You are on page 1of 13

consti part 10: free exercise clause

as to the amount of tax or license fee that the retail
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs. CITY of MANILA dealer has to pay per annum. Hence, and in accordance
with the weight of the authorities above referred to that
maintain that "all rights and liabilities which have
accrued under the original statute are preserved and
FACTS: may be enforced, since the reenactment neutralizes the
o the plaintiff is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit repeal, therefore continuing the law in force without
religious, missionary corporation duly registered interruption", We hold that the questioned ordinances of
and doing business in the Philippines through the City of Manila are still in force and effect.
its Philippines agency established in November
of 1898 *The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise
o the defendant appellee is a municipal and enjoyment of religious profession and worship
corporation with powers that are to be carries with it the right to disseminate religious
excercised in conformity with the provisions of information. Any restraint of such right can only be
R.A No. 409, known as the revised charter of the justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on
city of manila the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of
o the plaintiffs agency has been distributing and any substantive evil which the State has the right to
selling bibles and gospel porionms thereof prevent". (Tañada and Fernando on the Constitution of
throughout the Philippines the Philippines, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 297). In the case at bar
o the acting city treasurer nformed plaintiff that it the license fee herein involved is imposed upon appellant
for its distribution and sale of bibles and other religious
was conducting business of general
literature.
merchandise, without providing itself with the
necessary mayors permit and municipal license,
*The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise
in violation of various ordinances, and asked the
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship
plaintiff to secure within 3 days, the
carries with it the right to disseminate religious
corresponding license and fees, together with
information. Any restraint of such right can only be
compromise covering the period from the 4th
justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on
quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953 in the
the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of
sum of Php 5,821
any substantive evil which the State has the right to
o plaintiff paid the sum and acquired the license
prevent". (Tañada and Fernando on the Constitution of
fees but at the same time filed a complaint to the
the Philippines, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 297). In the case at bar
courts
the license fee herein involved is imposed upon appellant
o plaintiff was able to show that they were exempt
for its distribution and sale of bibles and other religious
from real estate taxes; and that it was never
literature.
required to pay any municipal licence or atx fee
before the war, nor does the American bible
*(Citing Murdoch vs. Pennsylvania) It is one
society in the U.S pay license fee or sales tax for
thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a
the sale of the bible.
preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from
o however a witness for the appellees was able to
him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. The tax
prove that the American bibler society in fact imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax,
does profit from the sale of the Bible. payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these
constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of
ISSUES: a privilege is the power to control or suppress its
enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this
(1) whether or not the ordinances of the City of Manila, religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to
Nos. 3000, as amended, and 2529, 3028 and 3364, are deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance.
constitutional and valid?.YES!!! Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form
(2) whether said ordinances are inapplicable, invalid or of missionary evangelism can close all its doors to all
unconstitutional if applied to the alleged business of 'those who do not have a full purse. Spreading religious
distribution and sale of bibles to the people of the beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus
Philippines by a religious corporation like the American be denied the needy. . . .
Bible Society? Sayang pero YES invalid!
*It may be true that in the case at bar the price
HELD: asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was
*The only essential difference that We find in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost
between these two provisions that may have any bearing of the same, but this cannot mean that appellant was
on the case at bar, is that while subsection (m-2) engaged in the business or occupation of selling said
prescribes that the combined total tax of any dealer or "merchandise" for profit. For this reason We believe that
manufacturer, or both, enumerated under subsections the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as
(m-1) and (m- 2), whether dealing in one or all of the amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so
articles mentioned therein, shall not be in excess of P500 it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its
per annum, the corresponding section 18, subsection (o)
of Republic Act No. 409, does not contain any limitation
consti 2 all stars 1
consti part 10: free exercise clause

religious profession and worship as well as its rights of
dissemination of religious beliefs. The freedom of belief is limitless and boundless but it's
*Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered exercise is not. If the belief clashes with law then the
unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society. But former must yield.
as Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila, as
amended, is not applicable to plaintiff-appellant and What is the nature of the flag? Petitioners maintain that
defendant-appellee is powerless to license or tax the it is an image but that is not so. It is the symbol of
business of plaintiff Society involved herein for, as stated Republic of the Philippines. It is not a religious symbol.
before, it would impair plaintiff's right to the free Saluting it is not therefore a religious ceremony. The
exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and determination whether a ceremony is religious or not is
worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious left to the courts not to any religious group.
beliefs, We find that Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, is
also inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of Petitioners are willing to remain silent and stand during
the plaintiff. flag ceremony. Petiotners salute the flag during boy
scout activities. Their objection then rests on the singing
Reversed and Remanded of anthem and recitation of pledge. The pledge is judged
to be completely secular. It does not even pledge
allegiance to the flag or to the Republic. The anthem is
also secular. It talks about patriotism. It does not speak
GERONA vs. SECRETARY of EDUCATION of resorting to force, military service, or duty to defend
the country.
(1959)
There was no compulsion involved in the enforcement of
Montemayor J
the flag salute. They were not criminally prosecuted
under a penal sanction. If they chose not to obey the
FACTS:
salute regulation they merely lost the benefits of public
education. Take it or leave it.
RA 1265 is a law that makes a flag ceremony
compulsory for schools. The implementing rules
Hamilton vs Univ of California: Apellants were members
(Department Order 8)says that the anthem must be
of Methodist Episcopal Church who believed that war
played while the flag is raised. It also says that everyone
and preparations for war are gainst God's wishes. They
must salute the flag and no one is to do anything while
did not take required military service training which was
the ceremony is being held. After the flag everyone is to
requirement to graduate. Court said that they were not
recite the patriotic pledge (panatang makabayan).
being drafted to attend university. University did not
violate due process when it required the mil service.
Petitioners children attending the Buenavista
Community School in Uson, Masbate refused to salute
Minersville School District vs Gobitis: two Jehovahs
the flag, sing the anthem and recite the pledge. They did
Witness children were expelled from school for refusing
not do so out of religious belief. They are Jehovah's
to salute flag. Requirement of participation of all pupils
Witnesses. They followed Exodus 20:4-5 'thou shalt not
in flag ceremony did not infringe due process. West
make unto thee a graven image, or any likeness of
Virginia State Board of Education. vs. Barnette:
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in earth
reversed the former decision at a divided court.
beneath or that is in the water under the earth. They
consider the flag to be an image in this context. Because
This court leans towards Gobitis decision. Special
of this they were expelled from the school in Sep 1955.
circumstance of Barnette case was that it expelled the
students although attendance in schools is mandatory
Petitioners thru counsel petitione SecEd that their
turnimg them all into truants headed for reformatories.
children be exempt from the law and just be allowed to
Fortunately, the law requiring compulsory enrollment
remain silent and stand at attention. SecEd denied
here in the Philippines is so riddled with exceptions and
petition. Writ of preliminary injunction was petitioned
exemptions that there is no crisis if the children didn't
and issued.
attend school. There is no penal sanction for failing to
attend school.
ISSUE:
Whenever a man enjoys the benefits of society and
WON Dep Order 8 is unconstitutional
community life he becomes a member and must give up
some of his rights for the general welfare just like
everybody else. The practice of religion is subject to
reasonable and non-discrimantory regulation by the
HELD:
state.
Flag salute ceremony is secular and the dep order non-
Prince vs. Commonwealth of Massachusets: Sarah
discriminatory Therefore it is constitutional
Prince (Jehovahs Witness again)was convicted under the
Child Labor law because her hiece distributed religious
RATIONALE:

consti 2 all stars 2
consti part 10: free exercise clause

pamphlets. Court said that state can limit control of country, etc., is a non-discriminatory school regulation
parent/guardian. The right of practice religion freelydoes applicable to students and teachers regardless of their
not include liberty to expose child to ill health. This case religion.
was decided after Barnette, supra. While the necessity to develop such respect for
the flag and respect for the country still persists until
SecEd was not imposing a religious belief with the flag today, there is recognition that religious freedom is a
salute. It was Merely enforcing a non-discriminatory fundamental right which is entitled to the highest
regulation applicable to members of all religions. State priority and the amplest protection among human rights
carried out duty to supervise educational institutions (Fernando separate opinion in German vs. Barangan)
and teach civic duty.
Two-fold aspect of religious profession:
Petitioners do not question the right of the school to  Freedom to believe – absolute as long as
conduct the flag Salute ceremony but question the confined to the realm of thought
attempt to compel them. The trouble of exempting the  Freedom to act on one’s belief – subject to
petioners is that it would disrupt school discipline and regulation where the belief is translated into
demoralize the greater student population. external acts affecting the public welfare

There are exemptions for cases of religiious belief like an Petitioners contend that while they did not
understanding that anti-war religious believers will not participate in the flag ceremony, they did not engage in
be made to fight but help war effort in other non-combat any disruptive behavior that would offend those who
ways. But that is for the legislature to decide, not the choose to participate but rather they just quietly stood at
courts. attention during the flag ceremony to show respect to
their countrymen. Therefore, in the absence of a grave
DISPOSITION: and present danger which is the sole justification for
a prior restraint on the exercise of religious
decision affirmed. constitutional. writ of preliminary freedom, according to Teehankee in his dissent in
injunction dissolved. No costs. German vs. Barangan, there is no warrant to justify
their expulsion.
What petitioners seek is only exemption from the
flag ceremony and therefore the virtues (e.g. patriotism,
respect for human rights, love of country, etc.) they are
supposed to imbibe from their participation in the flag
ERBALINAG vs. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT
ceremony, they can get in their study of the
Constitution, the democaratic way of life and form of
March 1, 1993 government, the history and culture of the Philippines,
Ponente: Griño-Aquino, J: the life of our heroes, etc.
To force a small religious group through the iron
FACTS: hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that
All the petitioners in these two cases are school violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to
children who are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who love of country or respect for duly constituted authorities
were expelled from their classes by the public school which are precisely the values the court in Gerona feared
authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing will be lost by exempting some members of the Jehovah’s
the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as Witnesses to participate in the flag ceremonies.
required by R.A. No. 1265 (July 11, 1955) and by DECS
Department Order No. 8 (July 21, 1955) which makes  let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even to
the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational the country… is not a goal that is constitutionally
institutions. obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A desirable
end cannot be promoted by prohibited means. (Meyer vs.
ISSUE: Nebraska)
Whether or not school children who are
members of a religious sect known as Jehovah’s  expulsion of the members will violated their right as
Witnesses may be expelled from school (both public and citizens under the Constitution to receive free education
private) for refusing, on account of their religious beliefs, which is the duty of the State to protect and promote the
to take part in the flag ceremony. right of all citizens to quality education and to make
such education applicable to all.
RATIO:
It has been held previously in the case of  in closing, the court hopes that it will not take
Gerona vs. Secretary of Education (1959) Under a another foreign invasion of our country for our
system of complete separation between church and countrymen to appreciate and cherish the Philippine flag
state, the flag is utterly devoid of any religious as what happened during WWII.
significance and therefore saluting it is not a religious
ceremony. The requirement of the flag ceremony, which
seeks to develop reverence for the flag and love of

consti 2 all stars 3
consti part 10: free exercise clause

and (3) must not foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion.
NEWDOW vs. U.S. CONGRESS
- Historically, the primary purpose of the 1954 Act
was to advance religion, in conflict with the first
FACTS: prong of the Lemon test. The federal defendants
"do not dispute that the words 'under God' were
1. Newdow is an atheist whose daughter attends intended" "to recognize a Supreme Being," at a
public elementary school in the Elk Grove time when the government was publicly
Unified School District ("EGUSD") in California. inveighing against atheistic communism.
In accordance with state law and a school o the federal defendants argue that the
district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school Pledge must be considered as a whole
day by leading their students in a recitation of when assessing whether it has a secular
the Pledge of Allegiance ("the Pledge"). purpose. They claim that the Pledge has
the secular purpose of "solemnizing
2. The California Education Code requires that
public occasions, expressing confidence
public schools begin each school day with in the future, and encouraging the
"appropriate patriotic exercises" and that "the recognition of what is worthy of
giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of appreciation in society."
the United States of America shall satisfy" this
requirement.
o Court said: As was the case with the
amendment to the Alabama statute in
3. To implement the California statute, the school Wallace, the legislative history of the
district that Newdow's daughter attends has 1954 Act reveals that the Act's sole
promulgated a policy that states, in pertinent purpose was to advance religion, in
part: "Each elementary school class recite the order to differentiate the United States
pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day." from nations under communist rule.
(students are led by teachers) "The First Amendment requires that a
4. Newdow does not allege that his daughter's statute must be invalidated if it is
teacher or school district requires his daughter entirely motivated by a purpose to
to participate in reciting the Pledge. Rather, he advance religion."
claims that his daughter is injured when she is - Defendants: The phrase 'under God' recognizes
compelled to "watch and listen as her state only the guidance of God in our national affairs.
employed teacher in her state-run school leads Court: This alleged distinction is irrelevant for
her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there constitutional purposes. The Act's affirmation of
is a God, and that ours is 'one nation under "a belief in the sovereignty of God" and its
God.' recognition of "the guidance of God" are
5. He challenges the constitutionality of the words endorsements by the government of religious
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to the beliefs. The Establishment Clause is not limited
Flag. Newdow argues that the addition of these to "religion as an institution"; this is clear from
words by a 1954 federal statute to the previous cases such as Santa Fe, where the Court struck
version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which made down student-initiated and student-led prayer at
no reference to God) and the daily recitation in high school football games.. The Establishment
the classroom of the Pledge of Allegiance, with Clause guards not only against the
the added words included, by his daughter's establishment of "religion as an institution," but
public school teacher are violations of the also against the endorsement of religious
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to ideology by the government. Because the Act
the United States Constitution. fails the purpose prong of Lemon, we need not
examine the other prongs.
ISSUES: - Similarly, the school district policy also fails the
WON the added phrase “under God” constitutes a Lemon test. Although it survives the first prong
violation of the U.S. Consti? of Lemon because, as even Newdow concedes,
the school district had the secular purpose of
HELD: fostering patriotism in enacting the policy, the
Yes. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent policy fails the second prong. The second Lemon
with our holding. Plaintiff to recover costs on his appeal. prong asks whether the challenged government
action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by
RATIO: Court used three tests to determine the validity adherents of the controlling denominations as
of the added words. an endorsement, and by the non-adherents as a
disapproval, of their individual religious
Lemon test choices." *fn11 Ball, 473 U.S. at 390. Given the
- To survive the "Lemon test," the government age and impressionability of schoolchildren, as
conduct in question (1) must have a secular discussed above, particularly within the
purpose, (2) must have a principal or primary confined environment of the classroom, the
effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, policy is highly likely to convey an impermissible
consti 2 all stars 4
consti part 10: free exercise clause

message of endorsement to some and agreement, all employees would be required to join the
disapproval to others of their beliefs regarding Union and must stay in the Union to be able to retain
the existence of a monotheistic God. Therefore employment in the Hacienda.
the policy fails the effects prong of Lemon, and
fails the Lemon test In 1963 and 1964, 150 members of the Inglesia ni Cristo
sought resignation from the Union pursuant to a circular
Justice O’ Connor’s “endorsement test” given by Inglesia in 1959 prohibiting any of their
- In the context of the Pledge, the statement that members from joining any outside association or
the United States is a nation "under God" is an organization. Members of Inglesia were told that they
endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a would not lose their jobs pursuant to RA 3350, that says
religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. . that members of religious sects that prohibit affiliation
To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United may not be laid off simply on grounds of their non-
States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the affiliation with any worker’s union.
values for which the flag stands: unity,
indivisibility, liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -- Later this number went down to 115 due to 2 of them
monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, having already been deceased and 27 not having been in
codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a the Union to begin with. The Union then infomed the
position with respect to the purely religious Hacienda that the 115 members have resigned and
question of the existence and identity of God. demanded for their immediate lay-off due to the
- Furthermore, the school district's practice of stipulations of the CBA. The Union even proceeded to go
teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to on strike until the 115 workers were laid off.
inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set
forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state Respondent Union assailed the constitutionality of RA
endorsement of these ideals. Although students 3350 and the Court on Industrial Relations struck down
cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the statute. Petitioners here have appealed to the
the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless Supreme Court.
conveying a message of state endorsement of a
religious belief when it requires public school ISSUES:
teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the
current form of the Pledge. 1) WON the Court of Industrial Relations had
jurisdiction.
“Coercion test” 2) WON RA 3350 is unconstitutional.
- on the principle that "at a minimum, the
Constitution guarantees that government may
not coerce anyone to support or participate in HELD:
religion or its exercise, or otherwise to act in a
way which establishes a state religion or 1) No it did not. The Court of Agricultural
religious faith, or tends to do so." Relations had jurisdiction.
- Although the defendants argue that the religious 2) No, RA 3350 is not unconstitutional.
content of "one nation under God" is minimal, to
an atheist or a believer in certain non-Judeo- RATIO:
Christian religions or philosophies, it may
reasonably appear to be an attempt to enforce a 1) Petitioners claim that the Court of
"religious orthodoxy" of monotheism, and is Agricultural Relations should have had
therefore impermissible. The coercive effect of jurisdiction as the Hacienda is of an
this policy is particularly pronounced in the agricultural nature, not an industrial one.
school setting given the age and Here the Court says that the agricultural
impressionability of schoolchildren, and their nature of the Hacienda is unquestionable.
understanding that they are required to adhere As such it is clear that the Court of
to the norms set by their school, their teacher Agricultural Relations should have had
and their fellow students. jurisdiction.
2) The constitutionality of RA 3350 was
(Reversed and Remanded) attacked the Union and struck down by the
Court of Industrial Relations on the
following grounds:
ANUCENSION vs. NLU A) it abridges the freedom of workers to
form associations
B) it impairs the obligation of contracts
FACTS:
C) it discriminates in favor of the
religious sect Inglesia ni Cristo in
In a Collective Bargaining Agreement between Hacienda
violation of the constitutional
Luisita and the United Luisita Workers’ Union in 1962,
provision prohibiting legislation for
the parties stipulated that, except for those who were
the support of any religious sect
members of Inglesia ni Cristo at the time of the

consti 2 all stars 5
consti part 10: free exercise clause

D) it denies equal protection Here we see that the classification is
based on real and important
differences, as religious beliefs are
A) On the first claim, the Court said not mere beliefs or ideas, bit are
that both the Consti and RA 875 motives of certain rules of human
(the original Industrial Peace Act, conduct. Such classification is
later amended by RA 3350) therefore valid.
recognized freedom of association.
RA 875 provides for the forming,
joining or assisting of labor
organizations for the purpose of
collective bargaining. The court also
IGLESIA ni CRISTO vs. CA
said that this right to join also
includes the right not to join or to 1996
abstain from joining any union. The Ponente: Puno
court explains, however, the idea of
a closed shop, wherein an FACTS:
agreement of this nature binds
employees to the union bargained 1. Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) has a television program
with. “Hence, the right of said entitled “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” aired on 2 TV
employee not to join the labor union channels. The program presents and propagates
is curtailed and withdrawn”. petitioner’s religious beliefs, doctrines and
However, RA 3350 included the practices often times in comparative studies
exception with regards to religious with other religions.
sects that prohibit affiliation. Here,
the members are not being 2. Sometime in 1992, INC submitted to the BRMPT
prohibited as they may still join, (Board) the VTR tapes of its TV program Series
neither are they being coerced to Nos. 116, 119, 121 and 128. The Board
join. Therefore, there is no classified the series as “X” or not for public
curtailment of the freedom of viewing on the ground that they “offend and
association. constitute an attack against other religions
B) With regards to impairing the which is expressly prohibited by law.”
obligation of contracts, the Court
said that legislation impairing the 3. Petitioner pursued two (2) courses of action
obligation of contracts can be against the Board. First, it appealed to the
sustained when it is enacted for the Office of the President the classification of its TV
promotion of the general good of the Series No. 128. It succeeded in its appeal and
people, and when the means the Office of the Pres. reversed the decision of
adopted to secure that end are the Board. Second, petitioner filed a civil case
reasonable. Here the purpose is to against the Board with the RTC Quezon City.
insure freedom of religion, prevent 4. INC alleged that the Board acted w/o
discrimination, and protect the jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
members of those religious sects. requiring INC to submit the VTR tapes of its
Also stated by the Court is that the program and x-rating them. The Board invoked
free exercise of religious profession its power under P.D. 1986 in relation to Art. 201
or belief is superior to contract of the RPC. The RTC ordered the Board to grant
rights. the INC the permit for all the series of the “Ang
C) The Court cited Aglipay v. Ruiz Iglesia ni Cristo” program.
where they stated that the
government should not be precluded 5. The Board appealed to the Court of Appeals after
from pursuing valid objectives its motion for reconsideration was denied. The
secular in character even if the CA reversed the trial court’s decision. It ruled
incidental result would be favorable that: (1) the respondent board has jurisdiction
to a religion or sect. The purpose of and power to review the TV program “Ang Iglesia
RA 3350 is secular, worldly, and ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not
temporal, not spiritual or religious act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied
or holy and eternal. It was intended permit for the exhibition on TV of the three
to serve the secular purpose of series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground
advancing the constitutional right to that the materials constitute an attack against
the free exercise of religion. another religion. It also found the series
D) The Court here discussed on equal “indecent, contrary to law and contrary to good
protection, not being a guaranty of customs.”
equality. It allows classification.

consti 2 all stars 6
consti part 10: free exercise clause

ISSUES: invocation of religious freedom will stalemate
the State and render it impotent in protecting
1. WoN the Board has the power to review the general welfare. The inherent police power
petitioner’s TV program “Ang Iglesia ni can be exercised to prevent religious practices
Cristo,” inimical to society. And this is true even if such
practices are pursued out of sincere religious
2. Assuming it has the power, whether or not conviction and not merely for the purpose of
the Board gravely abused its discretion evading the reasonable requirements or
when it prohibited the airing of petitioner’s prohibitions of the law.
religious program, series Nos. 115, 119 and
121, for the reason that they constitute an Issue No. 2
attack against other religions and that they
are indecent, contrary to law and good • The evidence shows that the Board x-rated
customs. petitioners TV series for “attacking” other religions,
especially the Catholic church. An examination of
DECISION: the evidence will show that the so-called “attacks”
are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held
The Decision of the CA sustaining the jurisdiction of
dogmas and tenets of other religions. The
the Board to review the TV program entitled “Ang Iglesia
videotapes were not viewed by the CA as they were
ni Cristo,” is AFFIRMED.
not presented as evidence. Yet they were
Its decision sustaining the action of the Board x- considered by the CA as indecent, contrary to law
rating petitioner’s TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, and and good customs, hence, can be prohibited from
121 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 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.
RATIO:
Issue 1.
• The respondent Board may disagree with the
• The law gives the Board the power to screen, review criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that
and examine all “television programs.” the Board gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms,
has the power to “approve, delete x x x and/or however, unclean they may be. Under our
prohibit the x x x exhibition and/or television constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State
broadcast of x x x television programs x x x The law to favor any religion by protecting it against an
also directs the Board to apply “contemporary attack by another religion. Religious dogmas and
Filipino cultural values as standard” to determine beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace
those which are objectionable for being “immoral, among their followers, especially the fanatics, the
indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits
injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the the State from leaning towards any religion
Philippines and its people, or with a dangerous
tendency to encourage the commission of violence or • The Board cannot squelch the speech of petitioner
of a wrong or crime.” INC simply because it attacks other religions, even if
said religion happens to be the most numerous
• The SC rejects INC’s postulate that its religious church in our country. The bedrock of freedom of
program is per se beyond review by the respondent religion is freedom of thought and it is best served
Board. Its public broadcast on TV of its religious by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas.
program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. When the luxury of time permits, the marketplace of
Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes ideas demands that speech should be met by more
and ears of children. speech for it is the spark of opposite speech, the
heat of colliding ideas that can fan the embers of
truth.
• The right to religious profession and worship has a
two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe and freedom
to act on one’s beliefs. The first is absolute as long
as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. • The respondents cannot also rely on the ground
The second is subject to regulation where the “attacks against another religion” in x-rating the
belief is translated into external acts that affect
the public welfare. Where the individual
externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that religious program of petitioner. Section 3 of PD 1986
affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes will reveal that it is not among the grounds to justify
subject to the authority of the State (Isagani an order prohibiting the broadcast of petitioner’s
Cruz) television program. The ground “attack against
another religion” was merely added by the
• (Cruz) It is error to think that the mere respondent Board in its Rules.iThis rule is void for it
consti 2 all stars 7
consti part 10: free exercise clause

runs smack against the doctrine that administrative the constitutional convention. An opposing candidate,
rules and regulations cannot expand the letter and appellee Selma Cash Paty, sued in the Chancery Court
spirit of the law they seek to enforce. Moreover, for a declaratory judgment that McDaniel was isqualified
Article 201 (2) (b) (3) of the Revised Penal Code from serving as a delegate by a Tennessee statutory
should be invoked to justify the subsequent provision establishing the qualifications of constitutional
punishment of a show which offends any religion. It convention delegates to be the same as those for
cannot be utilized to justify prior censorship of membership in the State House of Representatives, thus
speech. invoking a Tennessee constitutional provision barring
ministers of the Gospel, or priests of any denomination
• Respondents failed to apply the clear and present whatever."
danger rule. The records show that the decision of
the Board is completely bereft of findings of facts That court held that the statutory provision violated the
to justify the conclusion that the subject video tapes First and Fourteenth Amendments. and for a judgment
constitute impermissible attacks against another striking his name from the ballot. Chancellor Franks of
religion. There is no showing whatsoever of the type the Chancery Court held that 4 of ch. 848 violated the
of harm the tapes will bring about especially the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal
gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Constitution and declared McDaniel eligible for the office
Prior restraint on speech, including religious of delegate. Accordingly, McDaniel's name remained on
speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears the ballot and in the ensuing election he was elected by
but only by the showing of a substantive and a vote almost equal to that of three opposing candidates.
imminent evil which has taken the life of a
reality already on ground.
After the election, the Tennessee Supreme Court
reversed the Chancery Court, holding that the
• It is also opined that it is inappropriate to apply the
disqualification of clergy imposed no burden upon
clear and present danger test to the case at bar "religious belief" and restricted "religious action . . .
because the issue involves the content of speech [only] in the lawmaking process of government - where
and not the time, place or manner of speech. religious action is absolutely prohibited by the
Allegedly, unless the speech is first allowed, its establishment clause . . . ."The state interests in
impact cannot be measured, and the causal preventing the establishment of religion and in avoiding
connection between the speech and the evil the divisiveness and tendency to channel political
apprehended cannot be established. The contention activity along religious lines, resulting from clergy
overlooks the fact that the case at bar involves participation in political affairs, were deemed by that
videotapes that are pre-taped and hence, their court sufficiently weighty to justify the disqualification,
speech content is known and not an X quantity. notwithstanding the guarantee of the Free Exercise
Given the specific content of the speech, it is not Clause.
unreasonable to assume that the respondent Board,
with its expertise, can determine whether its sulphur
will bring about the substantive evil feared by the ISSUE/HELD:
law. vs. TELERON
PAMIL
W/O Not a Tennessee statute barring Ministers of the
Gospel, or priests of any denomination whatever from
serving as delegates to the State's limited constitutional
convention deprived appellant of the right to the free
exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
YES

RATIO:

The disqualification of ministers from legislative office
was a practice carried from England by seven of the
original States; later six new States similarly excluded
clergymen from some political offices. The purpose of the
several States in providing for disqualification was
primarily to assure the success of a new political
MCDANIEL vs. PATY experiment, the separation of church and state. Prior to
1776, most of the 13 Colonies had some form of an
(April 19, 1978) established, or government-sponsored, church. In light
Ponente: CJ Burger of this history and a widespread awareness during that
period of undue and often dominant clerical influence in
FACTS: public and political affairs here, in England, and on the
Continent, it is not surprising that strong views were
McDaniel, an ordained minister of a Baptist Church in held by some that one way to assure disestablishment
Chattanooga, Tenn., filed as a candidate for delegate to was to keep clergymen out of public office. As the value
consti 2 all stars 8
consti part 10: free exercise clause

of the disestablishment experiment was perceived, 11 of On Oct 2, 1984, petitioners composed of about 50
the 13 States disqualifying the clergy from some types of businessmen, students and office employees and who
public office gradually abandoned that limitation. The were members of the August Twenty-One Movement
essence of this aspect of our national history is that in (ATOM), converged at J.P. Laurel Street, Manila, for the
all but a few States the selection or rejection of purpose of hearing Mass at the St. Jude Chapel, which
clergymen for public office soon came to be viewed as adjoins the Malacañang grounds located in the same
something safely left to the good sense and desires of the street. Wearing yellow t-shirts, they marched down said
people. street with raised clenched fists and shouts of anti-
government invectives. Along the way, however, they
The right to the free exercise of religion unquestionably were barred by respondent Major lsabelo Lariosa, upon
encompasses the right to preach, proselyte, and perform orders of his superior and co-respondent Gen. Santiago
other similar religious functions. Tennessee also Barangan, from proceeding any further, on the ground
acknowledges the right of its adult citizens generally to that St. Jude Chapel was located within the Malacañang
seek and hold office as legislators or delegates to the security area. When their efforts to enter the church
state constitutional convention. Yet under the clergy- became apparently futile, they opted to stay outside,
disqualification provision, McDaniel cannot exercise both kneeling on the sidewalk in front of the barricades and
rights simultaneously because the State has conditioned prayed the Holy Rosary. Afterwards, they sang Bayan ko
the exercise of one on the surrender of the other. The with clenched fists of protest against the violation of
Tennessee disqualification is directed primarily, not at their rights and thereafter dispersed peacefully. Because
religious belief, but at the status, acts, and conduct of of the alleged warning given them by respondent Major
the clergy. Therefore, the Free Exercise Clause's absolute Lariosa that any similar attempt by petitioners to enter
prohibition against infringements on the "freedom to the church in the future would likewise be prevented,
believe" is inapposite here. petitioners took this present recourse.

ISSUE  HELD:
The essence of the rationale underlying the Tennessee
restriction on ministers is that if elected to public office 1. WON petitioners’ constitutionally protected freedom
they will necessarily exercise their powers and influence to exercise religion (Sec 8, Art IV of the 1973 Consti)
to promote the interests of one sect or thwart the was violated  NO
interests of another, thus pitting one against the others, 2. WON petitioners’ freedom of locomotion was violated
contrary to the anti-establishment principle with its (Sec 5, Art IV of the 1973 Consti)  NO
command of neutrality. However widely that view may
have been held in the 18th century by many, including RATIO:
enlightened statesmen of that day, the American 1.
experience provides no persuasive support for the fear Petitioners' alleged purpose in converging at J.P. Laurel
that clergymen in public office will be less careful of anti- Street was to pray and hear mass at St. Jude church. At
establishment interests or less faithful to their oaths of the hearing of this petition, respondents assured
civil office than their unordained counterparts. petitioners and the Court that they have never restricted,
and will never restrict, any person or persons from
The challenged provision violates appellant's First entering and worshipping at said church. They maintain,
Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion however, that petitioners' intention was not really to
because it conditions his right to the free exercise of his perform an act of religious worship, but to conduct
religion on the surrender of his right to seek office. an anti-government demonstration at a place close
Though justification is asserted under the Establishment to the very residence and offices of the President of
Clause for the statutory restriction on the ground that if the Republic. Respondents further lament petitioners'
elected to public office members of the clergy will attempt to disguise their true motive with a ritual as
necessarily promote the interests of one sect or thwart sacred and solemn as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
those of another contrary to the anti-establishment Undoubtedly, the yellow t-shirts worn by some of the
principle of neutrality, Tennessee has failed to marchers, their raised clenched fists, and chants of anti-
demonstrate that its views of the dangers of clergy government slogans strongly tend to substantiate
participation in the political process have not lost respondents allegation.
whatever validity they may once have enjoyed.
These allegations 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
GERMAN vs. BARANGAN religious freedom, the exercise thereof, and of all
fundamental rights for that matter, must be done in
(March 27, 1985) good faith. As Art 19 of the Civil Code admonishes:
Ponente: J. Escolin "Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in
the performance of his duties… observe honesty and
FACTS: good faith."

consti 2 all stars 9
consti part 10: free exercise clause

Even assuming that petitioners' claim to the free exercise 2.
of religion is genuine and valid, still respondents Suffice it to say that the restriction imposed on the use
reaction to the October 2, 1984 mass action may not be of J.P. Laurel Street, the wisdom and reasonableness of
characterized as violative of the freedom of religious which have already been discussed, is allowed under the
worship. Since 1972, when mobs of demonstrators fundamental law, the same having been established in
crashed through the Malacañang gates and scaled its the interest of national security.
perimeter fence, the use by the public of J.P. Laurel
Street and the streets approaching it have been Petition dismissed.
restricted. While travel to and from the affected
thoroughfares has not been absolutely prohibited, Teehankee, dissenting:
passers-by have been subjected to courteous, I vote to grant the petition on the ground that the right
unobtrusive security checks. The reasonableness of this of free worship and movement is a preferred right that
restriction is readily perceived and appreciated if it is enjoys precedence and primacy and is not subject to
considered that the same is designed to protect the lives prior restraint except where there exists the clear and
of the President and his family, as well as other present danger of a substantive evil sought to be
government officials, diplomats and foreign guests prevented. There was and is manifestly no such danger
transacting business with Malacañang. The restriction is in this case.
also intended to secure the several executive offices
within the Malacañang grounds from possible external 1. The right to freely exercise one's religion is guaranteed
attacks and disturbances. These offices include in Section 8 of our Bill of Rights. Freedom of worship,
communications facilities that link the central alongside freedom of expression and speech and
government to all places in the land. Unquestionably, peaceable assembly, along with the other intellectual
the restriction imposed is necessary to maintain the freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of
smooth functioning of the executive branch of the constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed
government, which petitioners' mass action would that on the judiciary—even more so than on the other
certainly disrupt. departments—rests the grave and delicate responsibility
of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred
Cantwell v Connecticut: The constitutional inhibition on rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of
legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. course, dispense with what has been so felicitously
On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of termed by Justice Holmes 'as the sovereign prerogative
the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any of judgment.' Nonetheless, the presumption must be to
form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of
adhere to such religious organization or form of worship such rights, enjoying as they do precedence and
as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by primacy."
law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise
of the chosen form of religion. Thus the amendment 2. In the free exercise of such preferred rights, there is to
embraces two concepts –freedom to believe and freedom be no prior restraint although there may be subsequent
to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, punishment of any illegal acts committed during the
the second cannot be. exercise of such basic rights. The sole justification for a
prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of these basic
In the case at bar, petitioners are not denied or rights is the existence of a grave and present danger
restrained of their freedom of belief or choice of their of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious
religion, but only in the manner by which they had evil to public safety, public morals, public health or
attempted to translate the same into action. This any other legitimate public interest, that the State
curtailment is in accord with the pronouncement of this has a right (and duty) to prevent.
Court in Gerona v. Secretary of Education, thus:
3. The burden to show the existence of grave and
The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless imminent danger that would justify prior restraint and
bounded only by one's imagination and thought. So bar a group of persons from entering the church of their
is the freedom of belief, including religious belief, choice for prayer and worship lies on the military or
limitless and without bounds. One may believe in police officials who would so physically restrain them.
most anything, however strange, bizarre and Indeed, there is no precedent in this time and age where
unreasonable the same may appear to others, even churchgoers whose right of free exercise of their religion
heretical when weighed in the scales of orthodoxy or is recognized have been physically prevented from
doctrinal standards. But between the freedom of entering their church on grounds of national security.
belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a On the other hand, it does not lie within the competence
stretch of road to travel. If the exercise of said or authority of such officials to demand of churchgoers
religious belief clashes with the established that they show and establish their "sincerity and good
institutions of society and with the law, then the faith… in invoking the constitutional guarantee of
former must yield and give way to the latter. The freedom of religious worship and of locomotion" as a pre-
government steps in and either restrains said condition, as seems to be the thrust of the majority
exercise or even prosecutes the one exercising it. decision.

consti 2 all stars 10
consti part 10: free exercise clause

Respondents themselves in the Solicitor General's since this defense has not been presented to the
comment admit that "true, there were only about 80 jury, the judgement must be reversed and
persons in petitioners' group on October 2 and this remanded.
number could hardly pose the danger feared," but
expressed the fear that petitioners' ranks could within ISSUES:
hours reach hundreds if not thousands and "peaceful
dispersal becomes impossible as in recent WON the law generally imposes a parental duty to
demonstrations and rallies." Respondents were in full provide medical services to a child. - YES
control and there is no question as to the capability • The duty to provide sufficient support for a child is
of the security forces to ward off and stop any legally enforceable in a civil proceeding against a
untoward move. They had placed an advance parent. A breach of that duty is a misdemeanor.
checkpoint as far back as the Sta. Mesa Rotonda and Where necessary to protect a child's well-being, the
could stop the flow of people in the church if they Commonwealth may intervene, over the parents'
deemed it unmanageable. There definitely was no clear objections, to assure that needed services are
and present danger of any serious evil to public safety or provided. Parental duty of care has been recognized
the security of Malacañang. in the common law of homicide in this
Commonwealth. There is also a common law duty to
provide medical services for a child, the breach of
which can be the basis, in the appropriate
CANTWELL vs. CONNECTICUT
circumstances, for the conviction of a parent for
involuntary manslaughter.

WON the STP bars any involuntary manslaughter charge
COMMONWEALTH vs. TWITCHELL against a parent who relies on spiritual treatment, and
who does not seek medical attention for his or her child
(even if the parent's failure to seek such care would
(1993) otherwise be wanton or reckless conduct). - NO
WILKINS, J. • STP provides no complete protection to a parent
against a charge of involuntary manslaughter that is
FACTS: based on the parent's wanton or reckless failure to
provide medical services to a child. Sec.1 concerns
David and Ginger Twitchell appeal from their convictions child support and care in a chapter that deals with
of involuntary manslaughter death of their 2 1/2 year the Commonwealth's interest that persons within its
old son Robyn. Robyn died of the consequences of territory should not be killed by the wanton and
peritonitis caused by the perforation of his bowel which reckless conduct of others. It is unlikely that the
had been obstructed as a result of an anomaly known as Legislature placed the STP in Sec. 1 to provide a
Meckel's diverticulum. There was evidence that the defense to common law homicide. The act that added
condition could be corrected by surgery with a high the STP was entitled "An Act defining the term
success rate. 'proper physical care' under the law relative to care
of children by a parent." The amendment's concern
The defendants are practicing Christian Scientists [CS] seems focused on the subject matter of sec.1 and
who grew up in CS families. They believe in healing by certainly not directed toward changing the common
spiritual treatment. During Robyn's five-day illness they law of homicide.
retained Nathan Talbot. As a result of that consultation,
David Twitchell read a church publication concerning
• Sec.1 reads:
"xxxx any parent of a minor child xxxxx who
the legal rights and obligations of CS in Mass. That
willfully fails to provide necessary and proper
publication quoted a portion of General Laws Sec. 1, as physical, educational or moral care and guidance
then amended, which accepted remedial treatment by xxxxx or who fails to provide proper attention for
spiritual means alone as satisfying any parental said child, shall be punished xxxx.
obligation not to neglect a child or to provide a child with A child shall not be deemed to be neglected or
physical care. lack proper physical care for the sole reason that
he is being provided remedial treatment by
HELD: spiritual means alone in accordance with the
tenets and practice of a recognized church or
• Parents have a duty to seek medical attention for a religious denomination by a duly accredited
child in Robyn's circumstances, the violation of practitioner thereof."
which, if their conduct was wanton or reckless, • A predecessor of sec. 1, enacted in 1882,
could support a conviction of involuntary provided that "whoever unreasonably
manslaughter and that the spiritual treatment neglects to provide for the support of his
provision [STP] did not bar a prosecution for minor child shall be punished by fine or by
manslaughter. However, special circumstances in imprisonment." Statute was rewritten in
this case would justify a finding that the Twitchells 1909 to impose a duty of physical care of
reasonably believed that they could rely on spiritual children on parents. In 1954, sec. 1 was
treatment without fear of criminal prosecution. But amended to state that "any parent of a
consti 2 all stars 11
consti part 10: free exercise clause

minor child who wilfully fails to provide • There is special merit to such a rule if
necessary and proper physical, educational religious beliefs are involved and if the
or moral care and guidance shall be defendant was attempting to comply with
punished." The STP was added in 1971. the law while adhering to his religious
• Section 1 was rewritten removing from sec. 1 beliefs and practices.
any reference to willful failure to provide
necessary and proper physical care and CASE REMANDED because some ‘Questions of
limited any violation to matters of failure to Fact’ need be answered:
support. Nevertheless, the STP was o Whether a person would reasonably conclude
retained. Because of the 1986 amendment, that the Attorney General had ruled that sec. 1
the STP of sec. 1 has an application outside provided protection against a manslaughter
of sec. 1 that it did not have before. charge.
• The STP refers to neglect and willful failure to o Whether the defendants reasonably relied on the
provide proper physical care as bases for church's publication and on the advice of the
punishment. These concepts do not underlie Committee on Publication.
involuntary manslaughter. Wanton or reckless
conduct is not a form of negligence. Wanton or
reckless conduct does not involve a willful intention
to cause the resulting harm. Involuntary
manslaughter does not require willfulness. Thus, ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR
the STP in sec. 1 does not apply to involuntary
manslaughter.

WON the failure to extend the protection of the STP to
them would be a denial of due process because they
lacked "fair warning" because they were officially misled
by an opinion of the Attorney General of the
Commonwealth. - YES
• Atty Gen, who is statutorily empowered to give his
opinion upon questions of law, gave an opinion
which answers a general question "whether parents
who fail to provide medical services to children on
the basis of religious beliefs will be subject to
prosecution for such failure." An average person
might read the Atty Gen’s comments as being a
negative answer. It is true that the answer comes to
focus on negligent failures of parents, and we know
that wanton or reckless failures are different.
• Atty Gen: “The Massachusetts child abuse reporting
law does not specifically address itself to the
relationship between the religious beliefs of the
parent and failure to provide medical care. Sec. 1 is
a criminal statute and it expressly precludes
imposition of criminal liability as a negligent parent
for failure to provide medical care because of
religious beliefs. However, the intent of Chap 119 is
to require that children of such parents be provided
services whenever the need arises. Under Chapter
119, children may receive services notwithstanding
the inability to prosecute the parents.”
• Although the Twitchells read a CS publication called
"Legal Rights and Obligations of CS in Mass" which
relied on the above opinion. That opinion was
arguably misleading because of what it did not say
concerning criminal liability for manslaughter
• Although it has long been held that "ignorance of the
law is no defense", there is justification for treating
as a defense the belief that conduct is not a violation
of law when a defendant has reasonably relied on an
official statement in an official interpretation of the
public official who is charged with the responsibility
for the interpretation or enforcement of the law. (
aka "entrapment by estoppel." )
consti 2 all stars 12
i