6.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION
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 religioustest shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights. (Sec. 5, Art. 3)
Religion defined
 “any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and
philosophy” (definition ni Cruz)
 The aforesaid definition is comprehensive than that given in Aglipay vs Ruiz (a profession
of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator). This is because there
are religions, which do not make reference to a God, e.g Buddhism, Atheism, etc.
 (comment ko: The definition is too vague. It is too broad that it can even cover systems of
belief that we do not consider as religions. If we are to accept the definition, it would be
tantamount to calling different schools of thought, e.g. Analytic tradition, Existentialism,
as religions.)

TWO GUARANTEES CONTAINED IN SEC. 5:

1. Non-establishment clause
2. Free exercise of religious profession and worship

1. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
- Non-establishment clause: separation of Church and State
1. cannot be registered as a political party;
2. no sectoral representative from the religious sector; and
3. prohibition against the use of public money or property for the benefit of any religion, or of any
priest, minister or ecclesiastic.

SCOPE:
1. State cannot set up a Church;
2. nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion or prefer one over another;
3. nor force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will;
4. or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

- The term “Non-Christian tribes” does not refer to religious belief but to degree of civilization.
(People vs. Cayat)

- Laws, e.g. Article 133 of the RPC, do not violate freedom of religion.

- Freedom of religion is accorded preferred status, designed to protect the broadest possible liberty
of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs and to
live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with liberty of others and with the common good.

Intramural religious disputes:

 Where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, the civil
tribunal tries the civil right and nothing more.
  “Ecclesiastical Affair” is one that concerns doctrine, creed, or forum of worship of the
church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and
regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of excluding from such
associations those deemed unworthy of membership.
 It is not for the Court to exercise control over Church authorities in the performance of
their discretionary and official functions; it is for the members of religious
institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations.

 as stated by Cruz: there is no violation of this clause if:

1. the statute has a secular purpose
2. its principal effect is one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

 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 cannot set up a church, nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religion, or prefer one religion...

 Rationale:
o to delineate boundaries between the 2 institutions; and
o to avoid encroachment by one against the other.
o [Strong fences make good neighbors; Render unto Ceasar the things that are
Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's.]

 A union of Church and State would either:

o tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
o 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:

 (a) 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.

(b) 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 from 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 US Supreme Court sustained the law providing free transportation for all
Education schoolchildren without discrimination, including those attending parochial schools
Board of Education vs US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the petitioner to lend textbooks free of
Allen 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 in line with the constitutional principle of equal treatment of all religions, the State
Gee recognizes the validity of marriages performed in conformity with the rites of
Mohammedan religion
Rubi vs Provincial the expression “non-Christian” in “non-Christian tribes” was not meant to
Board discriminate. It refers to degree of civilization, not to the religious belief.
Islamic Da'wah Council by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications, the State has, in effect,
of the Philippines vs forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunna on halal food.
Office of Exec. Sec.

 Intramural Religious Dispute = outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities

Gonzales vs Archbishop where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, the
of Manila 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 courts may assume
jurisdiction.

2. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

Free Exercise Clause

 Aspects of freedom of religious profession and worship:
1. right to believe, which is absolute
2. right to act according to one’s belief, which is subject to regulation.

 Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religious profession and worship carries with
it the right to disseminate religious 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.

The compelling State interest test:

 Estrada vs. Escritor (administratively charged with immorality for living with a married
man, not her husband; conjugal arrangement was in conformity with their religious beliefs)
  “Benevolent Neutrality” 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.
 Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could
allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend
compelling state interest.

2 steps:
1. Whether respondent’s right to religious freedom has been burdened and
2. Ascertain respondent’s sincerity in his beliefs.

 State regulations imposed on solicitations for religious purposes do not constitute an

abridgment of freedom of religion; but are NOT covered by PD 1564 (Solicitation Permit
Law) which required prior permit from DSWD in solicitations for charitable or public
welfare purposes;

 Free exercise clause does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on
the sale of religious materials by a religious organization. Resulting burden is so incidental
as to make it difficult to differentiate it from any other economic imposition that might
make the right to disseminate religious doctrines costly.

2 aspects:
1. FREEDOM TO BELIEVE
 absolute
 includes not to believe
 “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

 happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions
 subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of
others
 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 SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. , and upheld the right
Superintendent of of petitioners to refute to salute the Philippine flag on
Schools of Cebu account of their religious scruples.
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military
service was brushed aside by the SC
 Victoriano vs Elizalde SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting members
Rope Workers Union of a religious sect from being compelled to join a labor
union
American Bible Society the constitutional guarantee of free exercise carries with it
vs City of Manila 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 the free exercise clause does not prohibit imposing a
Finance 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 but 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 accommodation morality based on
religion provided it does not offend the compelling state interest test.
 two steps (as regards the test):
1. inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has been
burdened; and
2. ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief.
 solicitations for religious purposes requires not a prior permit from DSWD as
it is not included in solicitations for “charitable or public welfare purposes.”
[Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos]

RELIGIOUS TESTS

 Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from exercising his
civil or political rights because of his religious beliefs.

People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed
aside by the SC

3. Exceptions

1. Exception from taxation of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious
purposes;
2. Citizenship requirement of ownership of educational institutions, except those established by
religious groups and mission boards;
3. Optional religious instruction in public elementary and high schools expressed in writing by
the parents/guardians, taught within regular class hours; and without additional costs on the
Government; and
4. Appropriation allowed where the minister or ecclesiastic is employed in the armed forces, penal
institution or in the government-owned orphanage or leprosarium.

***XXX***

7. Liberty of Abode and Travel

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. (Sec. 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.

Limitations:
1. On liberty of abode: lawful order of the court
 Caunca vs. Salazar: maid has the right to transfer to another residence even if she had not
yet paid the amount advanced for her transportation from the province by an employment
agency;
 Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro: requiring some members of the non- Christian
tribes to reside only within a reservation, valid… to promote their better education,
advancement and protection.
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: everyone has the right to leave any country,
including his own and to return to his country.
 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right
to enter his own country.

2. On right to travel: national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided
by law
 Lawful order of the court is a valid restriction.
 Court may validly refuse to grant the accused permission to travel abroad, even if the
accused in out on bail. (Manotoc vs. CA)
 Liberty of travel may be impaired even without court order, the appropriate executive
officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose
limitations.

Principles:
1. The Hold-departure Order is but an exercise of the court’s inherent power to preserve and
maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused;
2. By posting bail, the accused holds himself amenable at all times to the orders and processes of
the court, thus, she may be legally prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the
case; and
3. Parties with pending cases should apply for permission to leave the country from the very same
courts which, in the first instance, are in the best position to pass upon such applications and to
impose appropriate conditions therefore, since they are conversant with the facts of the cases and
the ramifications or implications thereof.

 The persons right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity
of safeguarding the system of justice. Whether the accused should be permitted to leave
the country for humanitarian reasons is a matter addressed to the court’s discretion.

Purpose of the Provision (Art. III, Sec. 6):

to further emphasize the individual's liberty as safeguarded in general terms by the due process
clause. Liberty under that clause includes the right to choose one's residence.
Limitations
1. LIBERTY OF ABODE - “upon lawful order of the court”
2. RIGHT TO TRAVEL - “national security, public safety or public health as may be
provided by law”

Caunca vs Salazar Whether a maid had the right to transfer to another residence even if she had not paid
yet the amount advances by an employment agency:
82 Phil 851
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 The respondents were justified in requiring the members of certain non-Christian
Board of Mindoro tribes to reside in a reservation, for their better education, advancement and protection.
The measure was a legitimate exercise of police power.
1919
Villavicencio vs Lukban 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
1919
compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a law allowing such.
Salonga vs Hermoso the case became moot and academic when the permit to travel abroad was issued
before the case could be heard.
97 SCRA 121
Lorenzo vs Dir. of Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over and is supported
Health by high scientific authority. Such segregation is premised on the duty to protect public
health.
1927
Manotok vs CA 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
1986
Philippines where orders of Philippine courts would have no binding force.
Marcos vs Manglapus 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.
1989
NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a precedent because Marcos was
a class in himself.
Philippine Association Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public health or
of Service Exporters vs public order, as may be provided by law.
Drilon
An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas workers is constitutional
1988 for having been issued in the interest of the safety of OFWs, as provided by the Labor
Code.

***XXX***

8. Right to Information
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. (Sec. 7, Art. III)

 Right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.

 Access to official records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions pr decisions as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law.

Scope of the Right: right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to

consummation of the transactions.
 The right only affords access, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them at his
expense.
 Subject to regulations: to protect integrity of public records and to minimize disruption of
government operations.

Exceptions:
1. Privileged communications rooted in separation of powers
2. Information on military and diplomatic secrets
3. Information affecting national security
4. Information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the
prosecution of the accused.
  Need for publication of law reinforces this right.
 The manner of examining public records may be subject to reasonable regulation by the
government agency in custody.
 The duty to disclose the information of public concern, and to afford access to public
records cannot be discretionary on the part of said agencies. Its performance may be
compelled by mandamus.
 In Re: Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the SB of the Plunder Case
against Former Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez vs.
Joseph Ejercito Estrada:
when the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public
information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the
other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control its
proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial race against another,
jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred (losing not
only his liberty but also the very life of an accused).

 The citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and in his government so he
can express his views thereon knowledgeably and intelligently

Valmonte v The people have a right to access official records but they cannot compel custodians
Belmonte of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like, such not being
based on a demandable legal right.
1989

Baldoza v Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records. However, a judge may regulate the
Dimaano manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or copy records in his office,
may exercise their rights.
1976

Legaspi v Civil Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to information on matters of
Service public concern.
Commission
What matters constitute “public concern” should be determined by the court on a
1987 case to case basis.

Chavez v PCGG Public concern (def.) – writings coming into the hands of public officers in
connection with their official functions
1998
Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public concern.
Privileged communication: (1) national security, (2) trade secrets, (3) criminal
matters pending in court,

Echegaray case SC held that making the Lethal Injection Manual inaccessible to the convict was
unconstitutional.

***XXX***
9. Right to Form Associations
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. (Sec.8, Art. III)

Scope: includes the right not to join or to disaffiliate from one.

Right to Strike: members of the civil service may not declare a strike to enforce economic
demands.
 The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association.
 The right of the sovereign to prohibit strikes or work stoppages by public employees is clearly
recognized at common law. Modern rule merely incorporate or reasserts said common law.
 Right is not absolute.
 Anti-Subversion Act
 Managerial employees: receive information that is not only confidential but also generally not
available to the public.

-deemed embraced in freedom of expression because the organization can be used as a vehicle
for the expression of views that have a bearing on public welfare.

SSS Employees right to organize does not carry with it right to strike
Assoc vs CA
Victoriano vs
Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union
Occena vs right of association was not violated where political parties were prohibited from
COMELEC participating in the barangay elections to insure the non-partisanship of the candidates.
In re Edillon Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. Integration does
not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member.

***XXX***

10. Non-impairment Clause

No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. (Sec. 10, Art. III)

 No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

 To fall within the prohibition, the change must not only impair the obligation of the existing
contract, but the impairment must be substantial.
 Change in the rights of the parties with reference to each other and not with respect to non-
parties.
 Impairment: anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract

Substantial impairment when the law changes either

1) Time of performance
2) Mode of performance
3) Imposes new conditions
4) Dispenses with those expressed
5) Authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms

Limitations:
1) Police power – public welfare is superior to private rights
2) Eminent domain
3) Taxation
 Franchises, privileges, licenses, etc do not come within the context of the provision
 Subject to amendment alteration, or repeal by the Congress when common good so
requires.

Purpose
- to safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference by the
State.

Contract defined
- any lawful agreement on property or property rights, whether real or personal, tangible or
intangible.
- does not cover:
(a) License (merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful and is not
a contract with the government
(b) Marriage contract (regarded as social institution subject at all times to regulation by the
legislature and to change of the original conditions).
(c) Public office (public office is a public trust). EXCEPTION: where the salary has already
been earned, in which case it will be deemed a vested property right that cannot be
withdrawn or reduced.

Impairment
- retroactive
- anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract
- right of a party is changed to his prejudice
- when a law:
(a) Changes the terms of a contract between parties
(b) Imposes new conditions
(c) Dispenses those expressed
(d) Authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms.

** A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the
contract, and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the
obligation of contracts.

Limitations
 Police Power
- when a contract suffers from congenital infirmity, i.e. a contract which affects the
public welfare
  Eminent Domain
 Power of Taxation
- Tax exemptions are not contractual and so may be revoked at will by the legislature.
EXCEPTION: where a law grants a tax exemption in exchange for valuable
consideration, such exemption is considered a contract and cannot be repealed because
of the impairment clause.

Clemons v The following impair the obligation of a contract:

Nolting
1. A law which changes the terms of a legal contract with respect to:
1922 a. time or mode of performance
b. conditions – that which imposes new or dispenses with expressed
conditions
2. A law which authorizes for the satisfaction of a contract something different
from that provided in its terms
A law which compels a creditor to accept Philippine pesos when a debt in US
currency is owing impairs the obligation of the contract.

Charles River The state is never presumed to surrender its police power.
Bridge v Warren
A franchise granted to a company to collect tolls from a bridge is subject to the duty
Bridge
and power of the state to provide for the improvement of an important line of travel.
1837

Home Building The legislature can’t bargain away public health, morals & safety. The police power
& Loan Assoc. v is considered a reserved power.
Blaisdell
The legislature may not impair the obligation of a contract but may modify,
1934 according to its wisdom, the remedy with which the obligations may be enforced.

 remedy – modes of proceeding and forms to enforce the contract

provided it does not seriously impair the value of the right
The reservation of state authority is read into and deemed part of contracts.

Stone v A statute which subsequently outlaws gambling does not impair the obligation of
Mississippi contract. A lottery charter is only a privilege which may be revoked by the exercise
of the police power of the state, gambling being an appropriate subject of regulation.
1879

Manila Trading v There is no vested right in remedies or modes of procedure. The legislature may
Reyes modify particular remedies for the enforcement of a contract without interfering with
the obligation of the contract.
1935

Rutter v Esteban Police power may only be invoked against the impairment of contracts if:
1953 1. justified by an emergency – furnished the proper occasion for the exercise
of the reserved power of the state
 2. temporary in nature – operation limited to the exigency which called it forth,
which period may be reduced by the court
3. exercised upon reasonable conditions
4. impairment refers only to remedy and not to substantive right
5. addressed to a legitimate purpose – the protection of the basic interests of
society
Ilusoria v CAR The prohibition in the Constitution refers only to contracts with respect to property.
It does not apply to statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the
1966
general legislative powers of the state and involving the right and public welfare of
the entire community affected by it.
A law which allows tenants to change their contracts from tenancy to leasehold
system does not impair the obligation of contracts because it was enacted pursuant
to social justice precepts of the constitution.

Ortigas v Feati Zoning laws, promulgated in the exercise of police power, justify nullification of
Bank contractual obligations.
1979

Conference of Contracts of labor are explicitly subject to the police power.

Maritime
CC1700: Relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual but are
Manning
impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good…
Agencies v
POEA
1995