Introduction:

The Right to Worship is one of the basic liberties of man that have been the subject of official repression and punishment since the beginning of recorded government. Religion may be defined as any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy. In Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 1 the description is to the effect that it is a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator. In the context of the constitutional provision, religion also includes a rejection of religion, a refusal to believe in a hereafter or in the supremacy of a supernatural person with powers over life and death.

Objectives:
1. What is Religion? 2. To concept behind the separation of Church and State. 3. To establish the relation between Religious Profession and Worship. 4. To know the difference between Freedom to believe and Freedom to Act in Ones belief. 5. The concept of Religious Test

Body:
Religion in the Constitution Article III, Section V of the Philippine Constitution provides: No law shall be made respecting an

establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights. It is noteworthy that the preamble of the Constitution begins with the invocation for the Aid of All Mighty God. A fundamental personal right and liberty

Religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty2 and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of values. Contractual rights, therefore, must yield to freedom of religion. It is only where unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary.

Separation of Church and State: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable3 and is originally, and quite adequately, expressed in Article III, Section V. The rationale of this rule is summed up in the familiar saying Strong faces make good neighbors. It is to delineate the boundaries between by the one two against institutions the other and to avoid of a

encroachments

because

misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdiction. The wall of separation between Church and State is not a wall of hostility. The State in fact recognizes the beneficent influence of religion in the enrichment of the nations life. In Everson vs. Board of Education,4 it was held that the state cannot set up a church; nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another nor force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion; that the state cannot punish a person for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance; that no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activity or institution whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion; that the state cannot openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization or group.

But in another case of Zorach vs. U.S. Supreme Court5 held that the wall of separation between Church and State had not been breached by a released-time arrangement which enabled the students in a public school to attend religious instruction classes in a nearby private building. In no case, the doctrine of separation of Church and State, should be in connection with the provision of Article VI, Section XXIX paragraph II, prohibiting appropriations of public funds for secretariat purposes. No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system or religion, or for the use, benefit or support of any priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher or dignitary as such.

It is also clear that intramural disputes regarding religious dogma and other matters of faith are outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities. Where the dispute involves the property rights of the religious group or the relations of the members where property rights are involved, the civil courts may assume jurisdiction. In the case of Gonzales vs. Archbishop of Manila,6 the Supreme Court held that where a civil right depends upon some

matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, civil tribunals tries the civil right and nothing more, taking the ecclesiastical decision out of which the civil right has arisen as it finds them, and accepting those decision as matters adjudicated by another jurisdiction.

In some cases, we are not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovahs Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, this religious group which admittedly comprises a small portion of the school population will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a nation untaught and uninculcated in and unimbued with reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of country and admiration for national heroes 7 Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted authorities. Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even to the country, assuming that such unity and loyalty can be attained through coercion- is not a goal that is constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.

It is certain that not every conscience can be accommodated by all the laws of the land; but when general laws conflict with scruples of conscience, exemptions ought to be granted unless some compelling state interest intervenes.

Religious Freedom and Worship The right to religious profession and worship has a twofold aspect to wit: freedom to believe, and freedom to act in ones beliefs. The first is absolute as long as the belief is control within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that effect the public welfare. Freedom to Believe Freedom to believe pleases the person to believe or not to believe. A person may indulge his own theories about life and death; worship any god he chooses or none at all; embrace or reject any religion; acknowledge the divinity of God or of any being that appeals to his reverence; recognize or deny the immortality of his soul. However, Freedom to act in ones belief is an act or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so become subject to the authority of the State. In freedom to believe he may absurd his beliefs to others, even if they hostile and heretical to the majority, he has full freedom to believe as he pleases. He may not be required to prove his beliefs. He may not be punished for his inability to do so. Religion is a matter of faith. Men may believe what they cannot prove. Everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be

called to account because he cannot prove what he believes.

Freedom to Act in Ones Belief In freedom to act in ones belief, as great a liberty may be, religious freedom, like all other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, can be enjoyed only with proper regard for the rights of others. It is error to think that mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare. Justice Frankfurter says that The constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated disabilities; it did not create new privileges. It gave religious liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence in freedom from conformity to religious dogma not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma. Accordingly, while one has full freedom to believe in Satan, he may not offer the object of his piety a human sacrifice, as this would be murder. Those who literally interpret the Biblical command to go forth and multiply are nevertheless not allowed to contract plural marriages in violation of the laws against bigamy. A person cannot refuse to pay taxes on the ground that it would be against his religious tenets to recognize any authority except that of God alone. An atheist cannot express his disbelief in acts of decision that wound the feelings of the faithful. The police power can be validly asserted against the Indian practice of suttee, born of deep religious conviction that calls on the window to immolate herself at the funeral pile of her husband.

But all of those do not suggest that the authority of the State shall at all times prevail over the right of the individual to religious profession an worship. There are many instances, in fact, when the reverse is true. 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. Right not absolute More importantly, the right to act in accordance with ones belief is not and cannot be absolute. Conduct remains subject to regulation and even prohibition for the protection of society. It may not be used to justify an action or refusal inconsistent with general welfare of society8 In Cantwell vs Connecticut,9 if the cause is not that of religion, to solicit for becomes a crime. Furthermore, such solicitation for religious purposes, even if abrasive, could not be validly prohibited. In American Bible Society vs. City of Manila ,10 a religious corporation engaged in the sale of bibles and other religious articles was required to obtain license and pay the corresponding fee for being engaged in the sale of merchandise. The Supreme Court held: The constitutional guarantee of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious

information. Any restraint of such right can be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. In he case at bar, it is true that the price asked for religious articles was in some instances a little higher than the actual cost of the same, but this cannot mean that the person is engaged in the business or occupation of selling said merchandise for profit. The test to determine which shall prevail as between religious freedom and the powers of the State is, as always, the test of reasonableness. The resiliency of the criterion has provoked deep disagreements that have made Constitutional Law a continuing debate between liberty and authority. In the case of German vs. Barangan, Justice Teehankee declared in some parts of his dissenting opinion that: The burden to show the existence of grave and imminent danger that would justify prior restraint and bar a group of persons from entering the church of their choice for prayer and worship lies on the military or police officials who would so physically restrain them. There is no precedent in this time and age where churchgoers whose right

of free exercise of their religion is recognized have been physically prevented from entering their church on grounds of national

security.Good faith on both sides is and must presumed. We are a basically a people who believe in the power of prayer and pray silently in the land. Religious Test The constitutional prohibition against religious tests is aimed against clandestine attempts on the part of the government to prevent a person from exercising his civil and political rights because of his religious beliefs. Under the Constitution, men are punished for what they do or fail to do and not for what they think and believe. Freedom to think, to believe and to worship has too exalted a position in our country to be penalized in such illusory basis.

Conclusion:
The views in the freedom of religion are somehow controversy because of the beliefs of different people all over the world. There may be similarities and differences and the separation of Church of State. But whatever reason it may be, an individual has his own freedom to choose what he should believed in, and

what should not. There may have God or none, but the powerful stigma would be the people choice.

Source: Political Law by Isagani Cruz, 2000 Footnotes: 1 Gregorio Aglipay vs. Juan Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937. 2 Schneider vs. Irgington, 308 U.S. 174. 3 Section 6, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution 4 Everson vs, Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) 5 Zorach vs, Clauson, 343 U.S. 306. 6 Raul Gonzales vs. Roman Archbishop of Manila, G.R. No. L-27619, February 4, 1928. 7 Gerona vs. Secretary of Education, 106 Phil. 224. 8 People vs. Diel, [CA] 44 O.G. 590, August 22, 1947. 9 Cantwell vs. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). 10 American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-9637, April 30, 1957. 11 German vs. Barangan, G.R. No. 68828, March 27, 1985, 135 SCRA 514.