Section 1 of subsection (7) of Aricle III of the PH Consti provides that:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights

Ordinance No. 300 –

However, section 3 of Ordinance 3000 contains item No. 79, which reads as follows: "79. All other
businesses, trades or occupations not mentioned in this Ordinance, except those upon which the City is
not empowered to license or to tax. . . P5.00".

Therefore, the necessity of the permit is made to depend upon the power of the City to license or tax
said business, trade or occupation.

Article III, section 1, clause (7) of the Constitution of the Philippines aforequoted,
guarantees the freedom of religious profession and worship. "Religion has been
spoken of as 'a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates
man to its Creator' (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil., 201). It has reference to one's
views of his relations to His Creator and to the obligations they impose of
reverence to His being and character, and obedience to His Will (Davis vs.
Beason, 133 U.S., 342).

The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious

profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious
information.
In the case at bar the license fee herein involved is imposed upon appellant for
its distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature.

In Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, it was held that an ordinance requiring that a

license be obtained before a person could canvass or solicit orders for goods,
paintings etc cannot be made to apply to members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who
went about from door to door distributing literature and soliciting people to
purchase certain religious books and pamphlets. Here, the SC held that
petitioners were NOT engaged in commercial but in a religious venture.

Religious groups and the press are NOT ALWAYS FREE from all financial
burdens of the government. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income of one
who engages in religious activities (income or property of a preacher), it is quite
another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon.
THE POWER TO TAX THE EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE IS THE POWER TO
CONTROL OR SUPPRESS ITS ENJOYMENT. Those who can tax the exercise
of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the
resources necessary for its maintenance.

Inherent vice and evil of the flat license tax: It is levied and collected as a
condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the
constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their
exercise
Section 27 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, otherwise known as the National
Internal Revenue Code, provides:
"SEC. 27. EXEMPTIONS FROM TAX ON CORPORATIONS. — The following
organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by
them as such —
"(e) Corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for
religious, charitable, . . . or educational purposes, . . Provided however, That
the income of whatever kind and character from any of its properties, real or
personal, or from any activity conducted for profit, regardless of the
disposition made of such income, shall be liable to the tax imposed under this
Code;"

The fact that their bibles were sometimes much more expensive does not prove
that the appellant was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said
merchandise for profit.

Return the sum money of 5,891.45 because the ordinance 3000 is not applicable
to the herein appellant.

Question: profit = business venture even if the profit is meant for charitable
purposes? Supposing that the sale of pamphlets is commercial but the proceeds
are used in their religious activities…?

Iglesia ni Cristo – Aired on channel 2 and 13 on sat and sun respectively.

MTRCB denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the three series (115, 119 and
121) of Ang Iglesia ni Cristo on the ground that the materials constitute and
attack against other religion.

WON the CA erred in holding that the Ang Iglesia ni Cristo program is NOT
constitutionally protected as a form of religious exercise and expression.

Is it indecent and contrary to law and good customs?

Section 5, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that 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’

Freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status by

the framers of our fundamental laws, past and present. We have affirmed this
preferred status well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest
possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his
conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he
ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common
good."
The right to religious profession has a two-fold aspect:
1. Freedom to believe – absolute as long as the belief is confined within the
realm of thought. However absurd his beliefs may be to others, he has
FULL FREEDOM TO BELIEVE AS HE PLEASES.
2. Freedom to act on one’s belief – subject to regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. His freedom to
do so becomes subject to the authority of the state. It can be enjoyed only
with a proper regard or the rights of others. It is error to think that the mere
invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the state and render it
impotent in protecting the GENERAL WELFARE. The inherent police
power can be exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society.
Justice Frankurter: “the constitutional provision on religious freedom
terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges. It gave religious
liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity to
religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious
dogma.”

The SC rejects the petitioner’s postulate that its religious program is per se
beyond review by the respondent Board. Its public broadcast on TV of its
religious program brings it out of the bossom of internal belief. The court
iterates that the rule that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated
by the state when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some
substantive evil which the state is duty bound to prevent.

HOWEVER, the SC reversed the ruling of the appellate court.

Why???
 1. It is the burden of the respondent to Board to overthrow the presumption of
invalidity of the speech. It failed to discharge this burden.
2. The ruling suppresses the petitioner’s freedom of speech and interferes
with its right to free exercise of religion. It misappreciates the essence of
freedom to differ.In Cantell v. Connecticut: “In the realm of religious faith,
and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise.” Religious dogmas
and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers,
the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the state from
leaning towards any religion. Respondent board cannot squelch the
speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other
religions. The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is
best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas.
3. “attacks against any religion” is not among the grounds to justify an order
prohibiting the broadcast of petitioner’s television program. . It was merely
added by the Board on its rules. This rule is void for it expands the letter
and spirit of the law they seek to enforce. It prohibits shows which
OFFEND any race or religion. Attack is not synonymous with offend.
4. In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the respondents failed to
apply the clear and present danger rule. In American Bible Society v.
City of Manila, this Court held: "The constitutional guaranty of free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries
with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of
such right can be justified like other restraints on freedom of
expression on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of
any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent." In
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 23 we further ruled that ". . .
it is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate
and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that
infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the
smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.

The decision of the board is completely bereft of findings of facts to justify the
conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute impermissible attacks
against another religion. Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech,
cannot be justified by HYPOTHETICAL FEARS BUT ONLY BY SHOWING
OF A SUBSTANTIVE AND IMMINENT EVIL WHICH HAS TAKEN THE LIFE
OF A REALITY ALREADY ON GROUND.

Mr. Justice Holmes: “the question in every case is whether the words used are
used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and
present danger test that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent.
The test is still applied in four types of speech:
1. Speech that advocates dangerous ideas
2. Speech that provokes a hostile audience reaction (it cannot be
doubted that religious truths disturb terribly)
3. Out of court contempt.
4. Release of information that endangers a fair trial.
SC sustained the jurisdiction of the respondent MTRCB to review the
petitioner’s tv program. It reversed the action of the respondent.

EBRALINAG VS. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF CEBU

Issue: whether school children who are members of a religious sect Jehovah’s
Witnesses may be expelled from school for refusing on account of their
religious beliefs to take part in the flag ceremony which includes playing or
singing the PH national anthem, saluting the PH flag and reciting the patriotic
pledge.
Department Order No. 8 o DECS makes the flag ceremony compulsory in all
educational institutions. RA No. 1265 sec 1 provides that all educational
institutions shall observe daily flag ceremony, which shall be simple and
dignified and shall include the playing or singing o the PH national anthem
Jehovah’s witnesses believe that such are ACTS OF WORSHIP or
RELIGIOUS DEVOTION which they cannot give to anyone or anything except
GOD.
The case of GERONA upheld the flag statute law and approved the expulsion
of students who refuse to obey it.
Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest
priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the
relationship of man to his creator.

(Also discussed in the case of Iglesia ni Cristo) The right to religious

professions and worship has a two-fold aspect (freedom to believe and
freedom to act on one’s belief)
Accg to CJ Teehankee, the SOLE JUSTIFICATION for a prior restraint or
limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a GRAVE
and PRESENT danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious
evil to public safety, morals, public interest that the state has a right to
prevent.
THREAT/SITUATION predicted by the court in GERONA case:
“the flag ceremony will become a thing of the past or perhaps conducted with
very few participants, and the time will come when we would have sictizens
UNTAUGHT and UNINCULCATED in and not imbued with reverence for the
flag and love of a country. The SC is not persuaded by this.
Expelling the petitioners from PH schools will bring about the very situation
that this court had feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through
the iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their
religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly
constituted authorities.
“If they quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony, no disturbance.

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA VS. SOLEDAD ESCRITOR

Escritor – invokes her religious freedom and Jehovah God in a bid to save her
family-united without the benefit o legal marriage- and livelihood.
- Court interpreter, living with a man not her husband, and having borne a
child within this live-in arrangement (ESTRADA BELIEVES THAT IT IS
IMMORAL AND TARNISHES THE IMAGE OF THE COURT)
- Escritor was already a widow before entering the judiciary
- “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” allows members who have
been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. It was
approved and recognized by the elders in the congregation.
- The declaration is only valid when there are legal impediments
(Quilapio no capacitated to remarry) Once they are lifted, they are
to legalize their union.

ARTICLE 3, SEC 5. 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. (RER/PFT FE&ERP&W WDP NRTCPR)
In resolving claims involving religious freedom 1.BENEVOLENT
NEUTRALITY OR ACCOMODATION, whether mandatory or permissive, is
the spirit, intent and framework underlying the religion clauses in our
constitution; and 2. In deciding the respondent’s plea of exemption based on
the Free exercise clause (from the law with which she is administratively
charged), it is COMPELLING STATE INTEREST test, the strictest test, which
must be applied.
America’s first amendment - James Mdision: The national gov had no
jurisdiction over religion or any shadow of right to intermeddle with it. The
restriction had to be made explicit with the adoption of the religion
clauses in the First Amendment as they are worded to this day. It did not
take away or abridge any power of the national government; its intent
was to make express the ABSENCE OF POWER. It commands, in 2 parts
(1. Establishment clause 2. Free exercise clause)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
They have a single goal: TO PROMOTE FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUAL
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES. They were intended to deny
government the power to use either the carrot or the stick to influence
individual religious beliefs and practices.
1. Free exercise clause prohibits government form inhibiting religious
beliefs with penalties for religious beliefs and practice.
2. Establishment clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious
belief with rewards for religious beliefs and practices.

A. STRICT SEPARATION AND STRICT NEUTRALITY/SEPARATION

Strict separationist – believes that the Establishment Clause was
meant to protect the state from the church, and the state’s hostility
towards religion allows no interaction between the two. Jeffersonian
view: AN ABSOLUTE BARRIER TO FORMAL INTERDEPENDENCE
OF RELIGION AND STATE NEEDS TO BE ERECTED because only
the complete separation of religion from politics would eliminate the
formal influence of religious institutions and provide for a free choice
among political views. (nag celebrate ng thanksgiving after first
amendment haha)

Strict neutrality or separationist – tamer version. The wall of

separation does not require the state to be their adversary. Rather the
state must be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers
and non-believers. This approach is not hostile to religion, but it is strict
in holding that religion may not be used as a basis for classification for
purposes of governmental action. Con: It could lead to a brooding and
pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility
to the religious which is prohibited by the consti.

B. BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY/ACCOMODATION
- the theory is premised on a different view o the wall of separation.
Unlike the Jeffersonian wall that is meant to protect the state from the
church, the wall is meant to protect the church from the state.
- It recognizes that religion plays an important role in the public life of the
US. (US is composed of religious people whose institutions presuppose
a Supreme Being)
1. Legislative acts and the Free Exercise Clause
- A legislative act that purposely aids or inhibits religion will be challenged
as unconstitutional, either because it violates that FEC or the EC or
both.
- Legislative acts which have a secular purpose and general applicability,
but may incidentally or inadvertently aid or burden religious exercise
(difficult religion case)
- BNT believes that with respect to these governmental actions,
ACCOMODATION of religion may be allowed, not to promote the
government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and
groups to exercise their religion
- Sherbert when a state regulation indirectly restrains or punishes
religious belief or conduct – such must be subjected to STRICT
SCRUTINY UNDER THE FEC.
- Sherbert, when a law of general application infringes religious exercise,
albeit incidentally, the state interest sought to be promoted must be so
PARAMOUNT and COMPELLING as to override the free exercise
claim.
- The court stressed that in the area of religious liberty, it is basic that it is
not sufficient to merely show a rational relationship of the substantial
infringement to the religious right and a colorable state interest. Here,
ONLY THE GRAVEST ABUSES, ENDANGERING PARAMOUNT
INTERESTS, GIVE OCCASION FOR PERMISSIBLE LIMITATION.

COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST (three-step process)

1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free
exercise of religion? The courts often look into the sincerity of the religious
belief, but without inquiring into the truth of the belief because the FEC
prohibits such.
2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement
of religious liberty? Here, the gov has to establish that its purposes are
legitimate for the state and that they are compelling.
3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive
means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than
necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state? LEAST INTRUSIVE
MEANS.
So even if it has been proven that there is a compelling state interest,
it has to further demonstrate that the state has used the LEAST