RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND

WORSHIP

FREEDOM OF
RELIGION
FREEDOM OF RELIGION

THE RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS

PROFESSION AND WORSHIP
HAS A TWOFOLD ASPECT:
Freedom to believe (or disbelieve)
Absolute

As long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought.

Limitless and without bounds.

Full freedom to believe as he pleases

Freedom to act on one’s belief

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF

▸ The inherent police power can be exercised to
prevent religious practices inimical to society.

▸ As long as it can be shown that the exercise of the

right does not impair the public welfare, the
attempt of the State to regulate or prohibit such right
would be an unconstitutional encroachment.
CASES
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Freedom to act on one’s belief

MARSH V. ALABAMA
FACTS

A woman distributed religious literature in the premises

of a privately-owned town against the express
prohibitions of the town authorities. She was then
prosecuted for TRESPASS.

ISSUE

Whether or not the woman

can be prosecuted for trespass
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF

MARSH V. ALABAMA
RULING:

NO

Its managers cannot curtail the liberty of press and

religion of these people as it is a clear violation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

The right of the owner over the property and the right
of the people to enjoy freedom of the press and
religion, the latter is preferred.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE

FACTS:

All students were required to participate in a flag

ceremony at which they were made to recite an oath of
allegiance and to salute the American flag.

Those who refused were subject to expulsion and until

readmitted upon compliance were to be proceeded as
“Delinquents” and their parents were liable for
prosecution and punishment.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEFTEXT

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE

Members of Jehova’s Witnesses protested, claiming

that the ceremony violated their interpretation of
Exodus 20:4-5 of the Bible, reading:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to
them nor serve them.”

To them, the flag was an image within this command,

hence, refusal to salute it.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEFTEXT

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE

ISSUE:

Whether or not it was unconstitutional for public

schools to compel students to salute the flag
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE

RULING:
YES
According to Justice Frankfurter, National unity was the reason for
compelling the students to salute the flag
. However, this thought was attacked
Citing the Roman effort to drive out Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition of
the Jews and the Siberian exile of Soviet dissidents as evidence of the
"ultimate futility" of efforts to coerce unanimous sentiment out of a populace.
Jackson (ponente) warned that "those who begin coercive elimination of
dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification
of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”
Then Jackson dealt with Frankfurter's assertion that forcing students to salute
the flag and threatening them with expulsion if they chose not to, was a
permissible way to foster national unity.
‣ However, our Supreme Court arrived at a
different conclusion in
Gerona v. Secretary of Education
but was reversed in
‣ Ebranalig v. The Division of
Superintendent of schools of Cebu
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF

EBRALINAG V. THE DIVISION OF SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

OF CEBU
In this case, our Court upheld the religious freedom of
the petitioners, who as in Gerona, were members of the
Jehova’s Witnesses and believed that they should not
salute the flag because it was in their view an “image”
to which the Bible prohibited them from rendering
obeisance.

What the petitioners seek only is exemption from the

flag ceremony, not exclusion form the public schools
where they may study the Constitution and be taught
the virtue of patriotism and nationalism.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF

EBRALINAG V. THE DIVISION OF SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU

Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine

Schools will bring about the very situation that this
Court had feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious
group, through the iron hand of the law, to participate
in a ceremony to love of country or respect for duly
constituted authorities.
“…No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights” (Art. III, Sec.
5)

RELIGIOUS
RELIGIOUS TESTS

The constitutional prohibition against religious tests is

aimed against the clandestine attempts on the part of
the government to prevent a person from exercising his
civil or political rights because of his religious beliefs.
RELIGIOUS TESTS.

In case of conflict between the free exercise

clause and the State, the Court adheres to the
Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality.

The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with

respect to these governmental actions, accommodation
of religion may be allowed, not to promote the
government’s favored form of religion, but to allow
individuals and groups to exercise their religion without
hindrance.

What is sought under it is not a declaration of

unconstitutionality of a facially neutral law, but an
exemption from its application or its burdensome
effect.
TEXT

In ascertaining the limits of the exercise of

religious freedom, the
Compelling State Interest is proper.

Underlying the compelling state interest test

is the notion that free exercise is a
fundamental right and that laws burdening it
should be subject to strict scrutiny.
CASES
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY V. COMELEC

Respondent rejected the application for registration of
the petitioner, an organization of LGBT, as a political
party for purposes of participating in party-list elections
on, among others, “religious based” grounds, invoking
the moral condemnation of homosexuality and
homosexual conduct.

Respondent contended that, relying on the Bible and

Koran, petitioner’s accreditation was denied because of
the danger it poses to the people especially the youth.

The Supreme Court REJECTED its contentions.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION: FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY V. COMELEC

SUPREME COURT

What our non-establishment clause calls for is

“government neutrality in religious matters”. Clearly,
“governmental reliance on religious justification is
inconsistent with the policy of neutrality. We thus find
that it was a grave violation of the non-establishment
clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the
Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang LadLad.
RELIGIOUS TESTS

IMBONG V. OCHOA
Sec. 7, 23, and 24 of the RH Law, required hospitals or
medical practitioners to immediately refer a person
seeking health care under the law to another
accessible healthcare provider, and their dissemination
of information regarding programs and services and in
the performance of reproductive health procedures,
despite their conscientious objections based on their
religious or ethical beliefs, were all annulled by
the Supreme Court.
TEXT

IMBONG V. OCHOA
Whether a conscientious objector’s right to religious
freedom has been burdened.

YES

The Court is of the strong view that the religious

freedom of health providers should be accorded
primacy. Thus, exemption.
RELIGIOUS TESTS

IN RE SUMMERS
A person was denied admission to the bar because of
his inability to take in good faith an oath to support the
Constitution of Illinois which contained a provision
requiring service in the militia in times of war.
Petitioner was a conscientious objector and was
opposed to the use of force.

The Illinois SC held him morally unfit. The US SC

objects.

It said that the actions of SC of Illinois is contrary to the

principle which guarantees the free exercise of religion.
Men could not be excluded from the practice of law
simply because they belong to any other religious
groups.
RELIGIOUS TESTS

The decision mentioned by the US SC was brushed

aside by our SC in People v. Zosa on the basis of Article
II, Section 4 which now reads:

“The prime duty of the Government is to serve and

protect the people. The Government may call upon the
people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment
thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal military or civil
service.”
RELIGIOUS TESTS

Whether or not there is a substantial distinction

between these citizens and those whose religious
beliefs prevent them in conscience from taking human
life
RELIGIOUS TESTS

Philippine jurisprudence articulates several tests to

determine these limits.
‣ Clear and present danger test or Immediate and
grave danger test (Appropriate for cases involving
speech)
‣ Compelling state interest test (accord protection to
the paramount interest of the state; mostly
appropriate for cases involving persons conducts)