Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Religion
Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines which states that:
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exervise and enjoyment of religious profession and whoship, without
discrimniation or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be requires for the
exercise of civil or political rights.”
Restriction by any law in exercising this right is prohibited by the Constitution itself.
Meaning of religion
According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman
controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. a particular system of faith and worship. a
pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
1. The right to freely exercise one’s religion is guaranteed in Section 8 of our Bill of Rights.
(footnote omitted) Freedom of worship, alongside with freedom of expression and speech
and peaceable assembly “along with the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked in
our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the
judiciary – even more so than on the other departments – rests the grave and delicate
responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal
formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitously
termed by Justice Holmes ‘as the sovereign prerogative of judgment.’ Nonetheless, the
presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such
rights, enjoying as they do precedence and primacy.’ (J.B.L. Reyes, 125 SCRA at pp.
569-570)
2. In the free exercise of such preferred rights, there is to be no prior restraint although there
may be subsequent punishment of any illegal acts committed during the exercise of such
basic rights. The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of
these basic rights is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave
and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other
legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent (Idem, at pp.
560-561).
Tension also exists when a law of general application provides exemption in order to uphold free
exercise as in the Walz case where the appellant argued that the exemption granted to religious
organizations, in effect, required him to contribute to religious bodies in violation of the
Establishment Clause. But the Court held that the exemption was not a case of establishing
religion but merely upholding the Free Exercise Clause by “sparing the exercise of religion from
the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.
How the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause will be resolved
is a question for determination in the actual cases that come to the Court. In cases involving both
the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, the two clauses should be balanced
against each other. The courts must review all the relevant facts and determine whether there is a
sufficiently strong free exercise right that should prevail over the Establishment Clause problem.
In the United States, it has been proposed that in balancing, the free exercise claim must be given
an edge not only because of abundant historical evidence in the colonial and early national
period of the United States that the free exercise principle long antedated any broad-based
support of disestablishment, but also because an Establishment Clause concern raised by merely
accommodating a citizen’s free exercise of religion seems far less dangerous to the republic than
pure establishment cases. Each time the courts side with the Establishment Clause in cases
involving tension between the two religion clauses, the courts convey a message of hostility to
the religion that in that case cannot be freely exercised.374 American professor of constitutional
law, Laurence Tribe, similarly suggests that the free exercise principle “should be dominant in
any conflict with the anti-establishment principle.” This dominance would be the result of
commitment to religious tolerance instead of “thwarting at all costs even the faintest appearance
of establishment.”375 In our jurisdiction, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. asserts that a literal
interpretation of the religion clauses does not suffice. Modern society is characterized by the
expanding regulatory arm of government that reaches a variety of areas of human conduct and an
expanding concept of religion. To adequately meet the demands of this modern society, the
societal values the religion clauses are intended to protect must be considered in their
interpretation and resolution of the tension. This, in fact, has been the approach followed by the
Philippine Courts.
Religious Devotion
Anent the representation that attendance to religious devotion is not a “cut” in public service
alleging that people of Muslim faith can accomplish many good deeds outside office such as
promotion of unity, peace and understanding among the people must similarly be rejected. The
theory is that a religious belief by itself cannot in any degree affect public interest (Textbook on
the Philippine Constitution, Hector SCRA De Leon, 1991 Edition). The promotion of unity,
peace and understanding is a right accompanying the right to religion as it partakes the form of
the right to dissemination of belief. Additionally, the exercise of religious profession and
worship is obviously alien to performance of work considering that the former is a cleric activity
and the latter is secular one.
Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even to the country, x x x- assuming
that such unity and loyalty can be attained through coercion- is not a goal that is constitutionally
obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited
means.
It is certain that not every conscience can be accommodated by all the laws of the land; but when
general laws conflict with scruples of conscience, exemptions ought to be granted unless some
‘compelling state interest’ intervenes.
Related Cases
Related articles
Religious Organizations Can Discriminate in Hiring – They’re Above the Law Protecting
Workers (blogs.lawyers.com)
Florida to Strike the Establishment Clause from its Constitution? (breakingspells.net)
Critiquing a lay reading of the Constitution’s “freedom of religion” clauses
(inpropriapersona.com)
A Constitutional look at The Blunt Amendment (readersupportednews.org)
Freedom of Religion (livescience.com)
HHS mandate challengers receive unlikely support | CNA Columns: Guest Columnist
(amhec.wordpress.com)
So WHEN Will the NOAHIDE LAWS Be Activated And Guillotines Be Used in
America? (zionistoutrage.com)
Catholic Lawsuits and the Establishment Clause (americanthinker.com)
Founders’ wisdom: Full religious freedom (mysanantonio.com)
Delaware Courts Rule That Ex-Wife’s Alimony Cost Can Be Calculated by Reducing
Tithe (patheos.com)