Aglipay v Ruiz 64 PHIL 201 (1937) was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila, being

ic Congress but the city of Manila, being the

seat of that congress. This was to to advertise the Philippines and
Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition attract more tourists, the officials merely took advantage of an
against respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling event considered of international importance. Although such
postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman
Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner contends that such act is a Catholic Church, any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting
violation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public funds from it was no the aim or purpose of the Government.
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
GARCES VS. ESTENZO [104 SCRA 510; G.R. temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of
L-53487; 25 MAY 1981] the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio
Saturday, February 07, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Marilao Osmea refused to return the image to the
barangay council, as it was the churchs property since
Facts: Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of church funds were used in its acquisition.
Valencia, Ormoc City were passed:
Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of
a. Resolution No. 5- Reviving the traditional socio- hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against the priest
religious celebration every fifth of April. This provided for for the recovery of the image. Resolution No. 12
the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as a representative to
the construction of a waiting shed. Funds for the said the case. The priest, in his answer assailed the
projects will be obtained through the selling of tickets constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest with
and cash donations. Andres Garces, a member of the Aglipayan Church,
b. Resolution No. 6- The chairman or hermano mayor of contends that Sec. 8 Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article
the fiesta would be the caretaker of the image of San VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated.
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 Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause
Catholic Church during the celebration of the saints in the Constitution violated.
feast day.

These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and Held: No. As said by the Court this case is a petty
said projects were implemented. The image was 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
laymans 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 councils
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.
FONACIER VS. COURT OF APPEALS [96
PHIL 417; G.R. L-5917; 28 JAN 1955]
Saturday, February 07, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Issue: Whether or not the petitioner should still be regarded as the
legitimate supreme bishop of IFI.
Facts: Case was filed by Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI),
represented by its supreme bishop Gerardo Bayaca, against Bishop

Fonacier seeking to render an accounting of his administration of all the Held: Supreme Court affirmed CAs decision. The legitimate
temporal properties and to recover the same on the ground that he Supreme Bishop of IFI is Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr. The Supreme Court
ceased to be the supreme bishop of IFI. Isabelo De los Reyes Jr. had affirms the validity of the election of Bishop Delos Reyes as the Supreme
been elected as the Supreme Bishop. Bishop based on their internal laws

Petitioner claims that he was not properly removed as Supreme Bishop
and his legal successor was Juan Jamias. He claims that the there was
an accounting of his administration and was turned over to bishop
Jamias. Also, that Isabelo De los Reyes and Bayaca have abandoned
their faith and formally joined the Prostestant Episcopal Church of
America.
To finally dispose of the property issue, the Court, citing Watson v.
Jones,368 declared that the rule in property controversies within
religious congregations strictly independent of any other superior
ecclesiastical association (such as the Philippine Independent Church) is
that the rules for resolving such controversies should be those of any
voluntary association. If the congregation adopts the majority rule then

the majority should prevail; if it adopts adherence to duly constituted

CFI rendered judgment declaring Isabelo De Los Reyes, Jr. as the sole authorities within the congregation, then that should be followed.
and legitimate Supreme Bishop of IFI and ordered Fonacier to render an

accounting of his admistration

CA affirmed the decision of the CFI


American Bible Society v City of Manila 101 PHIL 386
(1957)
2/14/2011
0 Comments
Facts: New Yorks Education Law requires local public school authorities
to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grade 7 to 12, including
those in private schools. The Board of Education contended that said
statute was invalid and violative of the State and Federal Constitutions. An
order barring the Commissioner of Education (Allen) from removing
appellants members from office for failure to comply with the requirement
and an order preventing the use of state funds for the purchase of
textbooks to be lent to parochial schools were sought for. The trial court
held the statute unconstitutional. The Appellate Division reversed the
decision and dismissed the complaint since the appellant have no
standing. The New York Court of Appeals, ruled that the appellants have
standing but the law is not unconstitutional.
guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, which carries with it the right to disseminate religious
information.It may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the
bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit
higher than the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant
was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said "merchandise"
for profit. For this reason. The Court believe that the provisions of City of
Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant,
for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its
religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of
religious beliefs.With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, the
Court do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right
granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices.It
seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered
unconstitutional, however inapplicable to said business, trade or
occupation of the plaintiff. As to Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila,
as amended, is also not applicable, so defendant is powerless to license
or tax the business of plaintiff Society.WHEREFORE, defendant shall
return to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected from it.

Issue: Whether or Not the said ordinances are constitutional and valid
(contention: it restrains the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious
profession and worship of appellant).'

Held: Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution, provides

that:(7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment
of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed. No religion test shall be required for the exercise
of civil or political rights.The provision aforequoted is a constitutional

Gerona v. Sec. of
Education Digest
Gerona, et. al v SEC. OF EDUCATION
106 Phil 2 Aug. 12, 1959
FACTS:
1. Petitioners belong to the Jehovas Witness whose children
were expelled from their schools when they refused to salute,
sing the anthem, recite the pledge during the conduct of flag
ceremony. DO No. 8 issued by DECS pursuant to RA 1265
which called for the manner of conduct during a flag
ceremony. The petitioners wrote the Secretary of Education on
their plight and requested to reinstate their children. This was
denied.
2. As a result, the petitioners filed for a writ of preliminary
injunction against the Secretary and Director of Public Schools
to restrain them from implementing said DO No. 8.
3. The lower court (RTC) declared DO 8 invalid and contrary
to the Bill of Rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not DO 8 is valid or constitutional
DO 8 is valid. Saluting the flag is not a religious ritual and it is
for the courts to determine, not a religious group, whether or
not a certain practice is one.
1. The court held that the flag is not an image but a symbol of the
Republic of the Philippines, an emblem of national sovereignty, of
national unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it and the
Constitution guarantee and protect. Considering the complete separation
of church and state in our system of government, the flag is utterly
devoid of any religious significance. Saluting the flag consequently does
not involve any religious ceremony.
After all, the determination of whether a certain ritual is or is not a
religious ceremony must rest with the courts. It cannot be left to a
religious group or sect, much less to a follower of said group or sect;
otherwise, there would be confusion and misunderstanding for there
might be as many interpretations and meanings to be given to a certain
ritual or ceremony as there are religious groups or sects or followers.
2. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the
Constitution does not and cannot mean exemption form or non-
compliance with reasonable and non-discriminatory laws, rules
and regulations promulgated by competent authority. In
enforcing the flag salute on the petitioners, there was
absolutely no compulsion involved, and for their failure or
refusal to obey school regulations about the flag salute they
were not being persecuted. Neither were they being criminally
prosecuted under threat of penal sacntion. If they chose not to
obey the flag salute regulation, they merely lost the benefits of
public education being maintained at the expense of their
fellow citizens, nothing more. According to a popular
expression, they could take it or leave it. Having elected not to
comply with the regulations about the flag salute, they forfeited
their right to attend public schools.

3. The Filipino flag is not an image that requires religious

veneration; rather it is symbol of the Republic of the
Philippines, of sovereignty, an emblem of freedom, liberty and
national unity; that the flag salute is not a religious ceremony
but an act and profession of love and allegiance and pledge of
loyalty to the fatherland which the flag stands for; that by
authority of the legislature, the Secretary of Education was
duly authorized to promulgate Department Order No. 8, series
of 1955; that the requirement of observance of the flag
ceremony or salute provided for in said Department Order No.
8, does not violate the Constitutional provision about freedom
of religion and exercise of religion; that compliance with the
non-discriminatory and reasonable rules and regulations and
school discipline, including observance of the flag ceremony is
a prerequisite to attendance in public schools; and that for
failure and refusal to participate in the flag ceremony,
petitioners were properly excluded and dismissed from the
public school they were attending.
EBRALINAG VS. DIVISION system of separation of the church and state and the
SUPERINTENDENT OF CEBU [219 SCRA flag is devoid of religious significance and it doesnt
256 ; G.R. NO. 95770; 1 MAR 1993] involve any religious ceremony. The freedom of religious
Saturday, February 07, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law belief guaranteed by the Constitution does not mean
exception from non-discriminatory laws like the saluting
Facts: Two special civil actions for certiorari, of flag and singing national anthem. This exemption
Mandamus and Prohibition were filed and consolidated disrupts school discipline and demoralizes the teachings
for raising same issue. Petitioners allege that the public of civic consciousness and duties of citizenship.
respondents acted without or in excess of their
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
Respondents ordered expulsion of 68 HS and GS Issue: Whether or Not religious freedom has been
students of Bantayan, Pinamungajan, Caracar, Taburan violated.
and Asturias in Cebu. Public school authorities expelled
these students for refusing to salute the flag, sing the
national anthem and recite the Panatang Makabayan Held: Religious freedom is a fundamental right of
required by RA1265. They are Jehovahs Witnesses highest priority. The 2 fold aspect of right to religious
believing that by doing these is religious worship is: 1.) Freedom to believe which is an absolute
worship/devotion akin to idolatry against their act within the realm of thought. 2.) Freedom to act on
teachings. They contend that to compel transcends ones belief regulated and translated to external acts.
constitutional limits and invades protection against The only limitation to religious freedom is the existence
official control and religious freedom. The respondents of grave and present danger to public safety, morals,
relied on the precedence of Gerona et al v. Secretary of health and interests where State has right to prevent.
Education. Gerona doctrine provides that we are a The expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not
justified. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED.
Expulsion is ANNULLED.
The 30 yr old previous GERONA decision of expelling and
dismissing students and teachers who refuse to obey
RA1265 is violates exercise of freedom of speech and
religious profession and worship. Jehovahs Witnesses
may be exempted from observing the flag ceremony but
this right does not give them the right to disrupt such
ceremonies. In the case at bar, the Students expelled
were only standing quietly during ceremonies. By
observing the ceremonies quietly, it doesnt present any
danger so evil and imminent to justify their expulsion.
What the petitioners request is exemption from flag
ceremonies and not exclusion from public schools. The
expulsion of the students by reason of their religious
beliefs is also a violation of a citizens right to free
education. The non-observance of the flag ceremony
does not totally constitute ignorance of patriotism and
civic consciousness. Love for country and admiration for
national heroes, civic consciousness and form of
government are part of the school curricula. Therefore,
expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified.
GERMAN VS. BARANGAN [135 SCRA 514; guests transacting business with Malacanang. The
G.R. NO. 68828; 27 MAR 1985] restriction was also intended to secure the executive
Saturday, February 07, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law offices within the Malacanang grounds from possible
external attacks and disturbances. (Minority opinion)
Facts: Petitioners converged at J.P. Laurel Street to The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on
hear Mass at the St. Jude Chapel, which adjoined the exercise of the freedom of religion is the existence of
Malacaang. Respondent barred them for security a grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety,
reasons. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus. public morals, public health or any other legitimate
public interest that the State has a right to prevent. The
burden to show the existence of grave and imminent
Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the danger lies on the officials who would restrain
constitutional freedom. petitioners. Respondents were in full control and had the
capability to stop any untoward move. There was no
clear and present danger of any serious evil to public
Held: Petitioners' intention was not really to perform safety or the security of Malacanang.
an act of religious worship but to conduct an anti-
government demonstration since they wore yellow T-
shirts, raised their clenched fists and shouted anti-
government slogans. While every citizen has the right to
religious freedom, the exercise must be done in good
faith. Besides, the restriction was reasonable as it was
designed to protect the lives of the President and his
family, government officials and diplomatic and foreign
Pamil v Teleron 86 SCRA 413 (1978)

F: In 1971, Fr. Margarito Gonzaga was elected mayor

of Albuquerque, Bohol. A petition was filed against him on the basis of
section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code providing that "in nocase
shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics,
soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries from provincial funds,
or contractors for public works." The CFI dismissed the petition on the
ground that the ineligibility has been impliedly repealed by section 23 of
the 1971 Election Code.

The 1987 Constitution of the PhilippinesPhilippine government in

action and the Philippine constitution

HELD: The voting of the SC was inconclusive. Seven justices held that
section 2175 is no longer operative. Justice Fernando held that section
2175 imposed a religious test on the exercise of the right to run for public
office contrary to Art. III of the 1935 Constitution. Justice Teehankee held
that section 2175 had been repealed by the Election Code. Five justices
held that section 2175 is constitutional.
VICTORIANO vs. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and ELIZAALDE latter to separate Appellee from the service in view of the
ROPE FACTORY fact that he was resigning from the Union as a member.
G.R. No. L-25246; September 12, 1974; 59 SCRA 54
Ponente: Zaldivar Sec. 18, Article II 1987 Constitution: The CFI ruled in favor of Petitioner and enjoined the
"The State affirms labor as a primary social economic company from dismissing him.
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote
their welfare." In its appeal, the Union claimed that R.A. no. 3350 was
unconstitutional on the ground that 1) prohibits all the
Facts:
members of a given religious sect from joining any labor
Petitioner Victoriano is a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo
union if such sect prohibits affiliations of their members
and was an employee of Elizalde Rope Factory and was a
thereto; and, consequently, deprives said members of their
member of the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union. Membership
constitutional right to form or join lawful associations or
with the Union was mandatory as provided for under a
organizations guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and thus
collective bargaining agreement: "Membership in the Union
becomes obnoxious [to the] Constitution; 2) Impairs the
shall be required as a condition of employment for all
obligation of contracts; 3) discriminates in favor of certain
permanent employees workers covered by this
religious sects and affords no protection to labor unions; 4)
Agreement."
violates the constitutional provision that no religious test
Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No. 875,
shall be required for the exercise of a civil right; 5) violates
prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350, the
the equal protection clause; and 6) the act violates the
employer was not precluded "from making an agreement
constitutional provision regarding the promotion of social
with a labor organization to require as a condition of
justice.
employment membership therein, if such labor
Issue:
organization is the representative of the employees." On
Whether or not R.A. No. 3350 violates the Constitutional
June 18, 1961, however, Republic Act No. 3350 was
mandate to protect the rights of workers and to promote
enacted, introducing an amendment to paragraph (4)
their welfare notwithstanding the fact that it allows some
subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as
workers, by virtue of their religious beliefs, to opt out of
follows: ... "but such agreement shall not cover members
Union security agreements. Held:
of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their
NO. R.A. No. 3350 is constitutional on all counts. It must
members in any such labor organization".
be pointed out that the free exercise of religious profession
or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of conflict,
Being a member of the INC, a religion that prohibits
the latter must, therefore, yield to the former.
affiliation with labor organizations, the Petitioner wrote a
letter informing the Union of his resignation. Thereupon,
The purpose of Republic Act No. 3350 is secular, worldly,
the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company asking the
and temporal, not spiritual or religious or holy and eternal.
It was intended to serve the secular purpose of advancing
the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, by
averting that certain persons be refused work, or be
dismissed from work, or be dispossessed of their right to
work and of being impeded to pursue a modest means of
livelihood, by reason of union security agreements.
More so now in the [1987 and past in constitutions]
[...] where it is mandated that "the State shall afford
protection to labor, promote full employment and
equality in employment, ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and
regulate the relation between workers and
employers.

We believe that in enacting Republic Act No. 3350,

Congress acted consistently with the spirit of the
constitutional provision. It acted merely to relieve the
exercise of religion, by certain persons, of a burden that is
imposed by union security agreements. It was Congress
itself that imposed that burden when it enacted the
Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act 875), and, certainly,
Congress, if it so deems advisable, could take away the
same burden. It is certain that not every conscience can be
accommodated by all the laws of the land; but when
general laws conflict with scrupples of conscience,
exemptions ought to be granted unless some "compelling
state interest" intervenes. In the instant case, We see no
such compelling state interest to withhold exemption.