Davis v. Beason - 133 U.S. 333, 10 S. Ct.

299 (1890)

FACTS: Samuel Davis a member of Mormon Church tried to register to vote in the Idaho
Territory. He was then convicted for violation Rev. Stat. 501 of the said territory, which barred
those who practice or advocate bigamy or polygamy from voting which potential voters swear
they were not members of an organization practicing bigamy and polygamy.
ISSUE: Were the statutes conditioned on rights on refusal to bigamy or polygamy lawful?
RULING: Yes, the statues are lawful.
U.S Constitution Amendment I provides cannot be invoked as a protection against legislation for
the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society.
Here, the court observed that both bigamy and polygamy were crimes under the laws of the
states and territory. Free exercise of religion was subordinate to criminal law, which might not
interfere with beliefs but could certainly interfere with acts.
Islamic Da’wah Council of the Phils. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 153888, JULY 9 ,2003

Facts: Respondent Office of the Executive Secretary issued order 46 which created Philippine
Halal Certification Scheme, this order vested exclusive authority on the Office on Muslim
Affairs to issue certificates and perform regulatory activities. OMA warned Muslim consumers
to buy products with halal certification only since those not certified might contain pork. They
also sent letters to food manufacturers to secure halal certification from OMA only.
Petitioner filed a petition to nullify EO 46 arguing that it is unconstitutional for the government
to form policies and guidelines on the certification scheme because this function is under
religious organizations and can be validly performed for Muslims.
Issue: Is EO 46 unconstitutional?
Ruling: Yes EO 46 is unconstitutional.
Only the prevention of an immediate & grave danger to the security and welfare of the
community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. If the government fails to show the
seriousness & immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is constitutionally unacceptable.
Here, the Court finds no compelling justification for the government to deprive Muslim
organizations like the petitioner of their religious right to classify a product as halal even on the
premise that health of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively protected by OMA to issue halal
certifications.
Valmores vs. Dr. Achacoso
G.R. NO. 217453, July 19, 2017
FACTS: Petitioner Valmores is a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church whose belief
include the observance of the Sabbath as sacred day where faithful worship and resting on
Saturday and refrains from non-religious activities from sunset of Friday to Saturday. He was
enrolled as first year student at MSU-College of Medicine and wrote to Achacoso and request to
be excused from Saturday classes to avoid conflicts.
Respondent argued that MSU had other students who were able to graduate Med School despite
being members of the same Church. Thus, argue that Valmores’ case was not unique to merit
exceptional treatment.
ISSUE: Is there a violation of freedom of religion?
RULING: Yes, there was a violation.
Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides, no law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Here, Respondents suggest that the "sacrifices" of other students of the common faith justified
their refusal to give petitioner Valmores exceptional treatment.
Silverio vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. NO. 94284, April 8, 1991

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with violation of Sec. 20 par 4 of the Revised Securities Act in
Criminal Case of the RTC of Cebu. In due time, he posted bail for his provisional liberty.
Respondent People of the Philippines for more than two years filed an Urgent ex parte Motion to
cancel petitioner’s passport and issuance of hold-departure against the petitioner on ground that
he went to abroad several times without necessary approval from the Court which resulted in
postponement of arraignments and hearings.
RTC then issued and order to DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport or deny his application and
Commission on Immigration to prevent petitioner from leaving the country on the ground that
accused has not yet been arraigned for not appearing in court on scheduled dates.
ISSUE: Can the right to travel be impaired by Court Order?
Ruling: Yes, the right may be impaired.
Sec.6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: “The liberty of abode and of changing the same
within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Here, the foregoing condition imposed upon the accuse to make himself available at all time
whenever the Court requires his presence operates as valid restriction of his right to travel.