JBL Reyes Vs Bagatsing

Retired Justice JBL Reyes in behalf of the members of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a
permit to rally from Luneta Park until the front gate of the US embassy which is less than
two blocks apart. The permit has been denied by then Manila mayor Ramon Bagatsing.
The mayor claimed that there have been intelligence reports that indicated that the rally
would be infiltrated by lawless elements. He also issued City Ordinance No. 7295 to
prohibit the staging of rallies within the 500 feet radius of the US embassy. Bagatsing
pointed out that it was his intention to provide protection to the US embassy from such
lawless elements in pursuant to Art. 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
And that under our constitution we adhere to generally accepted principles of international
law.

ISSUE: Whether or not a treaty may supersede provisions of the Constitution. Whether or
not the rallyists should be granted the permit.

HELD:

I. No. Indeed, the receiving state is tasked for the protection of foreign diplomats from any
lawless element. And indeed the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally
accepted principles of international law. But the same cannot be invoked as defense to the
primacy of the Philippine Constitution which upholds and guarantees the rights to free
speech and peacable assembly. At the same time, the City Ordinance issued by
respondent mayor cannot be invoked if the application thereof would collide with a
constitutionally guaranteed rights.

II. Yes. The denial of their rally does not pass the clear and present danger test. The mere
assertion that subversives may infiltrate the ranks of the demonstrators does not suffice. In
this case, no less than the police chief assured that they have taken all the necessary steps
to ensure a peaceful rally. Further, the ordinance cannot be applied yet because there was
no showing that indeed the rallyists are within the 500 feet radius (besides, theres also the
question of whether or not the mayor can prohibit such rally but, as noted by the SC, that
has not been raised an an issue in this case).

Ebralinag, et al vs. Div. Supt. of Schools of Cebu

Facts:
In 1989, DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints about teachers and pupils
belonging to the Jehovahs Witness, and enrolled in various public and private schools,
which refused to sing the Phil. National Anthem, salute the flag and recite the patriotic
pledge.
Division Superintendent of schools, Susana B. Cabahug of the Cebu Division of DECS and
her Assistant issued Division Memorandum No. 108, dated Nov. 17, 1989, directing District
Supervisors, High School Principals and Heads of Private Educational institutions to
remove from service, after due process, teachers and school employees, and to deprive
the students and pupils from the benefit of public education, if they do not participate in
daily flag ceremony and doesnt obey flag salute rule.
Members of the Jehovahs Witness sect find such memorandum to be contrary to their
religious belief and choose not to obey. Despite a number of appropriate persuasions made
by the Cebu officials to let them obey the directives, still they opted to follow their conviction
to their belief. As a result, an order was issued by the district supervisor of Daan Bantayan
District of Cebu, dated July 24, 1990, ordering the dropping from the list in the school
register of all Jehovahs Witness teachers and pupils from Grade 1 to Grade 6 who opted to
follow their belief which is against the Flag Salute Law, however, given a chance to be re-
accepted if they change their mind.Some Jehovahs Witness members appealed to the
Secretary of Education but the latter did not answer to their letter.
On Oct. 31, 1990, students and their parents filed special civil actions for Mandamus,
Certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the respondents acted without or in excess of their
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in ordering their expulsion without prior
notice and hearing, hence, in violation of their right to due process, their right to free public
education and their right to freedom of speech, religion and worship.
Petitioners prayed for the voiding of the order of expulsion or dropping from the rolls
issued by the District Supervisor; prohibiting and enjoining respondent from barring them
from classes; and compelling the respondent and all persons acting for him to admit and
order their(Petitioners) re-admission I their respective schools.

On November 27, 1990, Court issued a TRO and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,
commanding the respondents to immediately re-admit the petitioners to their respective
classes until further orders.

On May 31, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment to the petitions defending
the expulsion orders issued by the respondents.
Petitioners stressed that while they do not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they
do not engage in external acts or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe
in expressing their love of country through observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly
stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who
choose to participate in the solemn proceedings. Since they do not engage in disruptive
behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion.

Issue:
Whether or not the expulsion of the members of Jehovahs Witness from the schools
violates right receive free education.

Held:
The expulsion of the members of Jehovahs Witness from the schools where they are
enrolled will violate their right as Philippine citizens, under the 1987 Constitution, to receive
free education, for it is the duty of the state to protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education, and to make such education accessible to all (Sec. I, Art XIV).
Nevertheless, their right not to participate in the Flag Ceremony does not give them a right
to disrupt such patriotic exercises. If they quietly stand at attention during flag ceremony
while their classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the
patriotic pledge, we do not see how such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose
a grave and present danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or
any legitimate public interest that the state has a right and duty to prevent.
It is appropriate to recall the Japanese occupation of our country in 1942-1944 when every
Filipino, regardless of religious persuasion, in fear of the invader, saluted the Japanese flag
and bowed before every Japanese soldier, perhaps if petitioners had lived through that dark
period of our history, they would not quibble now about saluting the Phil. Flag.
The petitions for certiorari and prohibition are granted and expulsion orders are hereby
annulled and set aside.

IGLESIA NI CRISTO (INC.) vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,

BOARD OF REVIEW FOR MOVING PICTURES AND TELEVISION and
HONORABLEHENRIETTA S. MENDEZ

FACTS:

Petitioner has a television program entitled "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" aired on Channel 2every
Saturday and on Channel 13 every Sunday. The program presents and propagates
petitioner's religious beliefs, doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with
other religions. When the petitioner submitted to the Board of Review for Moving Pictures
and Television, respondent, the VTR tapes of its several TV program series, the Board
classified these rise as "X" or not for public viewing on the ground that they "offend and
constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law." On
November 28, 1992, it appealed to the Office of the President the classification of its TV
Series No. 128 which allowed it through a letter of former Executive Secretary Edelmiro A.
Amante, Sr., addressed for Henrietta S. Mendez reversing the decision of the respondent
Board. According to the letter the episode in is protected by the constitutional guarantee of
free speech and expression and no indication that the episode poses any clear and present
danger. Petitioner also filed Civil Case alleging that the respondent Board acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in requiring petitioner to submit the VTR tapes
of its TV program and in x-rating them. In their Answer, respondent Board invoked its power
under PD No. 19861 in relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. RTC ruled in
favor of petitioners. CA however reversed it hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the "ang iglesia ni cristo" program is not constitutionally protected as aform
of religious exercise.

HELD:

RTCs ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right
to free exercise of religion. This is true in this case. So-called "attacks" are mere criticisms
of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. Attack is different from
offend any race or religion. The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other

Religions by petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however,
unclean they may be. Under our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State to
favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. Religious dogmas
and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers, especially the
fanatics; the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the State from leaning
towards any religion. The basis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best
served by encouraging the market place of duelling ideas. It is only where it is unavoidably
necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the
community that infringement of religious freedom maybe justified, and only to the smallest
extent necessary to avoid the danger. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm
the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm.
Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical
fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil.