1. Letter of Tony Valenciano to CJ Puno, AM No.

10-4-19 SC, March 7, 2017

Facts:
This controversy originated from a series of letters written by Valenciano and addressed to the Chief Justice Reynato S.
Puno reporting that the basement of the Hall of Justice of Quezon City had been converted into a Roman Catholic
Chapel, complete with Catholic religious icons and other instrument for religious activities. He believe that such practice
violated the constitutional provisions on the separation of Church and State and the constitutional prohibition against
the appropriation of public money and property for the benefit of a sect, church, denomination, or any other system of
religion. He further averred that the holding of masses at the basement of Hall of Justice showed that it tended to favor
the Catholic litigants; that the rehearsals and other activities caused great disturbance to the employees; and that court
functions are affected due to the masses that is being held from 12:00 to 1:15 in the afternoon.

Issue:
Whether or not the holding of masses at the basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice violates the constitutional
principle of separation of Church and State as well as the constitutional prohibition against appropriation of public
money or property for the benefit of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion.

Ruling:
The holding of Religious Rituals in the Hall of Justice does not amount to the union of Church and State. The 1987
constitution provides that the separation of Church and the State shall be inviolable; if further provides that the free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. Allowing religion to flourish is not contrary to the principle of separation of Church and state. In fact, these two
principles are in perfect harmony with each other. The Roman Catholic express their worship through the holy mass and
to stop these would be tantamount to repressing the right to the free exercise of their religion.

It is also the view of the Supreme Court that the holding of Catholic masses at the basement of the Quezon City Hall of
Justice is not a case of establishment but merely accommodation wherein the government recognize the reality that
some measures may not be imposed on a certain portion of the population for the reason that these measures are
contrary to their religious beliefs. As long as it can be shown that the exercise of the right does not impair the public
welfare, the attempt of the State to regulate or prohibit such right would be an unconstitutional encroachment.

No appropriation of Public money or property for the benefit of any Church. The constitution provides that “No public
money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or any priest, preacher, minister or
other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
armed forces, or any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

The prohibition contemplates a scenario where the appropriation is primarily intended for the furtherance of a
particular church. The aforecited constitutional provision “does not inhibit the use of public property for religious
purposes when the religious character of such use is merely incidental to a temporary use which is available
indiscriminately to the public in general. Thus, the basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice has remained to be a
public property devoted for public use because the holding of Catholic masses therein is a mere incidental consequence
of its primary purpose.

2. DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS. COMELEC, January 21, 2015

FACTS
 Bishop Vicente M. Navarra posted two (2) tarpaulins, each with approximately six feet (6′) by ten feet (10′) in
size, for public viewing within the vicinity of San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. One of the tarpaulins stated:
“Conscience Vote” and lists of candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with a check mark or “(Pro-RH)
Team Patay” with an “X” mark.The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the adoption
of the RH Law.
 Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted
against it form “Team Buhay.
 When the said tarpaulin came to the attention of Comelec, it sent a letter to Bishop Navarra ordering the
immediate removal of the tarpaulin because it was in violation of Comelec Resolution No. 9615 as the lawful size
for election propaganda material is only two feet (2’) by three feet (3’); otherwise, it will be constrained to file
an election offense against the latter.
  Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise of free speech, Bishop Navarra, et al.
prayed for the Court to declare the questioned orders of Comelec as unconstitutional, and permanently
restraining the latter from enforcing them after notice and hearing.

ISSUE: Whether or not the controversial tarpaulin is an election propaganda which the Comelec has the power to
regulate; otherwise its prohibition shall constitute an abridgment of freedom of speech.

RULING:
 It is not election propaganda.
 While the tarpaulin may influence the success or failure of the named candidates and political parties, this does
not necessarily mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid for or posted “in return for
consideration” by any candidate, political party, or party-list group.
 Personal opinions, unlike sponsored messages, are not covered by the second paragraph of Sec. 1(4) of Comelec
Resolution No. 9615 defining “political advertisement” or “election propaganda.”
 The caricature, though not agreeable to some, is still protected speech. That petitioners chose to categorize
them as purveyors of death or of life on the basis of a single issue—and a complex piece of legislation at that—
can easily be interpreted as an attempt to stereotype the candidates and party- list organizations. Not all may
agree to the way their thoughts were expressed, as in fact there are other Catholic dioceses that chose not to
follow the example of petitioners.
 But, the Bill of Rights enumerated in our Constitution is an enumeration of our fundamental liberties. It is not a
detailed code that prescribes good conduct. It provides space for all to be guided by their conscience, not only in
the act that they do to others but also in judgment of the acts of others.

2-a. IMBONG VS. OCHOA, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014

FACTS
 Republic Act (R.A) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012.
 This law guaranteed universal and free access to nearly all modem contraceptives to all citizens, including those
living in poverty, through government health centers.
 The law also mandated reproductive health education in govemment schools and recognized the right to post-
abortion care as part of the right to reproductive healthcare.
 The RH Law was immediately challenged by various religious and conservative groups.
 The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued an order preventing the law from going into effect pending a final
judgment.
ISSUE/S
1. The RH Law was challenged on the grounds that it violated a range of constitutional rights, such as the rights to life,
health, freedom of religion and speech, and privacy.
Whether or not Whether the RH law is unconstitutional, with regards to:
a) Right to Life
b) Right to Health
c) Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech
d) The Family and the Right to Privacy
e) Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Due Process
g) Equal Protection
h) Involuntary Servitude
i) Delegation of Authority to the FDA
j) Autonomy of Local Governments / ARMM
HOLDINGS/RULINGS
In general, NO. The RH Law, in its entirety, is not unconstitutional, however, unconstitutional in some aspects.
a) Right to Life
 NO. The RH Law is not unconstitutional with regards to Right of Life.
 The Court finds that the RH Law, consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum already
has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it.
 The Court finds that inasmuch as it affords protection to the fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction
abortion. To repeat, it is the Court's position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. When a
fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall, its viability is sustained but that instance of implantation is not
the point of beginning of life.
 In all cases, the "principle of no abortion" embodied in the constitutional protection of life must be upheld.
b) Right to Health
  The Court finds that, at this point, the attack on the RH Law on this ground is premature, because not a single
contraceptive has yet been submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law.
 The Constitution is replete with provisions protecting and promoting the right to health. These provisions
(Article 2, Section 15; Portions of Article 18; and Article 16, Section 9) are self-executing. Unless the provisions
clearly express the contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executory. There is no
need for legislation to implement these self-executing provisions.
 There must first be a determination by the FDA that they are in fact safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective
family planning products and supplies. There can be no predetermination by Congress that the gamut of
contraceptives are "safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective" without the proper scientific examination.
c) Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech
 NO. The RH Law is not unconstitutional with regards to Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech.
 The Framers, however, felt the need to put up a strong barrier so that the State would not encroach into the
affairs of the church, and vice-versa. The principle of separation of Church and State was, thus, enshrined in
Article II, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution.
 In short, the constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two guarantees: the Establishment Clause
and the Free Exercise Clause.
 In the case at bench, it is not within the province of the Court to determine whether the use of contraceptives or
one's participation in the support of modem reproductive health measures is moral from a religious standpoint
or whether the same is right or wrong according to one's dogma or belief.
 The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality.
 While the Court stands without authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, as vanguard of the Constitution, it
does have authority to determine whether the RH Law contravenes the guarantee of religious freedom.
 The Court finds no compelling state interest which would limit the free exercise clause of the conscientious
objectors, however few in number. Only the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and
welfare of the community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. If the govemment fails to show the
seriousness and immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is constitutionally unacceptable.
d) The Family and the Right to Privacy
 YES. RH Law is unconstitutional by intruding into marital privacy and autonomy.
 The RH Law contains provisions which tend to wreck the family as a solid social institution. It bars the husband
and/or the father from participating in the decision making process regarding their common future progeny. It
likewise deprives the parents of their authority over their minor daughter simply because she is already a parent
or had suffered a miscarriage.
 The RH Law cannot be allowed to infringe upon this mutual decision-making. By giving absolute authority to the
spouse who would undergo a procedure, and barring the other spouse from participating in the decision would
drive a wedge between the husband and wife, possibly result in bitter animosity, and endanger the marriage and
the family, all for the sake of reducing the population. This would be a marked departure from the policy of the
State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution.
 At any rate, in case of conflict between the couple, the courts will decide.
 It disregards and disobeys the constitutional mandate that "the natural and primary right and duty of parents in
the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of
the Government."
 In this regard, Commissioner Bernas wrote:
 The 1987 provision has added the adjective "primary" to modify the right of parents. It imports the assertion
that the right of parents is superior to that of the State."
e) Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom
 The Court finds that, at this point, the attack on the RH Law on this ground is premature, because there is no
sexual education curriculum existing yet.
 Any attack on the validity of Section 14 of the RH Law is premature because the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health education. One can
only speculate on the content, manner and medium of instruction that will be used to educate the adolescents
and whether they will contradict the religious beliefs of the petitioners and validate their apprehensions.
 Thus, considering the premature nature of this particular issue, the Court declines to rule on its constitutionality
or validity.
f) Due Process
 NO. The RH Law is not unconstitutional with regards to the due process clause of the Constitution because it
does not suffer from vagueness.
 A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its application.
It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
(1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to
avoid; and
(2) (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
Government muscle.
 Moreover, in determining whether the words used in a statute are vague, words must not only be taken in
accordance with their plain meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute. It is a rule that every
part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, that is, every part of it must be construed
together with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.
g) Equal Protection
 NO. The RH Law is not unconstitutional with regards to the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
 To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the government's reproductive health care program is not a
violation of the equal protection clause.
 In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the distinct necessity to
address the needs of the underprivileged by providing that they be given priority in addressing the health
development of the people.
 Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility issues and
desire to have children. There is, therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH Law only seeks to target the
poor to reduce their number.
h) Involuntary Servitude
 NO. The RH Law is not unconstitutional with regards to involuntary servitude.
 The practice of medicine is undeniably imbued with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State
to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare. The practice of medicine is not a
right but a privileged burdened with conditions as it directly involves the very lives of the people.
 A reading of the assailed provision reveals that it only encourages private and non- govemment reproductive
healthcare service providers to render pro bono service.
 Clearly, no compulsion, force or threat is made upon them to render pro bono service against their will.
 The rendering of pro bono service, a prerequisite to accreditation with PhilHealth, is not an unreasonable
burden, but rather, a necessary incentive imposed by Congress in the furtherance of a perceived legitimate state
interest.
 It should be emphasized that conscientious objectors are exempt from this provision as long as their religious
beliefs and convictions do not allow them to render reproductive health service, pro bono or otherwise.
i} Delegation of Authority to the FDA
 NO. The RH Law is not unconstitutional with regards to the delegation of authority to the FDA.
 The Court finds nothing wrong with the delegation.
 The FDA does not only have the power but also the competency to evaluate, register and cover health services
and methods. It is the only government entity empowered to render such services and highly proficient to do so.
 Being the country's premiere and sole agency that ensures the safety of food and medicines available to the
public, the FDA was equipped with the necessary powers and functions to make it effective.
 From the declared policy of the RH Law, it is clear that Congress intended that the public be given only those
medicines that are proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective in accordance with scientific and
evidence-based medical research standards.
j) Autonomy of Local Governments and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
 NO. The RH Law is not unconstitutional with regards to the Autonomy of Local Governments and the ARMM.
 Local autonomy is not absolute. The national government still has the say when it comes to national priority
programs which the local govemment is called upon to implement like the RH Law.
 There is nothing in the wording of the law which can be construed as making the availability of these services
mandatory for the LGUs. For said reason, it cannot be said that the RH Law amounts to an undue encroachment
by the national government upon the autonomy enjoyed by the local govemments.
 The fact that the RH Law does not intrude in the autonomy of local govemments can be equally applied to the
ARMM. The RH Law does not infringe upon its (ARMM's) autonomy.
K} Natural Law
 With respect to the argument that the RH Law violates natural law, suffice it to say that the Court does not duly
recognize it as a legal basis for upholding or invalidating a law.
 Our only guidepost is the Constitution.

 The RH Law does not sanction the taking away of life. It does not allow abortion in any shape or form. It only
seeks to enhance the population control program of the government by providing information and making non-
abortifacient contraceptives more readily available to the public, especially to the poor.
  The Court's function is limited, and accordingly, must confine itself to the judicial task of saying what the law is,
as enacted by the lawmaking body.
 That is not the same as saying what the law should be or what the correct rule is in a given set of circumstances.
The policy of the Court is non-interference in the wisdom of a law.
I) SUMMARY
In general, the Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide access to medically-safe,
non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, and
supplies.
CONCLUSION/S
1. The petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED.
2. The Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to some provisions which are
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
3. The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as extended by its Order, dated July 16, 2013, is
hereby LIFTED.

3. ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010

FACTS:
“Ang Ladlad” is an organization of people who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or trans- genders. The
Comelec dismissed the petition on moral grounds as “the definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that it
tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not “Ang Ladlad” party-list application should be denied as the organizationallegedly tolerates immorality
which offends religious beliefs.

RULING:
No. The denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional
guarantees against the establishment of religion; including its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and
assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines’ international obligations
against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Rather than relying on religious belief, the government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily
secular effects. “Ang Ladlad” has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements for accreditation.
Hence, its application as a party-list should be granted.

4. Estrada vs. Escritur, 408 SCRA 1 and 492 SCRA 1

Facts:
 Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of
respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still
married.Estrada believes that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the
judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the court
condones her act.
 Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct
for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her
conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they
executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of
Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. The Declaration
makes the union moral and binding within the congregation throughout the world except in countries where
divorce is allowed.
Issue:
Is Escritor guilty of gross immorality for having an illicit relationship?
Does her religious belief justify such act?
Ruling:
 Yes the act was grossly immoral. In a catena of cases, the Court has ruled that government employees engaged
in illicit relations are guilty of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" for which he/she may be held administratively
liable. In these cases, there was not one dissent to the majority's ruling that their conduct was immoral. The
respondents themselves did not foist the defense that their conduct was not immoral, but instead sought to
prove that they did not commit the alleged act or have abated from committing the act.
  No, Escritor is not guilty of gross immorality and she cannot be penalized for her freedom of religion justifies her
conjugal arraignment. In interpreting the Free Exercise Clause, the realm of belief poses no difficulty. The early
case of Gerona v. Secretary of Education is instructive on the matter, viz:
 The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one's imagination and thought. So is the
freedom of belief, including religious belief, limitless and without bounds. One may believe in most anything,
however strange, bizarre and unreasonable the same may appear to others, even heretical when weighed in the
scales of orthodoxy or doctrinal standards. But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief,
there is quite a stretch of road to travel.
 The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedom, including religious freedom,
may be enjoyed.

5. Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201

Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling
postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner contends that such act is a
violation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any
church, system of religion, etc. This provision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for the
purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church, or vice versa, as a weapon to further their ends
and aims. Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for the appropriation
funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government.

Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion.

Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration. It is however not an
inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession
of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And in so far as it instills into the
minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. The phrase in Act No. 4052
“advantageous to the government” does not authorize violation of the Constitution. The issuance of the stamps was not
inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. They were not sold for the benefit of the
Roman Catholic Church. The postage stamps, instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned, contains a map
of the Philippines and the location of Manila, with the words “Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress.” The focus
of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila, being the seat of that congress. This was to “to
advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists,” the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of
international importance. Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church,
any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the Government.

Garces vs. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510

Facts:
Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City were passed:
a. Resolution No. 5- Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration every fifth of April. This provided for the
acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. Funds for the said projects
will be obtained through the selling of tickets and cash donations.
b. Resolution No. 6- The chairman or hermano mayor of the fiesta would be the caretaker of the image of San
Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in his residence for one year and until the election of his
successor. The image would be made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the saint’s feast
day.
 These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and said projects were implemented. The image was
temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio
Marilao Osmeña refused to return the image to the barangay council, as it was the church’s property since
church funds were used in its acquisition.
 Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against the priest for
the recovery of the image. Resolution No. 12 appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case. The
priest, in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest with Andres Garces, a
member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that Sec. 8 Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution
was violated.
Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated.

Held: No. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the image. The image was purchased in
connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with
religious matters or beliefs of the barrio residents. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint(such
as the acquisition) is not illegal. Practically, the image was placed in a layman’s custody so that it could easily be made
available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. It was the council’s funds
that were used to buy the image, therefore it is their property. Right of the determination of custody is their right, and
even if they decided to give it to the Church, there is no violation of the Constitution, since private funds were used. Not
every government activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative
of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of worship and banning the use of
public money or property.