Section 5, Art. III. 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.
Religion defined
• “any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and philosophy” (defined by Cruz)
• In Aglipay vs Ruiz religion is defined as “a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator.
Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the Constitution (1) Non-establishment clause
(2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship
1. Non-establishment Clause
• reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on the separation of church and State
• other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or denomination cannot be registered as a political party], Sec 5(2), Art. VI [no sectoral representative from the religious sector], and Sec 29 (2), Art.
VI [prohibition against the use of public money or property for the benefit of any religion, or of any priest, minister or ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI [exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes, Sec 4(2), Art XIV [citizenship requirement of ownership of educational institutions except those owned by religious groups], Sec 29(2), Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is employed in the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned orphanage or leprosarium]
Scope: The State
(a) cannot set up a church;
(b) cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one over another;
(c) cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will; nor
(d) force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Rationale:
• to delineate boundaries between the two institutions; and
• to avoid encroachment by one against the other.
• A union of Church and State would either:
◦ tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
◦ result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength
• separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility
• The Government is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and disparages none.
• Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to worship includes right not to worship
Two values sought to be protected by the non-establishment clause:
(1) Voluntarism – the growth of a religious sect as a social force must come from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief that both spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without benefit of official patronage.
(2) Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension – voluntarism cannot be achieved unless the political process is insulated from religion and unless religion is insulated politics.
Engel vs Vitale recitation by students in public schools in New York of a prayer composed by the Board of Regents was unconstitutional
Everson vs Board of Education
US Supreme Court sustained the law providing free transportation for all schoolchildren without discrimination, including those attending parochial schools
Board of
Education vs Allen
US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the petitioner to lend textbooks free of charge to all students from grades 7-12, including those attending private schools
In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the student and parents, not to the church-related school
Adong vs Cheong
Seng Gee in line with the constitutional principle of equal treatment of all religions, the State recognizes the validity of civilization, not to the religious belief.
Islamic Da'wah certifications, the State has, in effect, forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunna on halal food.
• Intramural Religious Dispute – outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities
Gonzales vs Archbishop of Manila
where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil right and nothing more.
Fonacier v CA where the dispute involves the property rights of the religious group, or the relations of the members where the property rights are involved, the civil courtws may assume jurisdiction.
2. Free Exercise Clause
Two Aspects of Free Exercise Clause:
1. Freedom to Believe (a) absolute
(b) includes not to believe
(c) “everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove what he believes”
2. Freedom to Act According to One's Beliefs
(a) happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions (b) subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of
others
(c) Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges... its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma
German vs Barangan SC found that petitioners were not sincere in their profession of religious liberty and were using it merely to express their opposition to the government
Ebralinag vs division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. , and upheld the right of petitioners to refute to salute the Philippine flag on account of their religious scruples. To compel students to take part in a flag ceremony when it is against their religious beliefs will violate their religious freedom.
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed aside by the SC
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers Union
SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting members of a religious sect from being compelled to join a labor union
American Bible Society vs City
of Manila the constitutional guarantee of free exercise carries with it the right to disseminate information, and any restraint of such right can be justified only on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of an evil which the State has the right to prevent;
Hence, City ordinance imposing license fees to on sale is inapplicable to the society
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance the free exercise clause does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of religious materials;
the registration fee is not imposed for the
exerise of a privilege, but only for the purpose of defraying part of the cost of registration
• Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vs Escritor]
• the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu a benevolent neutrality (which recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests, but at the same time, strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits
• benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on religion provided it does not offend the compelling state interest test.
• two steps (as regards the test):
▪ inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdened; and
▪ ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief.
• In Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos, the Court held that solicitiations for religious purposes requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is not included in solicitations for “charitable or public welfare purposes.”
Religious Tests
• Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from exercising his civil of political rights because of his religious beliefs.
• In Pamil v. Teleron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is questioned whether or not it is consistent with the religious clause of the Constitution. Said Code disqualifies an “ecclesiastic” from being elected or appointed to a municipal office. Seven Justices voted to consider this a prohibited “religious test.” Five justices said it is not a religious test but a safeguard against the constant threat of union of Church and State that has marked the Philippine history. (Hence, since the majority vote needed under the 1973 Constitution to nullify a statute was not reached, the
disqualification remains enforceable.)
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed aside by the SC
V. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Section 6, Art. III. 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.
Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III
1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and 2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside Limitations
• Liberty of Abode – “upon lawful order of the court”
• Right to Travel – “national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law” advances by an employment agency:
Yes. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by controlling a fundamental human freedom.
Human dignity and freedom are essentially spiritual – inseparable from the idea of eternal. Money, power, etc.
belong to the ephemeral and perishable.
Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro 1919
The respondents were justified in requiring the members of certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for their better education, advancement and protection.
The measure was a legitimate exercise of police power.
Villavicencio vs Lukban
1919
Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels but Philippine citizens, protected by the same constitutional guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a law allowing such.
Salonga vs
Hermoso 97 SCRA 121
the case became moot and academic when the permit to travel abroad was issued before the case could be heard.
Lorenzo vs Dir. of Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the
Health 1927
world over and is supported by high scientific authority.
Such segregation is premised on the duty to protect public health.
Manotok vs CA 1986
Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the right to travel. By its nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines where orders of Philippine courts would have no binding force.
Marcos vs
Manglapus 1989
The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right to leave, reside and travel within one’s country but it does not include the right to return to one’s country.
NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a precedent because Marcos was a class in himself.
Philippine
Association of Service Exporters vs Drilon
1988
Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public health or public order, as may be provided by law.
An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas workers is constitutional for having been issued in the interest of the safety of OFWs, as provided by the Labor Code.