Article III, Section 5.  Art. XIV, Sec.
4(2)
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.
Points from Isagani Cruz Book
Right to Worship – one of the basic liberties of
man that have been subject of official
repression and punishment.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Every one has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief and
freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship
and observance.”
Religion – any specific system of belief, worship,
conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics
and a philosophy. It embraces matters of faith
and dogma, as well as doubt, agnosticism and
atheism.
 Existence of Divine Being is not
necessarily inherent in religion (e.g.
Buddhists)
Religion in the Constitution
 Art. III, Sec. 5
 Art. II, Sec. 6, “The separation of Church
and State shall be inviolable”
 Art. VI, Sec. 28(3), “exemption from
taxation”
 Art. VI, Sec. 29(2), payment of tax
money to ecclesiastics in the armed
forces, leprosarium, orphanage
 Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3), “teaching of religion
to children or wards in public
elementary or high schools.”
Preamble:
“the aid of Almighty GOD.”
Separation of Church and State
Rationale: “strong fences make good
neighbors.”
- To delineate the boundaries between
the two institutions and thus avoid
encroachments because of
understanding of the limits of the
respective exclusive jurisdiction.
- To “render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s and unto GOD the things that
are GOD’s”
*Freedom of religion includes freedom from
religion, the right to worship includes the right
not to worship.
*In the Philippines, the doctrine of separation of
Church and State should be read specifically
with Art. VI, Sec 29(2), prohibiting
appropriations of public funds for sectarian
purposes, to wit, “No public money or property
shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid or used
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit or
support of any priest, preacher, minister or
other religious teacher or dignitary as such…”
Aglipay vs Ruiz
“Any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a religious
institution, as long as such benefit was only
incidental to a legitimate secular objective,
would not violate the prohibition.
Garces v. Estenzo
“there was no violation of the Constitution
where it was shown that the money used by a
barangay council for the purchase of a religious
image was raised by it from private
contributions and did not constitute public
funds.”
(1) Intramural Religious Disputes
- Intramural disputes regarding religious
dogma and other matters of faith are
outside the jurisdiction of the secular
authorities.
- Whatever dogma is adopted by a
religious group cannot be binding upon
the State if it contravenes its valid laws.
Gonzales v. Archbishop
“where a civil right depends upon some
matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs,
the civil tribunal tries the civil right and
nothing more, taking the ecclesiastical
decision out of which the civil right has
arisen as it finds them, and accepting those
decisions as matters adjudicated by another
jurisdiction.”
Religious Profession and Worship
Two (2) Aspects:
1.) Freedom to Believe
– absolute, as long as the belief is
confined within the realm of thought.
- The individual is free to believe (or
disbelieve) as he pleases concerning
the hereafter. He may indulge his
own theories about life and death;
worship any god he chooses or none
at all; embrace or reject any religion;
etc.
2.) Freedom to Act on One’s Beliefs
– subject to regulation where the belief
is translated into external acts that
affect the public welfare.
- Religious freedom, like all the other
rights guaranteed in the
Constitution, can be enjoyed only
with a proper regard for the rights of
others. The inherent police power
can be exercised to prevent religious
practices inimical to society.
- (e.g. while one has full freedom to
believe in satan, he may not offer the
object of his piety a sacrifice, as this
would be murder; those who literally
interpret the Bible command to “go
forth and multiply” are not allowed
to contract plural marriages in
violation of the laws against bigamy;
an atheist cannot express his
disbelief in acts of derision that
wound the feelings of the faithful.)
- This does NOT suggest that the
authority of the State shall at all
times prevail over the right of the
individual to religious profession and
worship. (In fact in many instances,
the reverse is true). 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.
American Bible Society v. City of Manila
- SC held that the constitutional guaranty
of free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries
with it the right to disseminate religious
information. Any restraint of such right
can be justified like other restraints of
freedom of expression on the ground
that there is a clear and present danger
of any substantive evil which the State
has the right to prevent.
- The provision of City Ordinance 2529,
which requires the payment of a license
fee for conducting the business of
general merchandise cannot be applied
 to plaintiff Society, for in doing so, it
would impair its free exercise and
enjoyment of its religious profession
and worship, as well as its rights of
disseminating of religious beliefs.
Test of Reasonableness
- The test to determine which shall
prevail as between religious freedom
and the powers of the State.
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
Gerona v. Secretary of Education
- The flag ceremony was sustained as a
valid exercise of the police power aimed
at inculcating the virtue of patriotism in
the students.
Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of
Schools of Cebu
- Reversed the decision in Gerona
- Upheld the religious freedom of the
petitioners who were also members of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses and believed
that they should not salute the flag
because its was in their view an
“image” to which the Bible prohibited
them from rendering obeisance.
Religious Tests
People vs Zosa
- Based on Article II, Section 4, “The
prime duty of the Government is to
serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people
to defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be
required, under conditions provided by
law, to render personal military or civil
service.”
Points from Consti II 2021 TSN
Article III, Section 5.
No law shall be made respecting an
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.
 The word “forever” makes no sense
because in Constitutional Law, nothing
is forever. The constitution is only as
good as the next amendment
1. The Non-Establishment Clause
- Prohibits legislation and all
governmental act which aid one
religion, aid all religions, or prefers one
over another.
- Broad and all-embracing; the
government should be hands off when
it comes to religious matters.
- Implements the principle of separation
of church and state.
 Prohibited by the Non-Establishment
Clause
a. The State cannot organize a religion
b. It cannot promote one religion or all
religions
c. It cannot support a religious activity
with public funds
d. It cannot participate in the affairs of
a religious organization.

 President Clinton
“Religion should be allowed to flourish
on its own but the state should not be
in the business of prayer.
Tests for Allowable Aid to Religion (LEMON)
a. The statute (or any governmental act)
must have secular legislative purpose;
b. The principal or primary effect is neither
one that advances or inhibits religion.
c. It must not foster excessive government
entanglement with religion. (Lemon v.
Kurtzman)
2. Free Exercise Clause
- Freedom to believe (which is absolute)
and the right to act on one’s belief,
which is subject to regulation.
- It can be restricted only if there is a
clear and present danger of a
substantive evil which the state has the
right to prevent.
3. Inter-religions and Intra-religious
disputes
- Religious disputes can either be inter-
religious or intra-religious, what should
be the attitude of the State towards
this?
1. Between religious groups - The
state should not interfere.
2. Among members of same group
(Taruc) If it involves ecclesiastical
matters, the State or the court
should not interfere. If non-
ecclesiastical, then they can
interfere.
4. Religious Tests
- The Constitution requires that there
shall be no religious test, meaning that
certain offices shall not be reserved for
certain religions, or that certain offices
cannot be reserved for people who
believe in God only, and atheists cannot
be denied opportunity to public service.
That is why in the oath of public
officials, they are allowed to take an
oath OR affirmation. If they do not
believe in God, they can still hold public
office because they only have to make
an affirmation
CASES
1. Re: Letter of Valenciano (2017)
Issue: Does the holding of religious masses
during noon breaks in the basement of the Hall
of Justice violate separation of church and
state?
Held: No. The State’s policy toward religion is
one of benevolent neutrality, which allows
accommodation of religion under certain
circumstances.
Accommodations are government policies that
take religion specifically into account not to
promote the government's favored form of
religion, but to allow individuals and groups to
exercise their religion without hindrance.
 The holding of Catholic masses at the
basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not
a case of establishment, but merely
accommodation.
1st, there is no law, ordinance or circular
issued by any duly constitutive
 authorities expressly mandating that
judiciary employees attend the Catholic
masses at the basement.
2nd, when judiciary employees attend
the masses to profess their faith, it is at
their own initiative as they are there on
their own free will and volition, without
any coercion from the judges or
administrative officers.
3rd, no government funds are being
spent because the lightings and air-
conditioning continue to be operational
even if there are no religious rituals
there.
4th, the basement has neither been
converted into a Roman Catholic chapel
nor has it been permanently
appropriated for the exclusive use of its
faithful.
5th, the allowance of the masses has not
prejudiced other religions.
2. Estrada v. Escritor (2006)
Held: The State’s attitude towards the church or
religious matters should be one of benevolent
neutrality. This means that while separation is
maintained, it must not be hostile. But it must
be benevolent, or one of accommodation, since
the Constitution considers religion as a
cherished right.
Under the compelling interest test, the State is
permitted to interfere in religious practice, if it is
able to show that it has an interest to protect
which is paramount and compelling. In this
case, the State interest is in protecting marriage
as a social institution. But the bare claim that
the couple’s arrangement is destructive of this
interest is not enough. The State must
articulate in specific terms the State’s interest
involved in preventing the exemption, which
must be compelling, for only the gravest
abuses, endangering paramount interests can
limit the fundamental right to religious
freedom.
*The government must do more than assert the
objectives at risk if exemption is given; it must
precisely show how and to what extent those
objectives will be undermined if exemptions are
granted.
*Benevolent neutrality recognizes that
government must pursue its secular goals and
interests but at the same time strives to uphold
religious liberty to the greatest extent possible
within flexible constitutional limits.
*You cannot just invoke general principles in
order to advance your argument that there is a
compelling state interest. In the end, it is
evidentiary. The SolGen or the lawyer handling
it should have been more imaginative in trying
to come up with better arguments other than
mere
general provisions.
3. Peralta v. PHILPOST (2018)
Facts:
Held: The “Lemon Test” is used to adjudge
whether the assailed governmental act violated
the “non-establishment clause” as follows:
(1) The statute must have a secular
legislative purpose;
(2) Its principal or primary effect must be
one that neither advances nor inhibits
religion; and
(3) The statute must not foster an excessive
government entanglement with
religion.

In this case the printing of the stamps does
not violate the non-establishment clause. It
has a secular purpose, which is to
acknowledge the INC’s existence for a
hundred years, and its founder’s
contribution to Philippine history and
culture.
4. Amari v. Villaflor, Jr. (2020)
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that
respondent was illegally dismissed despite the
fact that the dispute involves an ecclesiastical
affair as the latter was a member of the Abiko
Baptist Church?
Held:
At the outset, the Court finds the need to
distinguish a purely ecclesiastical affair from a
secular matter. While the State is prohibited
from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs,
the Church is likewise barred from meddling in
purely secular matters.
 An ecclesiastical affair is '"one that
concerns doctrine, creed, or form of
worship of the church, or the adoption
and enforcement within a religious
association of needful laws and
regulations for the government of the
membership, and the power of
excluding from such associations those
deemed unworthy of membership.
In this case, there were three (3) acts which
were decided upon by the Abiko Baptist Church
against respondent in its November 24, 2011
Letter, to wit: (1) removal as a missionary of
Abiko Baptist Church; (2) cancellation of the
ABA recommendation as a national missionary;
and (3) exclusion of membership from Abiko
Baptist Church in Japan.
Nos. 1 & 3 are ecclesiastical affair. These
matters are exclusively determined by the
church in accordance with the standards they
have set.
*However, the matter of terminating an
employee, which is purely secular in nature, is
different from the ecclesiastical act of expelling
a member from the religious congregation.
In order to settle the issue, it is imperative to
determine the existence of an employer-
employee relationship. We have previously
ruled that "[i]n an illegal dismissal case, the
onus probandi rests on the employer to prove
that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid
cause.
The lower tribunals used the "four-fold test" in
determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, to wit: (a) the selection
and engagement of the employee; (b) the
payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal;
and (d) the power to control the employee's
conduct.
Respondent was not able to sufficiently prove
the existence of an employer-employee
relationship which is the first requirement to
claim relief in a labor case.
Admittedly, there is a thin line between secular
and ecclesiastical matters with regard to
respondent's status as a missionary.
Respondent's claim of illegal dismissal is
dependent on the existence of the employer-
employee relationship. Unfortunately,
respondent failed to prove his own affirmative
allegation.
5. Salvation Army v. SSS (2021)
Facts: The Salvation Army (petitioner) is an
international evangelical Christian Church and
social welfare organization. It employs the use
of
military terminology in its organization,
operations, and ministries. Petitioner is
incorporated under the laws of the Philippines
as a non-stock, non-profit religious organization
On March 22, 1962, petitioner registered with
the Social Security System (SSS) and was
assigned Social Security (SS) No. 03-2070300-3.
In its registration, it listed its officers as
"employees."
On December 19, 2005, the petitioner filed
before the SSS a request for the conversion of
the membership status of its officers from
"employees" to "voluntary or self-employed."
In a Letter dated January 30, 2006, the SSS
denied the request for lack of legal and factual
basis
Issue: WoN CA erred in affirming the ruling of
the SSS which declared that the Salvation Army
officers are considered ordinary employees
despite the overwhelming evidence showing
the Ecclesiastical nature of the relationship
between the army and its officers?
Held:
The principle of separation of church and state
applies only to ecclesiastical affairs.
Necessarily, in suits where one of the parties is a
church or a religious institution, or one that
involves the relationship of the church and its
members, a preliminary inquiry is made as to
whether the controversy concerns an
ecclesiastical or purely religious affair as to bar
the Court from taking cognizance of the same.
 Scope and Definition of Ecclesiastical
Affair
Ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship
between the church and its members and relate
to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship
and governance of the congregation.
Examples of this so-called ecclesiastical affairs
to which the State cannot meddle are
proceedings for excommunication, ordinations
of religious ministers, administration of
sacraments and other activities with attached
religious significance.
Based on the foregoing, just because a case
involves the relationship between the Church
and its religious ministers does not
automatically bring it within the ambit of a
purely religious affair.
An employer-employee relationship may exist
between a religious organization and its
ministers. It is the existence of this relationship
that determines the status and triggers
mandatory coverage under the SSS law.
The nature of the petitioner as a religious
institution does not exempt it from the
coverage of the SSS.
There is no merit in the claim that the inclusion
of religious organizations under the coverage of
the Social Security Law violates the
constitutional prohibition against the
application of public funds for the use, benefit
or support of any priest who might be employed
by appellant. The funds contributed to the
System created by the law are not public funds,
but funds belonging to the members which are
merely held in trust by the Government.
The application of the provisions of the SSS to
the petitioner, a religious institution, does not
offend the non-establishment clause of the
Constitution. "Establishment" requires a positive
action on the part of the State involving the use
of government resources with the primary
intention of setting up or adhering to a
particular religion.

In this case, the petitioner is dealt with not as a

religious institution but as an employer of its
ministers. It is in this capacity that the
petitioner's obligation to register and extend
the benefits under the SSS law in favor of its
ministers arose. The funds involved are not
owned by the government but merely held in
trust for the members who are the
beneficiaries thereof. Irrespective of whether
the funds are characterized as public in nature,
there is no "establishment" to speak of as the
social security benefit is given to ministers not
on account of their religion but as employees of
the petitioner; the religious character of the
nature of their employment is merely incidental
to the extension of the coverage in the SSS law.

The State, in the enforcement of the SSS law,

and the Church, in the propagation and practice
of its
belief, are motivated by the common objective
of social justice. The Court recognizes the
petitioner's adherence to this goal with its
admission of employer status and
corresponding registration of its ordinary
employees.