Andres Garces, et. al, petitioners, vs. Numeriano G. Estenzo, et. al, respondents G.R.

L-53487 May 25, 1881 Facts: The case revolves around the Two resolutions of the Valencia Barangay Council, Ormoc City namely: Resolution No. 5; Reviving its traditional fiesta every fifth of April which allowed the barangay the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. The funds for such purpose will be raised through the selling of tickets and and solicit of cash donations and; Resolution No. 6 within which the fiesta chairman would be the caretaker of the procured image and that such would remain in his residence for one year and until the election of the next chairman. The image of San Vicente Ferrer was made made available to the local Catholic Church during the celebration of the saints feast day.

Sufficient amount of voters ratified the resolution, and said projects were implemented. The image, at the mean time, was placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea, one of the respondents, refused to return the image to the council, as they contend that was churchs property already since church funds were used in its acquisition. The priest with Andres Garces, a member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that Sec. 8 Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated. The CFI of Ormoc denied the motion of the respondents. A Petition from the judgement of the said Court was elevated to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated.

Ruling: No. The Court held that the image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta, not for the purpose of leaning to any religion or meddeling with religious beliefs residents. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as the acquisition) is not illegal. Practically, the image was placed in a laymans custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. The right of determining the custody of the procured image is within the council, and even if they decided to give it to the Church, there could be no Constitutional violation, since private funds, and not church funds, were used to procure the image. The use of public funds to buy religious items does not automatically mean that it is favouring the religious sect to which such image is associated.

Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu March 1, 1993 219 SCRA 261 Issue: Petitioners allege that the public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, the respondent, ordered the expulsion of 68 primary and secondary level students of several towns in Cebu. Such authorities expelled these students for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the Panatang Makabayan required by RA 1265. The petitioners were Jehovahs Witnesses, believing that by doing such acts would be contrary to the teachings of their religion. The petitioners contend that to require them to participate in such acts will violate their constitutionally granted right against involuntary servitude and religious freedom. The respondents, on the other hand, relied on the precedence of Gerona et al v. Secretary of Education wherein the doctrine provides that we are a system of separation of the church and state and the flag is devoid of religious significance and it doesnt involve any religious ceremony.

Issue: Whether or Not religious freedom has been violated.

Held: The Court ruled that religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority. It laid down the two fold aspect of right to religious worship is first, the freedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought and second, the freedom to act on ones belief regulated and translated to external acts. The only limitation laid down by

the Constitution is that the State has the right to defend itself from religious ceremonies and practices if such practice would breach the security or threaten the safety of the State. In the case at bar, the expelled students were not endangering or threatening the safety and integrity of the State when they did not participate in the flag raising ceremony; in fact, they were just silently standing and observing the activity. The Gerona doctrine used by the respondents has already been deemed by the Court as pass and that Jehovahs Witnesses may be exempt from the flag raising ceremony provided that they will not disrupt such ceremony.

Alejandro Estrada, complainant, vs. Soledad S. Escritor, respondent A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003

Facts: Respondent Escritor was court interpreter of the Las Pinas City Regional Trial Court. She has been living with her partner Quilapio, a man who is not her husband. They have been living for more than twenty five years already and had a son. Respondent Estradas husband died a year before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still legally married to another woman when they had their relationship.

Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent. According to him, respondent Escritor should not be allowed to remain employed in the said RTC for it will appear that it is as if the Court allows such immoral acts within its walls.

Respondent claims that her conjugal arrangement with her partner is valid under her religion, The Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society. Such partnership, alleged by the respondent, is a Declaration of Pled ge of Faithfulness which is sanctioned by their congragation. Such a declaration is effective when legal impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union.

Issue: Whether the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement, in

effect besmirching the respondents right to freedom of religion?

Held: No. The Court held that the State cannot penalize the penalize respondent for she is exercising her constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion The States interest in imposing its prohibition cannot be merely abstract. In the case at bar, the State has found any solid point within which it can impose enforcing the adultery or bigamy charges against respondent or to her partner. The Court went insofar as to distinguish public morality and religious morality; and that the public and secular morality are the only moralities that are within the province of the Court

MVRS Publlications, Inc. Vs. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Incorporated G.R. 13506 January 28, 2003 Facts: The Islamic Dawah Council, an association of seventy Muslim organizations, the respondent, together with several individuals filed in the Manila RTC a complaint for damages against MVRS publication, the petitioner. The respondents allege that the petitioner published insulting articles regarding Muslims and such articles were not only published with deliberate arrogance, but also with wanton disregard to the feelings of the Muslim people. Respondent MVRS on the other hand contends that their article was a mere statement of their opinions and was published without fault nor malice. The respondent also contends that it did not specifically mention the respondents as the subject of the article, therefore they are not entitiled to award for damages. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, stating the respondents lack of evidence in proving a sufficient cause of action. The Court of Appels, on the other hand, reversed the RTC decision. Issue: Whether the Respondents can be entitled to award for damages due to the alleged libellous acts of the petitioner regarding the Muslim religion. Ruling: The Court held in favour of the petitioner. It said that mere words that are insulting in character, as long as it is not directed to any specific person or entity is not automatically tantamount to libel or slander.