Source : Estrada vs. Escritor (2003) 1.

Free Exercise Clause

GERONA VS. SEC. OF EDUCATION (1959) Expulsion of students for refusal to salute the flag xxx on account of their religious belief NO VIOLATION OF FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution does not and cannot mean exemption from or non-compliance with reasonable and non-discriminatory laws, rules and regulations promulgated by competent authority

VICTORIANO VS. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNION (1974) Application of grave and imminent danger test Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted exempting from the application and coverage of a closed shop agreement employees belonging to any religious sect which prohibits affiliation of their members with any labor organization CONSTITUTIONAL, the Court held that government is not precluded from pursuing valid objectives secular in character even if the incidental result would be favorable to a religion or sect. Court upheld EXEMPTION of members of the Iglesia ni Cristo, from the coverage of a closed shop agreement between their employer and a union because it would violate the teaching of their church not to join any group GERMAN VS. BARANGAN (1985) reiterated Gerona ruling At the height of the anti-administration rallies, petitioners were walking to St. Jude Church within the Malacanang security area to pray for an end to violence when they were barred by the police. Two concepts - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Petitioners are NOT DENIED OR RESTRAINED of their freedom of belief or choice of their religion, but only in the manner by which they had attempted to translate the same to action. Between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road to travel. If the exercise of said

religious belief clashes with the established institutions of society and with the law, then the former must yield and give way to the latter. EBRALINAG VS. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS (1993) ---- overturned the Gerona ruling after three decades EXEMPTION may be accorded to the Jehovahs Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs, however bizarre those beliefs may seem to others. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. CA (1996) Application of clear and present danger test to religious speech Television program classified as X or not for public viewing on the ground that they offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law. On Boards power to review the Iglesia television showAFFIRMED, the Court went back to Gerona insofar as holding that religious freedom cannot be invoked to seek exemption from compliance with a law that burdens ones religious exercise. On X-rating of the show---ANNULED. Court stressed that the Constitution is hostile to all prior restraints on speech, including religious speech and the x-rating was a suppression of petitioners freedom of speech as much as it was an interference with its right to free exercise of religion. Nevertheless, the Court was quick to add the criteria by which the state can regulate the exercise of religious freedom, that is, when the exercise will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare.[350] There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the life of a reality already on ground.

In sum, the Philippine Supreme Court has adopted a posture of not invalidating a law offensive to religious freedom, but carving out an exception or upholding an exception to accommodate religious exercise where it is justified.
[353]

2. Establishment Clause AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ (1935) Philippine Independent Church challenged the issuance and sale of postage stamps commemorating the Thirty-Third International Eucharistic Congress of the Catholic Church on the ground that the constitutional prohibition against the use of public money for religious purposes has been violated NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY in the issuance and sale of the stamps. GARCES VS. ESTENZO The Court held that there was NOTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio. It adhered to the barrio resolutions of the barangay involved in the case stating that the barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair, the celebration of which is an ingrained tradition in rural communities that relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of the masses. Corollarily, the Court found nothing illegal about any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint such as the acquisition and display of his image bought with funds obtained through solicitation from the barrio residents. PAMIL VS.TELERON (1978) Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 disqualifying ecclesiastics from appointment or election as municipal officer was challenged. To allow an ecclesiastic to head the executive department of a municipality is to permit the erosion of the principle of separation of Church and State and thus open the floodgates for the violation of the cherished liberty of religion which the constitutional provision seeks to enforce and protect. Consequently, the Court upheld the VALIDITY of Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code and declared respondent priest ineligible for the office of municipal mayor.