G.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION two institutions to avoid encroachment by

Section 5: FREEDOM OF one against another (Id.).
RELIGION
No shall be made respecting an The principle of separation of Church and
establishment of religion or State is based on mutual respect. The State
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the
The free exercise and enjoyment of Church, much less question its faith and
religious profession and worship, dogmas or dictate upon it. On the other
without discrimination or preference, hand, the Church cannot impose its beliefs
shall forever be allowed. No and convictions on the state and the rest of
religious test shall be required for the citizenry. It cannot demand that the
the exercise of civil or political rights. nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely
believes that they are good for the country
1. BASIC PRINCIPLE (Imbong v. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8,
Purpose 2014).
The twin clauses of free exercise
and non-establishment express an Approaches of Courts to the Freedom of
underlying relational concept of Religion
separation between religion and 1. Strict Separationist
secular government (BERNAS, - this approach erects an absolute barrier to
supra at 329) formal interdependence of religion and
state. Religious institutions could not
Religion receive aid, whether direct or indirect, from
It is any specific system of belief, the state. Nor could the state adjust its
worship, conduct, etc. Often secular programs to alleviate burdens the
involving a code of ethics and programs placed on believers. Only the
philosophy; profession of faith to an complete separation of religion from politics
active power that binds and elevates would eliminate the formal influence of
man to his Creator ( CRUZ, religious institutions and provide for a free
Constitutional Law, supra at 429 choice among political views, thus a
strict :wall of separation” is necessary.
2. PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION
OF CHURCH AND STATE 2. Strict Neutrality/ Separationist View/
The separation of church and state Government neutrality Theory-
delineate the boundaries between - required that the State must be neutral in
its relations with groups of religious
believers and non-believers; it examines
only whether government action is mandatory accommodation nor it
for a secular purpose and does not determines that the legislative
consider inadvertent burden on accommodation runs afoul of the
religious exercise; a rigid reading of establishment/fee exercise clause (Estrada
the principle of separation between v. Escritor, supra).
Church and State.
Three (3) Principal Parts of Section 5:
3. Benevolent Neutrality/ 1. Non-establishment clause (First
Accommodation- an approach that Sentence);
looks further than the secular 2. Free exercise clause (Second Sentence)
purposes of government action and 3. No religious test clause (Third Sentence)
examines the effect of these actions
on religious exercise; “the Court will 3.NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
strive to accommodate religious The State cannot set up a church, nor pass
beliefs and practices when it can laws which aid one religion, aid all religions,
within flexible constitutional limits. or prefer one religion over another, nor
The Philippines adheres to this force nor influence a person to go to or
(Estrada v. Escritor, A.M No. P-02- remain away from church against his will, or
1651, August 4, 2003). force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion (Everson v. Board of Education,
Three (3) Kinds of 330 U.S. 1, February 10, 1947).
Accommodation:
A. Mandatory Accommodation- Tests to Determine When There is No
- accommodation is required to Violation of Establishment Clause
preserve fee exercise protections (Lemon Test) (SPF):
and not unconstitutionally infringe on a. The statue has a Secular legislative
religious liberty or create penalties purpose;
for religious freedom; b. Its Principal or primary effect is one that
B. Permissive Accommodation- neither advances nor inhibits religion;
- the state may, but is not required and
to accommodate religious interest; c. It does not Foster an excessive
and government entanglement with religion
C. Prohibited Accommodation- (Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-
-when establishment concerns 0201651, Aug 4, 2004)
prevail over potential
accommodation interests. It is also Manifestations of the Non-Establishment
when the Court finds no basis for a Clause under the Constitution:
a. Art. VI Sec. 28, par. (3): d. Display of creche in a secular setting
exemption from taxation of (Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668)
properties actually, directly, and e. Financial support for secular academic
exclusively used for religious facilities (Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S.
purposes; 672)
b. Art. XIV, Sec. 3, par. (3): optional f. Exemption from zoning requirements to
religious instruction in public accommodate unique architectural
elementary and high schools; features of religious buildings (Martin v.
c. Art. XIV, Sec. 4, par. (2): Corp. Of the Presiding Bishop, 434
citizenship requirement of ownership Mass. 141); and
of educational institutions, except g. Celebration of religious holidays
those established by religious (Graces v. Estenzo, G>R. No. L-53487,
groups and mission boards; and May 25, 1981; Re:Letter of Tony Q.
d. Art. IV, Sec. 29, par. (2): Valenciano, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC,
appropriation allowed where March 7, 2017)
ecclesiastic is employed in armed
forces, in a penal institution, or in a
government-owned orphanage or
leprosarium.

Instances of Non-Violation of the

Non-Establishment Clause:
a. Postage stamps depicting
Philippines as the site of a
significant religious event
(Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-
45459, March 13, 1937)
b. Government sponsorship of
town fiestas (Garces v.
Estenzo, G.R. No. L053487,
May 25, 1981)
c. Book lending program for
students in parochial schools
(Board of Education v. Allen,
392 U.S 236)