Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 113092 September 1, 1994

MARTIN CENTENO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 10, and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:
Sometime in 1985, the officers of a civic organization known as the Samahang
Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the
chapel of Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan.
With this motive in mind, herein petitioner, Martin Centeno, the Chairman of the
organization, and Vicente Yco approached Judge Adoracion Angeles to solicit the
amount of P1,500.00. Judge Angeles then filed a complaint against the petitioner for
violating Presidential Decree No. 1564 (Solicitation Permit Law) before the Municipal
Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. The MTC found the petitioner to be guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and was ordered to pay the fine of P200.00. The MTC nevertheless
recommended that the accused be pardoned since it found the petitioner to be in good
faith.Petitioner appealed the case to the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. The
RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC and modified the penalty increasing it to
P1,000.00 and imposing an additional penalty of six-month imprisonment without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The petitioner’s subsequent motion for
reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
Petitioner avers that solicitations for religious purposes cannot be penalized under the
law for otherwise, it will constitute an abridgement or restriction on the free exercise
clause guaranteed under the constitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Presidential Decree 1564 (Solicitation Permit Law) when applied to
“religious” solicitations violates the constitutional guarantee on the freedom of religion.

RULING:
The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect.
On one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the
practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such
religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be
restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards free exercise of the chosen form of
religion. Thus, the constitution embraces two concepts—that is, Freedom to believe and
Freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.
Conduct remains subject for regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act
must have appropriate definitions to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In
every case, the power to regulate must be so exercised, in attaining a permissible end,
as not to unduly infringe on the protected freedom. Therefore, PD 1564 does not
violate the freedom of religion.