Section 5: Freedom of Religion

Title of the Case Facts Issue Held Ruling

Aglipay vs. Ruiz  In May 1936: the WoN there was a No. Religious freedom as a constitutional
(1937) Director of Posts violation of the mandate is not inhibition of profound
announced in the freedom of religion reverence for religion and is not a
*Purpose of the dailies of Manila denial of its influence in human affairs.
stamps was to that he would order Religion as a profession of faith to an
raise revenue the issuance of active power that binds and elevates
and advertise postage stamps man to his Creator is recognized.
the Philippines. commemorating the And, in so far as it instils into the minds
The design of celebration in the the purest principles of morality, its
the stamps City of Manila of the influence is deeply felt and highly
showed a map 33rd International appreciated. When the Filipino people,
of the Eucharistic in the preamble of their Constitution,
Philippines and Congress, organized implored “the aid of Divine Providence,
nothing about by the Roman in order to establish a government that
the Catholic Catholic Church shall embody their ideals, conserve and
Church. No  The petitioner, develop the patrimony of the nation,
religious Mons. Gregorio promote the general welfare, and secure
purpose was Aglipay, Supreme to themselves and their posterity the
intended. Head of the blessings of independence under a
Philippine regime of justice, liberty and
Independent democracy,” they thereby manifested
Church, in the their intense religious nature and
fulfilment of what placed unfaltering reliance upon Him
he considers to be a who guides the destinies of men and
civic duty, nations.
requested Vicente
Sotto, member of The elevating influence of religion in
the Philippine Bar, human society is recognized here as
 to denounce the elsewhere.
matter to the Act 4052 contemplates no religious
President of the purpose in view. What it gives the
Philippines Director of Posts is the discretionary
 In spite of the power to determine when the issuance
protest of the of special postage stamps would be
petitioner’s “advantageous to the Government.” Of
attorney, the course, the phrase “advantageous to the
Director of Posts Government” does not authorize the
publicly announced violation of the Constitution; i.e. to
having sent to the appropriate, use or apply of public
US the designs of money or property for the use, benefit
the postage for or support of a particular sect or church.
printing In the case at bar, the issuance of the
 The said stamps postage stamps was not inspired by any
were actually issued sectarian feeling to favor a particular
and sold through church or religious denominations. The
the greater part stamps were not issued and sold for the
thereof remained benefit of the Roman Catholic Church,
unsold nor were money derived from the sale
 The further sale of of the stamps given to that church. The
stamps was sought purpose of the issuing of the stamps
to be prevented by was to take advantage of an event
petitioner considered of international importance
to give publicity to the Philippines and
its people and attract more tourists to
the country. Thus, instead of showing a
Catholic chalice, the stamp contained a
map of the Philippines, the location of
the City of Manila, and an inscription
that reads “Seat XXXIII International
Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937.”
The Supreme Court denied the petition
 for a writ of prohibition, without
pronouncement as to costs.

Garces vs.  The Barangay WoN the No.  The wooden image was
Estenzo Council of Valencia, resolutions purchased in celebration of
(1981) Ormoc City, issued contravene Section the barrio fiesta honouring the
4 resolutions 5, Article II of the patron Saint and NOT for the
*Replevin: a regarding the Constitution purpose of favouring any
procedure acquisition of the religion nor interfering with
whereby seized wooden image of religious matters or beliefs of
goods may be San Vicente Ferrer the barrio residents
provisionally to be used in the  One of the highlights of the fiesta
restored to their celebration of his was the mass; consequently, the
owner pending annual feast day image of the patron saint had to
the outcome of  One of the be placed in the church when the
an action to resolutions further mass was celebrated
determine the provided that the  If there is nothing
rights of the barangay council, in unconstitutional or illegal in
parties accordance with the holding a fiesta and having a
concerned practice in Eastern patron saint for the barrio, then
Leyte, Councilman any activity intended to facilitate
Tomas the worship of the patron saint
Cabatingan, the (such as the acquisition and
Chairman or display of his image) cannot be
hermano mayor of branded as illegal
the fiesta, would  As noted in the first resolution,
be the caretaker of the barrio fiesta is a socio-
the image of San religious affair; its celebration
Vicente Ferrer and is an ingrained tradition in
that the image rural communities; The fiesta
would remain in relieves the monotony and
his residence for 1 drudgery of the lives of the
year and until the
 election of his masses
successor as  The barangay council designated
chairman of the a layman as the custodian of the
next feast day wooden image in order to
 Several days after forestall any suspicion that it is
the fiesta, on the favouring the Catholic Church; a
occasion of his more practical reason for that
sermon during a arrangement would be that
mass, Father the image, if placed in a
Osmea allegedly layman’s custody, could easily
uttered be made available to any
defamatory family desiring to borrow the
statements/remar image in connection with
ks against the prayers and novenas
barangay Captain  The Court finds that the
Veloso in momentous issues of
connection with separation of church and state,
the disputed freedom of religion and the
image use of public money to favour
 That incident any sect or church are not
provoked Veloso to involved at all in this case even
file against Father remotely or indirectly
Osmea in the city  There can be no question that
court of Ormoc City the image in question belongs
a charge for grave to the barangay council
oral defamation.  Father Osmea’s claim that it
Father Osmea belongs to his church is
retaliated by filing WRONG
administrative  Not every governmental
complaints against activity which involves the
Veloso on the expenditure of public funds
grounds of and which has some religious
immorality, grave
abuse of authority, tint is violative of the
acts unbecoming a constitutional provisions
public official and regarding separation of
ignorance of the church and state, freedom of
law. Meanwhile, the worship and banning the use
image of San of public money or property.
Vicente Ferrer
remained in the
Catholic church of
Valencia. Because
Father Osmea did
not accede to the
request of
Cabatingan to have
custody of the
image and
"maliciously
ignored" the
council's
resolutions, the
council enacted
another resolution,
authorizing the
hiring of a lawyer to
file a replevin case
against Father
Osmea for the
recovery of the
image. On June 14,
1976, the barangay
council passed
another resolution,
appointing Veloso
 as its representative
in the replevin case.
 The replevin case
was filed in the city
court of Ormoc City
against Father
Osmea and Bishop
Cipriano Urgel.
After the barangay
council had posted
a cash bond of eight
hundred pesos,
Father Osmea
turned over the
image to the
council. ln his
answer to the
complaint for
replevin, he assailed
the constitutionality
of the said
resolutions library
 Later, he and three
other persons,
Andres Garces, a
member of the
Aglipayan Church,
and two Catholic
laymen, Jesus
Edullantes and
Nicetas Dagar, filed
against the
barangay council
 and its members
(excluding two
members) a
complaint in the
Court of First
Instance at Ormoc
City, praying for the
annulment of the
said resolutions.
The lower court
dismissed the
complaint. lt upheld
the validity of the
resolutions.

American Bible Plaintiff-appellant is a
Society vs. City foreign, non- stock, non-
of Manila profit, religious,
(1957) missionary corporation
duly registered and doing
business in the Philippines.
In the course of its
ministry, plaintiff's
Philippine agency has been
distributing and selling
bibles and/or gospel
portions thereof (except
during the Japanese
occupation) throughout
the Philippines and
translating the same into
several Philippine dialects.
WoN the imposition Yes. YES. The constitutional guaranty of the
of the fees free exercise and enjoyment of religious
constitute an profession and worship carries with it the
impairment of the right to disseminate religious information.
free-exercise of Any restraint of such right can only be
religion of the justified like other restraints of freedom of
petitioner as expression on the grounds that there is a
imposed on its sale clear and present danger of any
and distribution of substantive evil which the State has the
Bibles right to prevent.
The fees under Ordinance No. 2529, as
amended, cannot be applied to appellant,
for in doing so it would impair its free
exercise and enjoyment of its religious
profession and worship as well as its rights
of dissemination of religious beliefs.
There is a difference when the tax is

On May 29 1953, the
acting City Treasurer of the
City of Manila informed
plaintiff that it was
conducting the business of
general merchandise since
November, 1945, without
providing itself with the
necessary Mayor's permit
and municipal license.
Plaintiff protested against
this requirement, but the
City Treasurer demanded
that plaintiff deposit and
pay the sum of P5, 891.45
which it paid under
protest. A suit was brought
by plaintiff against
defendant.
imposed upon the income or property
of the religious organization and one
imposed against the acts of
disseminating religious information. To
tax the latter is impair the free exercise
and enjoyment of its religious
profession and worship as well as its
rights of dissemination of religious
beliefs regardless of the amount of
such fees.
Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila,
as amended, is not applicable to plaintiff-
appellant and defendant-appellee is
powerless to license or tax the business of
plaintiff Society involved herein for, as
stated before, it would impair plaintiff's
right to the free exercise and enjoyment of
its religious profession and worship, as
well as its rights of dissemination of
religious beliefs, We find that Ordinance
No. 3000, as amended, is also
inapplicable to said business, trade or
occupation of the plaintiff.
‘We do not mean to say that religious
groups and the press are free from all
financial burdens of government. See
Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297
U.S., 233, 250, 80 L. ed. 660, 668, 56
S. Ct. 444. We have here something
quite different, for example, from a tax
on the income of one who engages in
religious activities or a tax on property
used or employed in connection with
those activities. It is one thing to
impose a tax on the 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 tax imposed by the City of
Jeannette is a flat license tax, payment
of which is a condition of the exercise
of these constitutional privileges. 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. Those who can tax the
privilege of engaging in this form of
missionary evangelism can close all its
doors to all 'those who do not have a full
purse. Spreading religious beliefs in this
ancient and honorable manner would thus
be denied the needy. . . .
Iglesia ni Cristo Petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo,
vs. CA a duly organized religious
(1996) organization, has a
television program entitled
"Ang Iglesia ni Cristo"
aired on Channel 2 every
Saturday and on Channel
13 every Sunday. The
program presents and
propagates petitioner's
religious beliefs, doctrines
and practices often times
in comparative studies
with other religions.
Petitioner submitted to the
respondent Board of
Review for Moving
Pictures and Television
the VTR tapes of its TV
program Series Nos. 116,
119, 121 and 128. The
Board classified the series as
"X" or not for public
viewing on the ground that
they "offend and constitute
an attack against other
religions which is expressly
1. Whether the 1.) Yes. First Issue:
MTRCB has 2.) No.  Yes. The right to religious
jurisdiction to review profession and worship has a
petitioner's TV two-fold aspect: 1.) Freedom
program entitled to believe and 2.) Freedom to
"Ang Iglesia ni act on one’s belief
Cristo?
  The first one is absolute as
long as the belief is confined
2. Whether the within the realm of thought
action of respondent
 The second one is subject to
MTRCB x- rating
regulation; where the belief is
petitioner's TV
translated into external acts
Program Series
that affect the public welfare
Nos. 115, 119, and
121 should be
We thus reject petitioner's postulate that its
sustained?
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 bosom of internal
belief. Television is a medium that reaches
even the eyes and ears of children. The
Court reiterates 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, i.e., serious detriment to the more
prohibited by law."
In its first course of action
against respondent
Board, INC appealed to
the Office of the President
where it was favored and
then again, before the
Quezon City RTC alleging
that the respondent Board
acted without jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of
discretion in requiring
petitioner to submit the
VTR tapes of its TV
program and in x-rating
them, where it INC again
won but was directed to
refrain from attacking
other religions. The Court
of Appeals reversed the
same.
overriding interest of public health, public
morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire
policy on the exercise of religion can be
seductive to the liberal mind but history
counsels the Court against its blind
adoption as religion is and continues to be
a volatile area of concern in our country
today. Across the sea and in our shore,
the bloodiest and bitterest wars fought
by men were caused by irreconcilable
religious differences. Our country is
still not safe from the recurrence of this
stultifying strife considering our
warring religious beliefs and the
fanaticism with which some of us cling
and claw to these beliefs. Even now,
we have yet to settle the near century
old strife in Mindanao, the roots of
which have been nourished by the
mistrust and misunderstanding
between our Christian and Muslim
brothers and sisters. The bewildering
rise of weird religious cults espousing
violence as an article of faith also
proves the wisdom of our rule rejecting
a strict let alone policy on the exercise
of religion. For sure, we shall continue
to subject any act pinching the space
for the free exercise of religion to a
heightened scrutiny but we shall not
leave its rational exercise to the
irrationality of man. For when religion
divides and its exercise destroys, the State
should not stand still.

________________________

Second Issue:

 No. First, the evidence shows that

the respondent Board x-rated
petitioners TV series for
“attacking” either religions,
especially the Catholic Church
 An examination of the evidence
will show that the so-called
“attacks” are mere criticisms of
some of the deeply held dogmas
and tenets of other religions

The videotapes were not viewed by

the respondent court as they were not
presented as evidence. Yet they were
considered by the respondent court as
indecent, contrary to law and good
customs, hence, can be prohibited
from public viewing under section 3(c)
of PD 1986. This ruling clearly
suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech
and interferes with its right to free exercise
of religion.

Second, even a side glance at section

3 of PD No. 1986 will reveal that, the
ground "attacks against another religion"
in x-rating the religious program of
petitioner, is not among the grounds to
justify an order prohibiting the broadcast
of petitioner's television program. The
ground "attack against another religion"
was merely added by the respondent
Board in its Rules. This rule is void for it
runs smack against the hoary doctrine that
administrative rules and regulations cannot
expand the letter and spirit of the law they
seek to enforce.

Third, 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 aclear and present danger of any
substantive evil which the State has the
right to prevent." In Victoriano vs.
Elizalde Rope Workers Union, we
further ruled that ".. . it is only where it
is unavoidably necessary to prevent
animmediate and grave dangerto 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."

Ebralinag et. al. All the petitioners in these
vs. The Division two cases were expelled
of from their classes by the
Superintendent public school authorities in
of Schools of Cebu for refusing to salute
Cebu the flag, sing the national
(1993) anthem and recite the
patriotic pledge as
required by Republic Act
No. 1265 and by
Lastly, the records show that the decision
of the respondent Board, affirmed by the
respondent appellate court, is completely
bereft of findings of facts to justify the
conclusion that the subject video tapes
constitute impermissible attacks against
another religion. There is no showing
whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes
will bring about especially the gravity and
imminence of the threatened harm.
Prior restraint on speech, including
religious speech, cannot be justified by
hypothetical fears but only by the showing
of a substantive and imminent evil which
has taken the life of a reality already on
ground.
WoN the expulsion Yes. The 30-year old decision of SC in
of the students by Gerona upholding the flag salute law
reason of not and approving the expulsion of
upholding the flag students who refuse to obey it, is not
salute law is lightly to be trifled with.
unconstitutional
It is somewhat ironic however, that
after the Gerona ruling had received
legislative cachet by its in corporation
in the Administrative Code of 1987, the
Department Order No. 8 of
DECS making the flag
ceremony compulsory in
all educational institutions.
Jehovah's Witnesses
admittedly teach their
children not to salute the
flag, sing the national
anthem, and recite the
patriotic pledge for they
believe that those are "acts
of worship" or "religious
devotion" which they
"cannot conscientiously
give . . . to anyone or
anything except God". They
feel bound by the Bible's
command to "guard
ourselves from idols — 1
John 5:21". They consider
the flag as an image or idol
representing the State.
They think the action of
the local authorities in
compelling the flag salute
and pledge transcends
constitutional limitations
on the State's power and
invades the sphere of the
intellect and spirit which
the Constitution protect
against official control
However, the petitioners
present Court believes that the time
has come to re-examine it. The idea
that one may be compelled to salute the
flag, sing the national anthem, and recite
the patriotic pledge, during a flag
ceremony on pain of being dismissed from
one's job or of being expelled from school,
is alien to the conscience of the present
generation of Filipinos who cut their teeth
on the Bill of Rights which guarantees
their rights to free speech ** and the free
exercise of religious profession and
worship.
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.
The SC is not persuaded that by
exempting the Jehovah's Witnesses from
saluting the flag, singing the national
anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge,
this religious group which admittedly
comprises a "small portion of the school
population" will shake up our part of the
globe and suddenly produce a nation
"untaught and uninculcated in and
unimbued with reverence for the flag,
patriotism, love of country and admiration
for national heroes"
After all, what the petitioners seek only is
herein have not raised in
issue the constitutionality
of the above provision of
the new Administrative
Code of 1987. They have
targeted only Republic Act
No. 1265 and the
implementing orders of the
DECS.
exemption from the flag ceremony, not
exclusion from the public schools where
they may study the Constitution, the
democratic way of life and form of
government, and learn not only the arts,
sciences, Philippine history and culture but
also receive training for a vocation of
profession and be taught the virtues of
"patriotism, respect for human rights,
appreciation for national heroes, the rights
and duties of citizenship, and moral and
spiritual values.
Moreover, the expulsion of members of
Jehovah’s Witnesses from the schools
where they are enrolled will violate their
right as Philippine Citizens, under the
1987 Constitution, to receive free
education (Section 1, Article 14).
SC holds that a similar exemption may
be accorded to the Jehovah’s Witnesses
with regard to the observance of the
flag ceremony out of respect for their
religious beliefs, however “bizarre”
those beliefs may seem to others.
Nevertheless, their right not to
participate in the flag ceremony does
not give them a right to disrupt such
patriotic exercises
German vs. At 5pm in October 1984,
Barangan Reli German and around
50 businessmen, students
and office employees
converged at J.P. Laurel St,
Manila, for the purpose of
hearing Mass at the St. Jude
Chapel which adjoins the
Malacanang grounds
located in the same street.
Wearing yellow T- shirts
they started to march
down said street with
raised clenched fists and
shouts of anti- government
invectives. Along the way,
they were stopped or
barred by respondent
Major Isabelo Lariosa,
upon the orders of his
superior and co-
respondent General
Santiago Barangan. They
Is the bar or the act No. NO, it is not a violation of their freedom
of disallowing to worship and locomotion.
petitioners to
worship and pray at In the case at bar, German et al were not
St. Luke’s Chapel a denied or restrained of their freedom of
violation of their belief or choice of their religion, but,
freedom to worship only in the manner by which they had
and locomotion? attempted to translate the same into
action.
Exercise of right to religious freedom
must be done in good faith without
any ulterior motive, example, Political
– the foregoing cannot but cast serious
doubts on the sincerity and good faith of
petitioners in invoking the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of
religious worship and of locomotion.
While it is beyond debate that every
citizen has the undeniable and
inviolable right to religious freedom, the
exercise thereof, and of all fundamental
rights for that matter, must be done in
 argued that St. Jude Chapel
was located within the
Malacanang Security area.
They also argued that
German et al’s intention
was not really to perform
an act of religious worship,
but, to conduct an anti-
government
demonstration at a place
close to the very residence
and offices of the
President.
Estrada vs. In a sworn-letter
Escritor complaint dated July 27,
(2003) 2000, complainant
Alejandro Estrada
requested Judge Jose F.
Caoibes, Jr., presiding
judge of Branch 253,
Regional Trial Court of Las
Piñas City, for an
investigation of
respondent Soledad
Escritor, court interpreter
in said court, for living
with a man not her
husband, and having borne
a child within this live-in
arrangement. Estrada
good faith. As Article 19 of the civil code
admonishes: “Every person must, in the
exercise of his rights, and the
performance of his duties xxx observe
honesty and good faith.”
The State could not penalize
Whether or Not the No. respondent for she is exercising her
State could penalize right to freedom of religion. The
respondent for free exercise of religion is
such conjugal specifically articulated as one of the
arrangement. fundamental rights in our
Constitution. As Jefferson put it, it is
the most inalienable and sacred of
human rights. The State’s interest in
enforcing its prohibition cannot be
merely abstractor symbolic in order to
be sufficiently compelling to outweigh
a free exercise claim. In the case at bar,
the State has not evinced any concrete
interest in enforcing the concubinage
or bigamy charges against respondent
or her partner. Thus the State’s
interest only amounts to the symbolic
believes that Escritor is
committing an immoral act
that tarnishes the image of
the court, thus she should
not be allowed to remain
employed therein as it
might appear that the
court condones her act.
Consequently, respondent
was charged with
committing “disgraceful
and immoral conduct”
under Book V, Title I,
Chapter VI, Sec. 46(b)(5) of
the Revised Administrative
Code.
Respondent
Escritor testified that when
she entered the judiciary in
1999, she was already a
widow, her husband
having died in 1998. She
admitted that she started
living with Luciano
Quilapio, Jr. without the
benefit of marriage more
than twenty years ago
when her husband was still
alive but living with
another woman. She also
admitted that she and
Quilapio have a son. But as
preservation of an unenforced
prohibition. Furthermore, a
distinction between public and secular
morality and religious morality should
be kept in mind. The jurisdiction of the
Court extends only to public and
secular morality.
The Court further states that our
Constitution adheres
the benevolentneutrality approach that
gives room for accommodation of
religious exercises as required by the
Free Exercise Clause.
This benevolentneutrality could allow
for accommodation of morality based
on religion, provided it does not offend
compelling state interests. Assuming
arguendo that the OSG has proved a
compelling state interest, it has to
further demonstrate that the state has
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.
Thus the conjugalarrangement cannot
be penalized for it constitutes an
exemption to the law based on her
right to freedom of religion.
a member of the religious
sect known as the
Jehovah’s Witnesses and
the Watch Tower and Bible
Tract Society, respondent
asserted that their conjugal
arrangement is in
conformity with their
religious beliefs and has
the approval of her
congregation. In fact, after
ten years of living together,
she executed on July 28,
1991, a “Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness.”

For Jehovah’s
Witnesses, the Declaration
allows members of the
congregation who have
been abandoned by their
spouses to enter into
marital relations. The
Declaration thus makes the
resulting union moral and
binding within the
congregation all over the
world except in countries
where divorce is allowed.
As laid out by the tenets of
their faith, the Jehovah’s
congregation requires that
at the time the declarations
are executed, the couple
cannot secure the civil
authorities’ approval of the
marital relationship
because of legal
impediments. Only couples
who have been baptized
and in good standing may
execute the Declaration,
which requires the
approval of the elders of
the congregation. As a
matter of practice, the
marital status of the
declarants and their
respective spouses’
commission of adultery are
investigated before the
declarations are executed.
Escritor and Quilapio’s
declarations were
executed in the usual and
approved form prescribed
by the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, approved by
elders of the congregation
where the declarations
were executed, and
recorded in the Watch
Tower Central Office.

Moreover, the
Jehovah’s congregation
 believes that once all legal
impediments for the
couple are lifted, the
validity of the declarations
ceases, and the couple
should legalize their union.
In Escritor’s case, although
she was widowed in 1998,
thereby lifting the legal
impediment to marry on
her part, her mate was still
not capacitated to remarry.

Thus, their
declarations remained
valid. In sum, therefore,
insofar as the congregation
is concerned, there is
nothing immoral about the
conjugal arrangement
between Escritor and
Quilapio and they remain
members in good standing
in the congregation.

Soriano vs. 1. Petitioner is a host of the Whether or not No.

Laguardia program Ang Dating Daan
(2010) aired on UNTV 37 and he
made the ff. remarks:
“Lehitimong anak ng
demonyo; sinungaling;
Gago ka talaga Michael,
Soriano‘s No. Under the circumstances
statements during obtaining in this case, therefore, and
the televised ―Ang considering the adverse effect of
Dating Daan part of petitioner‘s utterances on the viewers‘
the religious fundamental rights as well as
discourse and petitioner‘s clear violation of his duty
masahol ka pa sa putang within the as a public trustee, the MTRCB
babae o di ba. Yung putang protection of properly suspended him from
babae ang gumagana lang Section 5, Art.III. appearing in Ang Dating Daan for
doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay three months. Furthermore, it cannot
Michael ang gumagana ang be properly asserted that petitioner‘s
itaas, o di ba! O, masahol suspension was an undue curtailment
pa sa putang babae yan. of his right to free speech either as a
Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa prior restraint or as a subsequent
sa putang babae yan. Sobra punishment. Aside from the reasons
ang kasinungalingan ng given above (re the paramount of
mga demonyong ito.” viewers rights, the public trusteeship
character of a broadcaster‘s role and
2. 2 days after, the the power of the State to regulate
broadcast media), a requirement that
respondents, before the
indecent language be avoided has its
MTRCB lodged complaints
primary effect on the form, rather than
against Soriano. The
the content, of serious communication.
MTRCB sent Soriano a
There are few, if any, thoughts that
notice of the hearing. After cannot be expressed by the use of less
the hearing, the MTRCB offensive language.
issued an order
preventively suspending The SC ruled that ―Soriano‘s
the showing of Dating statement can be treated as obscene, at
Daan program for 20 days. least with respect to the average child,‖
This suspension is in and thus his utterances cannot be
accordance with Sec 3(d) considered as protected speech. Citing
of PD 1986, the law decisions from the US Supreme Court,
creating the MTRCB and in the High Court said that the analysis
relation to its IRR. The should be ―context based‖ and found
MTRCB also ordered to set the utterances to be obscene after
the case for preliminary considering the use of television
investigation. broadcasting as a medium, the time of
the show, and the ―G rating of the
3. In the Adm. Case No. 01- show, which are all factors that made
04, the MTRCB issued a
decision finding petitioner
liable for his utterance and
imposing upon him 3
months suspicion from his
program “Ang Dating
Daan”
Contention of Soriano:
The order of preventive
suspension imposed by the
MTRCB was issued with
grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
The IRR is invalid since it
provides for the issuance
of preventive suspension
orders
There was lack of due
process since there was no
hearing before the court
The order was
violative of freedom of
religion and freedom of
speech and expression
The law (PD 1986) relied
by the MTRCB has no
sufficient standard for its
implementation resulting
to undue delegation.
Hence, the MTRCB cannot
provide for the penalties
the utterances susceptible to children
viewers. The Court emphasized on
how the uttered words could be easily
understood by a child literally rather
than in the context that they were
used.
The SC also said ―that the suspension
is not a prior restraint, but rather a
―form of permissible administrative
sanction or subsequent punishment.‖
In affirming the power of the MTRCB
to issue an order of suspension, the
majority said that ―it is a sanction
that the MTRCB may validly impose
under its charter without running
afoul of the free speech clause.‖ visit
fellester.blogspot.com The Court said
that the suspension ―is not a prior
restraint on the right of petitioner to
continue with the broadcast of Ang
Dating Daan as a permit was already
issued to him by MTRCB, rather, it
was a sanction for ―the indecent
contents of his utterances in a ―G
rated TV program.
 for violations of its
provisions
The Reproductive Health
Imbong vs. Law is a consolidation and
Ochoa enhancement of existing
(2014) reproductive laws. It seeks
to enhance the population
control program of the
government in order to
promote public welfare.
However, when coercive
measures are found within
the law, provisions must
be removed or altered in
order to ensure that it does
not defy the Constitution
by infringing on the rights
of the people.
•Petition: to declare
provisions of Republic Act
No. 10354 as
unconstitutional
•Factual Antecedents
•December 21, 2012:
Congress enacted RA No.
10354 also known as the
Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health
WoN the RH Law is
unconstitutional on • Freedom of Religion and the
the grounds that it Right to Free Speech – NO and YES
violates freedom of
religion and the right ➢ RH law does not violate
to free speech guarantee of religious freedom via the
state-sponsored procurement of
contraceptives, which contravene the
religious beliefs of the people
including the petitioners. This is
because in doing so, the state would be
adhering to one religions, making a de
facto state religion which is contrary to
religious freedom.
➢ The separation of Church and
State shall be inviolable
➢ There limits to the exercise of
religious freedom (compelling state
interest test)
➢ Benevolent neutrality
➢ RH law does not violate the
guarantee of religious freedom by
requiring would-be spouses, as a
condition for the issuance of a
marriage license, to attend a seminar
on parenthood, family planning,
Act of 2012 (RH LAW)
• The president’s
imprimatur and support
for the said law lead to a
range of petitions against
the law leading to iuris
controversy in court.
Petitions for certiorari and
prohibition were placed by
numerous parties. All in all,
14 petitions and 2
petitions-in-intervention
were filed.
breastfeeding and infant nutrition
(sec.7, 23, 24)
➢ However, RH Law violates the
guarantee of religious freedom by
compelling medical health
practitioners, hospitals, and health
care providers, under pain of penalty,
to refer patients to other institutions
despite their conscientious objections

• March 15, 2013:

the RH-IRR or enforcement
of the law took place
• March 19, 2013:
After deliberating the
issues and arguments
raised, the court issued
Status Quo Ante Order
(SQAO) which lead to a
120 day halt on the
implementation of the
legislation
• Due to further
arguments and debates
from opposing parties, the
SQAO was extended until
further orders of the court
last July 16, 2013
• Statute Involved:
• Republic Act 10354,
“The Responsible
Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of
2012”
• Position of
Petitioner:
o Petitioners claim
that the provisions of RA
10354 are unconstitutional
as they violate the rights to
life, to health, to freedom
of expression and speech,
to the privacy of families,
to academic freedom, to
due process of law, to
equal protection, and
against involuntary
servitude. They also
intrude on the autonomy
of local governments and
the ARMM, and violate
natural law. Furthermore,
they claim that Congress’
delegation of authority to
the FDA in determining
which should be included
in the EDL is invalid.
• Position of
Respondent
• There is no actual
case or controversy and,
therefore, the issues are
not yet ripe for judicial
determination
• Some petitioners
lack standing to question
the RH Law
• The petitions are
essentially petitions for
declaratory relief over
which the Court has no
original jurisdiction.