
or any other legitimate public interest, that the
a public official or by a candidate for admission
State has a right (and duty) to prevent.” Absent
to the bar.”
such a threat to public safety, the expulsion of
6. The Court issued a temporary restraining the petitioners from the schools is not justified.
order and a writ of preliminary mandatory
5. We are not persuaded that by exempting the
injunction commanding the respondents to
Jehovah’s Witnesses from saluting the flag,
immediately readmit the petitioners to their
singing the national anthem and reciting the
respective classes until further orders from this
patriotic pledge, this religious group which
admittedly comprises a “small portion of the
ISSUE: school population” will shake up our part of the
globe and suddenly produce a nation” untaught
1. WoN Jehovah’s witnesses may be expelled for
and uninculcated in and unimbued with
not saluting the flag – NO
reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of
RULING: country and admiration for national heroes”
After all, what the petitioners seek only is
Prohibition is granted. exemption from the flag ceremony, not
1. The idea that one may be compelled to salute exclusion from the public schools where they
the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the may study the Constitution, the democratic way
patriotic pledge, during a flag ceremony on pain of life and form of government, and learn not
of being dismissed from one’s job or of being only the arts, sciences, Philippine history and
expelled from school, is alien to the conscience culture but also receive training for a vocation or
of the present generation of Filipinos who cut profession and be taught the virtues of
their teeth on the Bill of Rights which guarantees “patriotism, respect for human rights,
their rights to free speech and the free exercise appreciation for national heroes, the rights and
of religious profession and worship. duties of citizenship, and moral and spiritual
values as part of the curricula.”
2. Religious freedom is a fundamental right
which is entitled to the highest priority and the 7. Expelling or banning the petitioners from
amplest protection among human rights, for it Philippine schools will bring about the very
involves the relationship of man to his Creator. situation that this court had feared in Gerona.
Forcing a small religious group, through the iron
3. “The right to religious profession and hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony
worshiop has a wofold aspect, vis., freedom to that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be
believe and freedom to act on one’s belief. The
conducive to love of country or respect for duly 13. As a valid form of expression, it cannot be
constituted authorities. compelled any more than it can be prohibited in
the face of valid religious objections like those
8. Moreover, the expulsion of members of
raised in this petition. To impose it on the
Jehovah’s Witnesses from the schools where
petitioners is to deny them the right not to speak
they are enrolled will violate their right as
when their religion bids them to be silent.
Philippine citizens, under the 1987 Constitution,
to receive free education, for it is the duty of the (MR)_ EBRALINAG
State to “protect and promote the right of all
citizens to quality education xxx and to make
such education accessible to all.” 1. WoN Jehovah’s witnesses may be expelled for
not following the necessary flag ceremony
9. Nevertheless, their right not to participate in
solemnities – NO
the flag ceremony does not give them a right to
disrupt such patriotic exercises. RULING:
10. While the highest regard must be afforded Motion for reconsideration is denied.
their right to the free exercise of their religion,
“this should not be taken to mean that school 1. The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb its
authorities are powerless to discipline them” if earlier ruling.
they should commit breaches of the peace by 2. The religious convictions and beliefs of the
actions that offend the sensibilities, both members of the religious sect, the Jehovah’s
religious and patriotic, of other persons. Witnesses are widely known and are equally
11. Cruz, J. Concurring: It seems to me that every widely disseminated in numerous books,
individual is entitled to choose for himself whom magazines, brochures and leaflets distributed by
or what to worship or whether to worship at all. their members in their house to house
distribution efforts and in many public places.
This is a personal decision he alone can make.
The individual may worship a spirit or a person 3. Their religious assumptions, while “bizarre” to
or a beast or a tree and the State cannot prevent others is firmly anchored in several biblical
him from doing so. For that matter, neither can passages.
it compel him to do so. As long as his beliefs are 4. Jehova’s Witnesses aver that they show their
not externalized in acts that offend the public respect through less demonstrative methods
interest, he cannot be prohibited from harboring manifesting their allegiance, by their simple
them or punished for doing so. obedience to the country’s laws, by not engaging
12. The State cannot interpret the Bible for in antigovernment activities of any kind, and by
them; only they can read it as they see fit. Right paying their taxes and dues to society as self-
or wrong, the meaning they derive from it sufficient members of the community.
cannot be revised or reversed except perhaps by 5. While they refuse to salute the flag, they are
their own acknowledge superiors. But certainly willing to stand quietly and peacefully at
not the State. It has no competence in this attention, hands on their side, in order not to
matter. Religion is forbidden territory that the disrupt the ceremony or disturb those who
State, for all its power and authority, cannot believe differently.􀀁
6. The government’s interest in molding the the original petitions was therefore clearly
young into patriotic and civic spirited citizens is directed against religious practice.
not totally free from a balancing process when it
13. It is obvious that the assailed orders and
intrudes into other fundamental rights such as
memoranda would gravely endanger the free
those specifically protected by the Free Exercise
exercise of the religious beliefs of the members
Clause, the constitutional right to education and
of the sect and their minor children.
the unassailable interest of parents to guide the
religious upbringing of their children in 14. While conceding to the idea, adverted to by
accordance with the dictates of their conscience the Solicitor General, that certain methods of
and their sincere religious beliefs. religious expression may be prohibited to serve
legitimate societal purposes, refusal to
7. In the context of the instant case, the freedom
participate in the flag ceremony hardly
of religion enshrined in the Constitution should
constitutes a form of religious expression so
be seen as the rule, not the exception.
offensive and noxious as to prompt legitimate
8. To view the constitutional guarantee in the State intervention. Their absence from the
manner suggested by the petitioners would be ceremony hardly constitutes a danger so grave
to denigrate the status of a preferred freedom and imminent as to warrant the state’s
and to relegate it to the level of an abstract intervention.
principle devoid of any substance and meaning
15. The respondent’s insistence also misses the
in the lives of those for whom the protection is
whole point of the test devised by the United
States Supreme Court in O’Brien, cited by
9. As to the contention that the exemption respondent, because the Court therein was
accorded by our decision benefits a privileged emphatic in stating that the government interest
few, it is enough to re-emphasize that the (should be) unrelated to the suppression of free
constitutional protection of religious freedom expression.
terminated disabilities, it did not create new
16. The interest in regulation in the case at bench
privileges. It gave religious equality, not civil
was clearly related to the suppression of an
expression directly connected with the freedom
10. A regulation, neutral on its face, may in its of religion and that respondents have not shown
application, nonetheless offend the to our satisfaction that the restriction was
constitutional requirement for governmental prompted by a compelling interest in public
neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise order which the state has a right to protect.
of religion.

11. The government has not shown that refusal

to do the acts of conformity exacted by the
assailed orders, which respondents point out PETITIONER: Simcha Goldman
attained legislative cachet in the Administrative
Code of 1987, would pose a clear and present RESPONDENTS: Weinberger
danger of a danger so serious and imminent, that SUMMARY: Goldman was seen wearing his
it would prompt legitimate State intervention. yarmulke indoors in contravention of the Air
12. The subsequent expulsion of members of the Force Regulation 35-10. He was then given a
sect on the basis of the regulations assailed in formal complaint ordered not to wear a
yarmulke while on duty and in uniform as a while indoors except by armed security police in
commissioned officer in the Air Force Base. He the performance of their duties.”
contended that the AFR 35-10 violated his right
4. The next day, he received a formal letter of
to the First Amendment freedom to exercise his
reprimand, and was warned that failure to obey
religious beliefs.
AFR 35-10 could subject him to a court-martial.
The SC held that the regulation is valid. Because Col. Gregory also withdrew a recommendation
the military reasonably regulates the dress code that Goldman’s application to extend the term of
in the interest of the military’s perceived need his active service be approved, and substituted a
for uniformity. negative recommendation.

Furthermore, the individual interest of the 5. As an initial matter, the CA determined that
military personnel must yield for a larger civilian the appropriate level of scrutiny of a military
community. In this way, it provides discipline and regulation that clashes with a constitutional right
develops unity in advance of trouble. is neither strict scrutiny nor rational basis.
Applying this test, the court concluded that ‘the
DOCTRINE: The essence of military service “is the
Air Force’s interest in uniformity renders the
subordination of the desires and interest of the
strict enforcement of its regulation permissible.’
individual to the needs of the service.” But
“within the military community, there is simply ISSUE:
not the same individual autonomy as there is in
1. WoN AFR 35-10 violates the constitutional
the larger civilian community.”
rights – NO
1. Goldman is an Orthodox Jew and ordained
Affirmed CA decision.
rabbi. In 1973, he was accepted into the Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program 1. The military need not encourage debate or
and placed on inactive reserve status in the Air tolerate protest to the extent that such
Force while he studied clinical psychology at tolerance is required of the civilian state by the
Loyola University of Chicago. First Amendment; to accomplish its mission, the
military must foster instinctive obedience, unity,
2. After completing his Ph.D. in psychology,
commitment, and esprit de corps.
Goldman entered active service in the US Air
Force as a commissioned officer, in accordance 2. The essence of military service “is the
with a requirement that participants in the subordination of the desires and interest of the
scholarship program serve one year of active individual to the needs of the service.” But
duty for each year of subsidized education. “within the military community, there is simply
not the same individual autonomy as there is in
3. In April, 1981, after he testified as a defense
the larger civilian community.”
witness at a court-martial wearing his yarmulke
but not his service cap, opposing counsel lodged 3. The considered professional judgment of the
a complaint with Col. Gregory, the Hospital Air Force is that the traditional outfitting of
Commander, arguing that Goldman’s practice of personnel in standardized uniforms encourages
wearing his yarmulke was a violation of Air Force the subordination of personal preferences and
identities in favor of the overall group mission.
Regulation (AFR) 35-10. This regulation states in
pertinent part that ‘headgear will not be worn…
4. Uniforms encourage a sense of hierarchical 11. The Air Force has drawn the line essentially
unity by tending to eliminate outward individual between religious apparel that is visible and that
distinctions except for those of rank. The Air which is not, and we hold that those portions of
Force considers them as vital during peacetime the regulations challenged here reasonably and
as during war, because its personenel must be evenhandedly regulate dress in the interest of
ready to provide an effective defense on a the military’s perceived need for uniformity.
moment’s notice; the necessary habits of
12. The First Amendment therefore does not
discipline and unity must be developed in
prohibit them from being applied to Goldman,
advance of trouble.
even though their effect is to restrict the wearing
5. We have acknowledged that the inescapable of the headgear required by his religious beliefs.
demands of military discipline and obedience to
13. Stevens, J. Concurring: In addition to its
orders cannot be taught on battlefields; the
religious significance for the wearer, the
habit of immediate compliance with military
yarmulke may evoke the deepest respect and
procedures and orders must be virtually reflex,
admiration – the symbol of a distinguished
with no time for debate or reflection.
tradition and an eloquent rebuke to the ugliness
6. To this end, the Air Force promulgated AFR 35- of anti-Semitism. Captain Goldman’s military
10, a 190-page document, which states that Air duties are performed in a setting in which a
Force members will wear the Air Force uniform modest departure from the uniform regulation
while performing their military duties, except creates almost no danger of impairment of the
when authorized to wear civilian clothes on duty. Air Force’s military mission. Moreover, on the
record before us, there is reason to believe that
7. In general, headgear may be worn only out of
the policy of strict enforcement against Captain
doors. Indoors, headgear may not be worn
Goldman had a retaliatory motive – he had worn
except by armed security police in the
his yarmulke while testifying on behalf of a
performance of their duties.
defendant in a court-marital proceedings.
8. A narrow exception to this rule exists for
14. Brennan, J. Dissenting: If exceptions from
headgear worn during indoor religious
dress code are to be granted on the basis of a
ceremonies. In addition, military commanders
multifactored test such as that proposed,
may in their discretion permit visible religious
inevitably the decision maker’s evaluation of the
headgear and other such apparel in designated
character and the sincerity of the requester’s
living quarters and nonvisible items generally.
faith – as well as the probable reaction of the
9. The desirability of dress regulations in the majority to the favored treatment of a member
military is decided by the appropriate military of that faith – will play a critical part in the
officials, and they are under no constitutional decision.
mandate to abandon their considered profession
15. For the difference between a turban or a
dreadlock on the one hand, and a yarmulke on
But the first amendment does not require the the other, is not merely a difference in
military to accommodate suchpractices in the ‘appearance’ – it is also the difference between
face of its view that they would detract from the a Sikh or a Rastafarian, on the one hand, and an
uniformity sought by the dress regulations.
Orthodox Jew on the other. The Air Force has no
business drawing distinctions between such
persons when it is enforcing commands of prohibited the killing of animals for the purpose
universal application. of animal sacrifices, to prevent health hazards
from improper disposal, as well as to eliminate
16. Blackmun, J. Dissenting: Not only would
animal cruelty. Following the enactment of such
conventional faiths receive special treatment
ordinances, the Church and Pichardo filed an
under such an approach; they would receive
action in the District Court of Southern Florida
special treatment precisely because they are
alleging violations of petitioner’s rights under
conventional. In general, I see no constitutional
the Free Exercise Clause. The District Court ruled
difficulty in distinguishing between religious
in favor of the city, finding no violation of
practices based on how difficult it would be to
petitioners’ rights under the Free Exercise
accommodate them, but favoritism based on
Clause. The Supreme Court held that the
how unobtrusive a practice appears to the
ordinances were enacted because of, not merely
majority could create serious problems of equal
in spite of their suppression of Santeria religious
protection and religious establishment, problem
practice, is revealed by the events preceding
the Air Force clearly has a strong interest in
enactment of the ordinances. Although the city
avoiding by drawing an objective line at visibility.
council claimed that it had experienced
17. The Air Force simply as not shown any reason significant problems from the sacrifice of animals
to fear that a significant number of enlisted before the announced opening of the Church,
personnel and officers would request religious the council made no attempt to address the
exemptions that could not be denied on neutral supposed problems.
grounds such as safety, let alone that granting
DOCTRINE: A law which visits “gratuitous
these requests would noticeably impair the
restrictions” on religious conduct, seeks not to
overall image of the service.
effectuate the stated governmental interests,
18. O’Conner, J. Dissenting: In the rare instances but to suppress the conduct because of its
where the military has not consistently or religious motivation. In sum, the neutrality
plausible justified its asserted need for rigidity of inquiry leads to one conclusion: The ordinances
enforcement, and where the individual seeking had as their objective the suppression of religion.
the exemption establishes that the assertion by The pattern discloses animosity to Santeria
the military of a threat to discipline or esprit de adherents and their religious practices.
corps is in his or her case completely unfounded,
I would hold that the Government’s policy of
uniformity must yield to the individual’s 1. The Santeria faith teaches that every
assertion of the right of free exercise of religion. individual has a destiny from God. The basis of
the religion is the nurture of a personal religion
with the orishas, ad one of the principal forms of
CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI V. CITY OF HIALEACH devotion is an animal sacrifice. Sacrifices are
performed at birth, marriage, and death rites, for
PETITIONER: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, the cure of the sick, for the initiation of new
Inc. members and priests, and during annual
RESPONDENTS: City of Hialeah celebration.

SUMMARY: After a Santeria church was Santeria adherents faced widespread

permitted to be constructed in Hialeah, the City persecution in Cuba, so the religion and its rituals
Council of Hialeah enacted ordinances which were practiced in secret.
2. Petitioner Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Exercise Clause.
Inc. (Church), is a not for profit corporation
8. Although acknowledging that the ordinances
organized under Florida law. The Church and its
are not religiously neutral, the District Court held
congregants practice the Santeria religion. In
that it was prompted by the city’s concern about
April 1987, the Church eased land in the city of
animal sacrifice was prompted by the
Hialeah, Florida, and announced plans to
establishment of the Church in the city and that
establish a house of worship as well as a school,
the purpose of the ordinances was not to
cultural center, and museum.
exclude the Church from the city but to end the
3. Petitioner Ernesto Pichardo, the Church’s practice of animal sacrifice.
president, indicated that the Church’s goal was
9. The District Court proceeded to determine
to bring the practice of the Santeria faith into the
whether the governmental interests underlying
the ordinances were compelling. The court
The Church obtained the necessary license and found four compelling interests: 1) that animal
zoning approvals. sacrifices present a substantial health risk; 2) the
emotional injury to children who witness the
4. The members of the Hialeah community were
sacrifice; 3) protecting animals from cruel and
distressed at the prospect of a Santeria church in
unnecessary killing; 4) restricting slaughter or
their area. This prompted the city council to hold
sacrifice to areas zoned for slaughterhouse.
an emergency public session. The city council
adopted Resolution 87-66, which noted the 10. Balancing the competing governmental and
“concern” expressed by residents of the city religious interests, the District Court concluded
“that certain religions may propose to engage in the compelling governmental intrests “fully
practices which are inconsistent with public justify the absolute prohibition on ritual
morals, peace, or safety.” sacrifice.” The CA affirmed the District Court’s
decision and stated simply that the ordinances
5. The city council also approved an emergency
were consistent with theConstitution.
ordinance, Ordinance 87-40, that incorporated
Florida’s animal cruelty laws. Among other ISSUE:
things, the incorporated state law subjected to
WoN the ordinances enacted by the city council
criminal punishment whoever unnecessarily or
of Hialeah is violative of the Establishment
cruelly kills any animal.
Clause – YES
6. The city enacted Resolution 87-90 which
declared the city policy to oppose the ritual
sacrifices of animals within Hialeah and The decision of the CA is reversed.
announced that any person or organization
practicing animal sacrifice will be prosecuted. 1. The First Amendment forbids an official
purpose to disapprove of a particular religion or
7. Following the enactment of such ordinances, of religion in general. Petitioners allege an
the Church and Pichardo filed an action in the attempt to disfavor their religion because of the
District Court of Southern Florida alleging religious ceremonies it command. At a
violations of petitioner’s rights under the Free minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise
Exercise Clause. The District Court ruled in favor Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates
of the city, finding no violation of petitioners’ against some or all religious beliefs or regulates
rights under the Free
or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for 7. The subject at hand implicates multiple
religious reasons. concerns unrelated to religious animosity, for
example, the suffering or mistreatment of
It was historical instances of religious
sacrificed animals, and health hazards. But the
persecution and intolerance that gave concern
ordinances when considered together disclose
to those who drafted the Free Exercise clause.
an object remote from these legitimate
Although a law targeting religious beliefs is never
concerns. The design of these laws accomplishes
permissible, if the object of the law is to infringe
instead a “religious gerrymander,” an
upon or restrict practices because of their
impermissible attempt to target petitioners and
religious motivation, the law is not neutral and it
their religious practices.
is invalid unless it is justified by a compelling
state interest and is narrowly tailored to advance 8. Ordinance 87-71: Prohibits the sacrifice of
that interest. animals but defines sacrifice as “unnecessary
killing not for the primary purpose of food
3. The minimum requirement of neutrality is that
consumption.” The definition excludes almost all
a law not discriminate on its face. A law lacks
killings of animals except for religious sacrifice. It
facial neutrality if it refers to a religious practice
suffices to recite this feature of the law as
without a secular meaning discernable from the
support for the conclusion that Santeria alone
language or context.
was the exclusive legislative concern.
4. Petitioners contend that three of the
9. Ordinance 87-52: Prohibits the “possession,
ordinances fail this test of facial neutrality
sacrifice, or slaughter” of an animal with the
because they use the words “sacrifice” and
“intent to use such animal for food purposes.”
“ritual,” words with strong religious
This prohibition applies if the animal is killed in
connotations. The words may have a religious
any ritual and there is intent to use the animal
origin, but current use admits also of secular
for food.
meanings. Moreover, the ordinances define
“sacrifice” in secular terms without referring to 10. Ordinance 87-40: Punishes whoever
religious practices. unnecessarily kills any animal. Killings for
religious reasons are deemed unnecessary,
5. The Establishment Clause extends beyong
whereas most other killings fall outside the
facial discrimination. The Clause “forbids subtle
prohibition. The city deems hunting, slaughter of
departures from neutrality,” and “covert
animals for food, eradication of insects and
suppression of particular religious beliefs.”
pests, and euthanasia as necessary.
Official action that targets religious conduct for
distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by 11. The city’s application of the ordinance’s test
mere compliance with the requirement of facial of necessity devalues religious reasons for killing
neutrality. by judging them to be of lesser import than non-
religious reasons. Thus, religious practice is
6. In the case at bar, there are further respects in
being singled out for discriminatory
which the text of the city council’s enactments
disclose the improper attempt to target Santeria
because of the words used in the ordinances, like
“…city’s commitment to prohibit any and all such
acts (animal sacrifice) of any and all religious
groups,” the city officials had no other religion in
mind other than Santeria.