LEAO, JASMINE

Article III. Section 5. Free Exercise of Religion.

Long v. Basa G.R. No. 134963-64 [2001]
FACTS: A religious group, known as The Church in Quezon City (Church Assembly Hall), Incorporated
was organized in 1973 as an entity of the brotherhood in Christ. They registered in the SEC as a non-stock,
non-profit religious corporation. The Church forwards its Principles of Faith that every member or
officer thereof shall, without mental reservation, adhere strictly to the doctrine, teaching and faith being
observed by the Church. According to its by-laws, its affairs and operation shall be managed by a Board
of Directors. Moreover, the Board of Directors has the absolute power to preserve and protect their faith
and to admit and expel a member.
According to its By-Laws, the procedure for expulsion of a member is as follows:
If it is brought to the notice of the Board of Directors that any member has failed to observe any
regulations and By-laws of the Institution (CHURCH) or the conduct of any member has been
dishonorable or improper or otherwise injurious to the character and interest of the Institution,
the Board of Directors may b(y) resolution without assigning any reason therefor expel such
member from such Institution and he shall then forfeit his interest, rights and privileges in the
Institution.
The Board of Directors observed that certain members introduced to other members teachings,
concerning the worship of Buddha and men, which were not based according to the Principles of
Faith and of the Holy Bible. The Board advised the petitioners during their Sunday gatherings to
correct their ways. They were also warned that if they continue such conduct, they would be dropped
from membership roll. However, petitioner ignored these repeated admonitions. Subsequently, the
Board removed from membership Alfredo Long, Joseph Lim, Liu Yek See and Felix Almeria
(petitioners) on the ground that they espoused doctrines inimical and injurious to the Church.
Petitioners contend that the removal of their names in the membership list was made without prior
notice and consequently, filed a petition to the SEC for the annulment of such expulsion. The SEC
rendered the expulsion void and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioners. On appeal, the CA
reversed the SEC order. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioners expulsion was executed without prior notice or due process. NO.
HELD: First and foremost, the Churchs by-laws do not require the Board to give prior notice in cases of
expulsion. Such resolution does not even need to state the reason for such action. It may seem unreasonable
and objectionable but this shows the peculiar nature of a religious corporation vis--vis an ordinary, profitoriented corporation. It must be emphasized that the relationship of a religious organization and its
members is based on the latters absolute adherence to a common religious belief. As a general rule, there
is no room for dissension in a religious corporation. An action for expulsion on the ground of injurious or
inimical causes from church authorities is conclusive upon civil courts. The petitioners, in effect, waived
their right to notice when they adhered to the by-laws of the Church because they entered the organization
voluntarily and subscribed to the latters rules.
Assuming arguendo that the expulsion falls within the ambit of judicial review, petitioners were still given
more than sufficient notice before such expulsion. It is undisputed that the Board patiently and consistently
advised the petitioners to stop espousing doctrines, teachings and religious belief diametrically opposed to
the Churchs Principles of Faith. It is clear that they were warned of expulsion should they continue to
exhibit acts inimical and injurious to the beliefs of the Church. When they deliberately ignored the
admonitions, they cannot anymore complain of their subsequent expulsion.

Separate Opinion (J. Melo, dissenting):

There is an exception to the general rule of non-interference that is, the civil courts can review proceedings
undertaken by religious organizations and may interfere, so to speak, with the internal affairs thereof, as
law and justice so require, when the acts complained of contravene the basic law of the land and violate the
civil rights of its members. The facts of the case clearly show that they fall squarely within the exception to
the rule. The petitioners were not accorded due process when the Board removed their membership without
prior notice. The right to prior notice is a fundamental right entitled to petitioners even when there is no a
by-law provision to this effect.