Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Church Autonomy in Expulsion Cases

    Uploaded by

    Chazzel Briele Jutingo
    52 views5 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that civil courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of religious organizations, including decisions around expelling or excommunicating members. The expulsion of members from the Philippine Independent Church by the bishop and parish priest involved religious intramurals outside the jurisdiction of civil courts. Civil courts can only intervene to protect civil or property rights, but no such rights were violated in this case. The ruling upheld the separation of church and state.

    Original Description:

    222

    Original Title

    222

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that civil courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of religious organizations, including decisions around expelling or excommunicating members. The expulsion of members from the Philippine Independent Church by the bishop and parish priest involved religious intramurals outside the jurisdiction of civil courts. Civil courts can only intervene to protect civil or property rights, but no such rights were violated in this case. The ruling upheld the separation of church and state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    52 views5 pages

    Church Autonomy in Expulsion Cases

    Uploaded by

    Chazzel Briele Jutingo
    The Supreme Court ruled that civil courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of religious organizations, including decisions around expelling or excommunicating members. The expulsion of members from the Philippine Independent Church by the bishop and parish priest involved religious intramurals outside the jurisdiction of civil courts. Civil courts can only intervene to protect civil or property rights, but no such rights were violated in this case. The ruling upheld the separation of church and state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5

    9/7/2019 Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz G.R. No. 144801.

    Cruz G.R. No. 144801. March 10, 2005 Separation of Church and State. – PINAY JURIST

     MENU

    PINAY JURIST
    BAR EXAM REVIEWERS AND CASE DIGESTS

    — CIVIL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, POLITICAL  Search …


    LAW —

    Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz


    G.R. No. 144801. March 10, GET
    RESOURCE

    2005 Separation of Church BUNDLES &


    FRESH
    CONTENT
    and State. NOTIFICATION

    APRIL 11, 2018 Sign up for Pinay


    Jurist Newsletter
    Name

    FACTS:
    Email

    Petitioners were lay members of the


    Philippine Independent Church (PIC) in
    By continuing, you
    Socorro, Surigao del Norte. Respondents
    accept the privacy
    Por rio de la Cruz and Rustom Florano
    dev1.pinayjurist.com/taruc-vs-bishop-dela-cruz-g-r-no-144801-march-10-2005/ 1/5
    9/7/2019 Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz G.R. No. 144801. March 10, 2005 Separation of Church and State. – PINAY JURIST

    were the bishop and parish priest, policy

    respectively, of the same church in that


    I'M IN!
    locality. Petitioners, led by Dominador
    Taruc, clamored for the transfer of Fr.
    Florano to another parish but Bishop de la
    Cruz denied their request. It appears from
    the records that the family of Fr. Florano’s POLL
    wife belonged to a political party opposed
    to petitioner Tarucs, thus the animosity What subjects are yo
    between the two factions with Fr. Florano enrolled in?
    being identi ed with his wife’s political
    camp. Bishop de la Cruz, however, found I am a Bar Reviewee
    this too imsy a reason for transferring Fr.
    Florano to another parish.Because of the Political/ Constitutional L
    order of expulsion/excommunication, Law & Election Laws)

    petitioners led a complaint for damages


    with preliminary injunction against Criminal Law (Special Pe

    Bishop de la Cruz before the RTC.They


    contended that their expulsion was illegal Civil Law (Private Int'l L

    because it was done without trial thus


    violating their right to due process of law. Mercantile Law

      Remedial Law

    ISSUE: What is the role of the State, Taxation


    through the Courts, on matters of religious
    intramurals? Labor Law

      Legal Ethics

    Other:
    RULING:

    The expulsion/excommunication of Vote


    members of a religious
    View Results Crow
    institution/organization is a matter best
    left to the discretion of the o cials, and

    dev1.pinayjurist.com/taruc-vs-bishop-dela-cruz-g-r-no-144801-march-10-2005/ 2/5
    9/7/2019 Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz G.R. No. 144801. March 10, 2005 Separation of Church and State. – PINAY JURIST

    the laws and canons, of said


    institution/organization.

    CATEGORIES
    It is not for the courts to exercise control
    over church authorities in the Banking

    performance of their discretionary and


    Bar Q & A
    o cial functions. Rather, it is for the
    members of religious Civil Law
    institutions/organizations to conform to
    just church regulations. Constitutional Law

    Corporation Law
    “Civil Courts will not interfere in the
    internal a airs of a religious organization Criminal Law
    except for the protection of civil or
    property rights.  Those rights may be the Insurance

    subject of litigation in a civil court, and the


    Intellectual Property
    courts have jurisdiction to determine Law
    controverted claims to the title, use, or
    possession of church property.” International Law

    Labor Law
     
    Legal Ethics
    Obviously, there was no violation of a civil
    right in the present case. Mercantile Law

    Political Law
     
    Remedial Law

    Taxation
     APRIL 11, 2018  PINAYJURIST
     CIVIL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, POLITICAL
    LAW
     DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, SEPARATION OF CHURCH
    AND STATE META

    Register

    Log in

    dev1.pinayjurist.com/taruc-vs-bishop-dela-cruz-g-r-no-144801-march-10-2005/ 3/5
    9/7/2019 Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz G.R. No. 144801. March 10, 2005 Separation of Church and State. – PINAY JURIST

    Entries RSS

    Leave a Reply Comments RSS

    Your email address will not be published. Required elds are WordPress.org
    marked *

    Comment

    Name *

    Email *

    Website

    I'm not a robot


    reCAPTCHA
    Privacy - Terms

    POST COMMENT

    PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST

    dev1.pinayjurist.com/taruc-vs-bishop-dela-cruz-g-r-no-144801-march-10-2005/ 4/5
    9/7/2019 Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz G.R. No. 144801. March 10, 2005 Separation of Church and State. – PINAY JURIST

    Sagana vs. Francisco Malana vs. People G.R.


    G.R. No.161952 No. 173612 March 26,
    October 2, 2009 2008 Equipoise Rule
    Substituted Service of
    Summons

    Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Anissa by AlienWP.

    dev1.pinayjurist.com/taruc-vs-bishop-dela-cruz-g-r-no-144801-march-10-2005/ 5/5

    You might also like