GERMAN vs.

BARANGAN

FACTS:

Petitioners who were businessmen, students and office employees converged at JP Laurel St.
Manila for the ostensible purpose of hearing mass at the St. Jude Chapel which adjoins the
Malacanang grounds located in the same street.

They were wearing yellow shirts with clenched fists and while they marched down the street, they were
shouting anti-government invectives.

Along the way, they were barred by respondents Major Lariosa, upon orders of Gen. Barangan,
from proceeding any further on the ground that St. Jude Chapel was located w/n the Malacanang security
area.

The group left and were warned by Lariosa that any similar attempt to enter the church in the future
would likewise be prevented.

Invoking their constitutional freedom to religious worship and locomotion, petitioners filed this
case seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to allow them to enter
and pray inside the chapel and a writ of injunction to enjoin respondents from preventing them
from getting into and praying inside the chapel.

Petitioners alleged that the purpose of converging at JP Laurel St. was to pray and hear mass at St.
Jude church.

Respondents defended that they do not restrict any person from entering the church however
the petitioner'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
of the Republic.

Further, Respondents claimed that undoubtedly, the yellow T-shirts worn by some of the marchers, their
raised clenched fists, and chants of anti-government slogans strongly tend to substantiate respondent’s
allegation that petitioner's intention was not really to perform an act of religious worship.

(There was also an article published in a magazin regarding the motive of the petitioners entitle Mission
Impossible.)

ISSUE: W/N the petitioners’ freedom to religious worship was violated.

RULING:

NO.

The Supreme Court in ruling this case used the US SC case Cantwell vs. Connecticut which provides for
the meaning of freedom of religion.

Constitutional inhibition on legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. First, it forestalls
compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. and 2nd, it
safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. -Thus is embraces 2 concepts--freedom to
believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot
be."

In the case at bar, the Supreme Court said that Petitioners were not denied or restrained of
their freedom of belief or choice of their religion but only in the manner by which they had
attempted to translate the same into action.

The curtailment made in this case is in accord with the pronouncement of the SC in the case of
Gerona vs. Secretary of Education which provides among others that:

If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with established institutions of society and with
the law, then the former must yield and give way to the latter. The government steps in and
either restrains said exercise or even prosecutes the one exercising it.

The act of the respondents in this case is not violative of the freedom of religious worship.

There is doubt on the sincerity and good faith of petitioners in invoking the constitutional right.
Petitioners’ intention was not really to perform an act of religious worship but to conduct an anti-
government demonstration. They wore yellow shirts which became a symbol of opposition to the Marcos
government, with raised clenched fists and shouted anti-government slogans.
Even assuming that petitioners’ claim to the free exercise of religion is genuine and valid, there is still the
necessity of restrictions made in the case because since 1972, when mobs of demonstrators crashed
through the Malacañang gates and scaled its perimeter fence, the use by the public of J P. Laurel
Street and the streets approaching it have been restricted.

The reasonableness of this restriction is readily perceived and appreciated if it is considered

that the same is designed to protect the lives of the President and his family, as well as other
government officials, diplomats and foreign guests transacting business with Malacañang.