ARTICLE III SECTION 5

No law shall be made respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.
The free exercise & enjoyment of religious profession &
worship, w/o discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed.
No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of
civil and political rights.
!"#$#%N & a profession of faith to an active
power that binds and elevates man to his
'reator. (nd in so fas as it instills into the mind
the purest principles of morality, its influences is
deeply felt and highly appreciated. )(glipay vs.
ui*+
,!! !-!'#.! & composed of two aspects namely/
0. freedom to believe or not to believe1 and
2. freedom to act on one3s beliefs.
To show abridgement of free exercise, coercion on the part of
the .tate must be shown. 'oercion to believe or not ot
believe1 coercion to act or not to act, or to act in a certain
way.
No eligious Test & no law
shall be passed which would
require a person to profess a
certain religion to qualify in the
exercise of his civil and
political rights
4. 56(T #. 7!(NT 89 N%N&
!.T(8"#.67!NT:
(. The non&establishment clause means that/
0. The .tate is prohibited from establishing or
ma;ing any religion the official religion of the
country.
2. The .tate may not directly support or
discriminate against any religion or non&religion.
<. #t is basically government neutrality. #t calls for
a separation of 'hurch and .tate, not just
treating all religions equally. ather it should be
equal non&treatment.
=. Non&establishment bars a .tate from passing
laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or
prefer one religion over another.
>. #t also requires them to show no partiality to
any one group/ noen favored, none commanded
and none inhibited.
?. 6ere there is no need to prove any coercion,
all that is needed to be shown for there to be a
violation is that the .tate favors or discriminates
against a certain sect or religion in general.
@. the determination of whether or not a ritual or
activity possesses religious character rests with
the courts
A. .eparation of 'hurch and .tate does not
mean hostility.
,!!B%7 T% 8!"#!C! % N%T T% 8!"#!C! & since this
freedom is internal, this freedom is absolute, as long as the
belief or non&belief is confined within the realm of thought1
The .tate may not dictate, restrict or interfere, in any degree,
with an individual3s choice of whether or not to believe in
religion1 and if one so chooses to believe, which sect to
believe in.
,!!B%7 T% ('T & This freedom however is not absolute
since this involves putting into action your internal beliefs.
They become concrete and external acts that will inevitably
affect other people. The inherent police power can be
exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society.
and this is true even if such practices are pursued out of
sincere religious conviction. The abridgement of this right
must pass the clear and present danger test or the
balancing of interest test. The 'onstitution gave religious
freedom, not civil immunity. The essence is freedom from
conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity
to law because of religious dogma.
,reedom to disseminate religious beliefs through the sale
and circulation of religious literature is aprt and parcel of
freedom to act on one3s beliefs.
4. 56%.! #$6T. (!
D%T!'T!B 89 T6!
!"#$#%E. '"(E.!.:
(. Bifferentiate among the diff.
clauses/
0. the non&establishment
clause serves to protect the
.tate and the 'hurch from
interference from each other.
2. the free exercise clause
protects individuals from .tate
interference in their freedom
to believe and freedom to act
on their on their beliefs.
<. the no religion test clause
serves to complement the
protection individuals have
from .tate interference with
free exercise of religion.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
4. 5hat are the other pertinent provisions in the 0FA@ 'onstitution
with regards to religion:
(. They are/ 0.+ Dreamble/ Gimploring the aid of (lmighty $odH
2.+ (rt. ##, .ec. ?/ GThe separation of 'hurch and .tate shall
be inviolable.H
<.+ (rt. C#, .ec. 2A)<+ & G'haritable institutions, churches
and personages or convents . . mosques, non&profit cemeteries and
all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation.H
=.+ (rt. C#, .ec. 2F )2+ & GNo public money or property shall
be appropriated, applied . . . directly or indirectly, for the use,
benefit, or support of any sect, church . . . or of any priest, minister,
except when such priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned
to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or gov3t orphanage
or leprosarium.H
>.+ (rt. -#C, .ec.< )<+ & G(t the option expressed in writing by
the aprents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to
their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within
the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the
religious authorities of the religion to whihc the children or wards
belong, without additional cost to the $overnment.H
4. 5hat does .ection > protect/guarantee:
(. 0.+ non&establishment1 2.+ free exercise of religion and <.+ the no
religious test clause.
4. 6ow can gov3t validly extend support to sects/
(. There are three requisites, namely1
0. #f the statute has a secular purpose1
2. its principal or primary effect does not advance nor inhibit
religion1 and
<. the law does not foster excessive entanglement with
religion.
4. 5hy are religious establishment exempt from tax:
(. The consti. had provided the exemption in furtherance of the
separation of church and state. #t is so as to avoid excessive
entanglement with religion and the recognition of its influence in
human affairs/ recogni*ing certain groups which have harmonious
and beneficial relationships with the community at large.
69D%T6!T#'(". )any names or characters depicted in these
situations are purely coincidental+
4. Buring holy wee;, 6arbey feeling penitent and sinful for all his
reading of pornographic materials over the net as;s Dol to have him
crucified as his form of GpenitenciaH. (s Dol nailed 6arbey to the
cross, all 6arbey3s 8ruce "ee training proved futile as he died. #s
7r. Derry liable:
(. 9es. eligious freedom does not mean civil immunity. #n this
situation, criminal liability may arise. The inherent police power can
be exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society and
this is applicable even if such practices are pursued out of sincere
religious conviction.
4. #s the appointment by Dres. !strada of 8ro. 7i;e Celarde of the
!l .haddai as his spiritual adviser a violation of the non&
establishment clause, since, it may seem that the Dresident is
favoring a particular sect which is the !l .haddai and the 'atholic
'hurch which is a part of it:
(. # believe it is not. 8eing a spiritual adviser is not a cabinet
position, since, it involves a personal attachment between the
Dresident and 8ro. 7i;e. #t is but proper that in their relationship,
the discussions are limited to purely personal matters and not of
affairs of the state.
TWO PRINCIPAL PARTS
0+ the non&establishment clause
2+ the free exercise clause
NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION
Neither a .tate nor the ,ederal $overnment can set up a
church.
DISTINGUISH ALLOWABLE FORM NON-ALLOWABLE AID
0+ must have a secular legislative purpose
2+ must have a primary effect that neither advances nor prohibits
religion
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
<+ must not require excessive entanglement with recipient
institutions
NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION
Aglipay vs. Ri!
"# P$il. %&'
The Birector of Dosts issued a stamp commemorating the
celebration of the <<rd #nternational !ucharistic 'elebration of the
oman 'atholic 'hurch. (glipay claims this as a violation of non&
establishment.
H(l)*
The release of the stamp is valid. The court held that/
eligious freedom in the 'onstitution doesn3t mean a denial of its
influence in human affairs. The primary purpose of the issuance of
the stamp was secular which means that it was released so as to
advertise the Dhil. to tourists. The $ov3t shouldn3t be embarrassed
by its activities simply because of incidental results && the main
purpose should not be frustrated by subordination to mere incidental
results.
Ga+,(s vs. Es-(.!/
'&# SCRA 5'&
The barangay council of %rmoc 'ity declared (pril > as the feast
day of .an Cicente ,errer and raise private funds by solicitation to
build a statue of the patron saint. Boes such violate religious
freedom:
H(l)*
#t does not violate religious freedom since the funds for the statue
were private funds. the .' held that the declaration of said feast
day by saying/ GThe fiesta is a socio&religious affair. #ts celebration
is an ingrained tradition in rural communities. The fiesta relieves the
monotony and drudgery of the lives of the masses.
A0i.g-/. S,$//l Dis-. vs. S,$(1p
2"# US %34
2 laws were challenged as unconstitutional having so alleged as
violative of the 0st (mendment namely/
0.+ the Dennsylvania statute requiring that at least 0I verses from
the 8ible shall be read without comment at the opening of each
public school day. ( child may be excused upon written request
of his parent or guardian. This was challenged by the .chemp
family who belongs to the Enitarian ,aith.
2.+ The 8oard of .chool 'ommissioners of 8altimore adopted a
rule pursuant to the 'ode of 7aryland, providing for the reading
of a chapter in the 6oly 8ible without comment and/or recitation
of the "ord3s Drayer as a part of opening exercises to be
conducted in schools. 7adelyn 7urray and her son 5illiam
were both professed atheist. They claimed that the rule placed
a premium on belief as against non&belief.
H(l)*
The 8ible is an instrument of religion. The reading of verses, even
w/o comment, possesses a devotional & religious character &
constitutes in effect a religious observance. The fact that some
pupils may be excused from attendance doesn3t militate against the
obligatory nature of the ceremony for the statute unequivocally
requires the exercise to be held daily in school, w/in the school bldg.
to be conducted by & under the authority of the local school officials.
#t favors 'hristianity over atheists, agnostics, etc. (lthough the
purpose of the law is allegedly secular, this would still be
unconstitutional because the effect & the means used to achieve the
purpose is not secular.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
B/a+) /5 E),a-i/. vs. All(.
23% US %2"
The New 9or; !ducation law requires local public school authorities
to lend textboo;s free of charge to all students in grades @&02,
including students attending parochial schools. The 8oard of
!ducation of the 'entral .chool Bistrict sought a declaration that
the statutory requirement violated the .tate and ,ederal
'onstitutions.
H(l)*
The court held that the said measure was valid. The primary
purpose and effect was secular meaning it provides students
greater benefit in having boo;s, regardless of religious affiliations.
There is no evidence that religious boo;s have been loaned, & it
cannot be assumed that school authorities are unable to distinguish
between secular and religious boo;s or that they will not honestly
discharge their duties to approve only secular boo;s. Darochial
schools, in addition to their sectarian function, perform the tas; of
secular education, and on the basis of intertwining of secular and
religious training is such that secular textboo;s furnished to students
are in fact instrumental in teaching religion.
L(1/. vs. 6+-!1a.
#&2 US "&%
Two .tate laws were questioned in this case, one was a hode
#sland law called the .alary .upplement (ct w/c provides for a 0>J
salary supplement to be paid to teachers in a nonpublic school and
Dennsylvania3s Non&public !ducation (ct w/c directly reimburses
those non&public schools for teacher3s salaries and materials made
for Gnon&secular subjects.H
H(l)*
8oth statutes were declared unconstitutional as violative of the
religious clauses/ The entanglement in the # law arises because of
the religious activity and purpose of the church&affiliated schools.
These schools are under the church and at the same time is
supervised closely by the state in their purely secular aspect. The
entanglement in the Denny law suffers from the entanglement
problem as well in view of the surveillance and restrictions
necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly non&ideological
role.
Dolitical division along religious lines was one of the evils at which
the ,irst (mendment aimed, and in these programs, where
successive and probably permanent annual appropriations that
benefit relatively few religious groups are involved, political
fragmentation and divisiveness on religious lines are li;ely to be
intensified.
Enli;e the tax exemption for places of religious worship upheld in
5alt* vs. Tax 'ommission w/c was based on a practice of 2II
years, these innovative programs have self&perpetuating and self&
expanding propensities which provide a warning signal against
entanglement between gov3t & religion.
Til-/. vs. Ri,$a+)s/.
#&2 US "7%
The 6igher !ducation ,acilities (ct of 0F?< provides fed.
construction grants for colleges & university facilities, excluding Gany
facility used or to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for
religious worship, or primarily in connection w/ any part of the
program of a school or department of divinity.H The E. retains a 2I&
yr interest in any facility constructed w/ funds under this act & if
during this period the recipient violates the statutory conditions the
$ov3t is entitled to fund recovery. = church related colleges in
'onnecticut received federal construction grants for five facilities
w/c was challenged in court as having violated said 2I&yr. proviso.
H(l)*
This act includes colleges & universities w/ religious affiliations.
'ongress objective of providing more opportunity for college
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
education is a legitimate secular goal entirely appropriate for
governmental action. The record shows that the there was no
evidence that the schools violated the statutory restrictions1 it
provides no basis for assuming that religiosity necessarily
permeates the secular education of the colleges1 & it yields no
evidence that religion seeps into the use of any of the five facilities.
The limitation of federal interest in the facilities to a period of 2Iyrs
violates the eligion 'lause of the ,irst (mendment as the
unrestricted use of valuable property after 2I years in effect a
contribution to a religious body.

This case is distinguished from "!7%N namely/ )a+ there is less
danger here than in church related primary & sec. schools dealing
w/ impressionable children, )b+ the facilities provided here are
themselves religiously neutral w/ correspondingly less need for gov3t
surveillance, )c+ the gov3t aid here is one time single purpose
construction grant w/ only minimal need for inspection.
C/.-y /5 All(g$(.y vs. ACLU
57 LW 5&#
This case involves holiday displays in the 'ounty of (llegheny in
Dittsburgh. The 0st display involves a nativity scene in the 'ounty
'ourthouse. The 'ounty had permitted the 6oly Name .ociety
since 0FA0 to set up the display. The creche was also the setting
for a program of 'hristmas 'arols & song upon w/c the 'ounty had
issued press releases identifying the choral program as county
sponsored & lin;ing the program to the creche. The second display
involves a =>&ft 'hristmas tree, an 0A&ft menorah )a candelabrum
assoc. w/ the Kewish holiday of 'hanu;ah+ and a sign bearing a
message that the city salutes liberty during the holiday season. The
menorah was owned by a local religious organi*ation but the city
stored, erected and removed it.
The local ('"E challenged these displays as unconstitutional.
H(l)*
The court held that the non&establishment clause is violative when it
can be interpreted as indicative of a preference towards any
religious organi*ation or doctrine. The B%'T#N! %, !"#$#%E.
D!,!!N'! focuses not on the intent but what may be formed in
the minds of reasonable men. #t was held that that the creche was
displayed in a manner that violated the N!' because the county
by associating itself with the display did not merely ac;nowledge
'hristmas as a cultural phenomenon but celebrated the holiday in a
way that had the effect of endorsing a patently 'hristian message.
The menorah, on the other hand, was displayed in manner that did
not endorse religion but simply recogni*ed both 'hanu;ah and
'hristmas as part of the same secular winter&holiday season,
because )0+ 'hanu;ah, for which the menorah is the primary visual
symbol, is a holiday that has both religious and secular dimensions,
)2+ although the menorah itself is a religious symbol there was no
predominantly secular symbol of 'hanu;ah that was available as a
reasonable alternative, )<+ the 'hristmas tree was the predominant
element in the display and did not endorse 'hristian belief, )=+ the
sign in the display further diminished the possibility that the display
would be interpreted as a dual endorsement of 'hristianity and
Kudaism1 and )>+ the '( on remand could consider the question
whether the menorah display had secular purpose and whether it
fostered an excessive entanglement of gov3t with religion.
8/0+(s- vs. Ca-ali.a
5&' US '
Kames Lobrest, a deaf&mute from birth, was formerly enrolled in a
public school from $rade ? to A and was provided with a sign
language interpreter pursuant to Tucson, (ri*ona3s #ndividuals with
Bisabilities !ducation (ct )#B!(+. ,or the ninth grade, he enrolled
at .alpointe 'atholic 6.. 5hen he requested for an interpreted, it
was denied.
H(l)*
eligious institutions are not disabled by the 0st (mend from
participating in publicly sponsored social welfare programs. $ov3t
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citi*ens
defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an
!stablishment 'lause challenge just because sectarian institution
may also receive attenuated financial benefit.
(ny attenuated financial benefit that parochial schools do ultimately
receive from #B!( is attributed to the private choices of individual
parents. The service at issue in this case is part of a general
government program that distribute benefits neutrally to any child
qualifying as handicapped under #B!(, without regard to the
sectarian&nonsectarian or public&private nature of the school the
child attends.
#B!( creates no financial incentive for parents to choose a sectarian
school, an interpreter3s presence there cannot be attributed to state
decision&ma;ing. 5hat it creates is a neutral gov3t program
dispensing aid not to schools but to individual handicapped children.
Capi-/l S9a+( R(vi(: B/a+) vs. Pi.(--( ; 6 6l< 6la.
US N/. 3#-74&
%hio law provides that 'apitol .quare, the statehouse pla*a in
'olumbus, is a forum for discussion of public questions and for
public activities with a 'apitol .quare eview and (dvisory 8oard
responsibility for regulating access to the square. To use the
square, the group must simply fill out an official application form and
meet several speech&neutral criteria. The 8oard denied the
application of the Mu Mlux Mlan to put up an unattended cross in the
middle of the square. The Mlan got an injunction in the lower court
and was allowed to put up the cross. The judgment was affirmed by
the '(.
H(l)*
The display was private religious speech that is as fully protected
under the ,ree .peech 'lause as secular private expression.
8ecause 'apitol .quare is a traditional public forum, the 8oard may
regulate the content of the Mlan3s expression there only if such a
restriction is necessary, and narrowly drawn, to serve a compelling
state interest
'ompliance with the !stablishment 'lause may be a state interest
sufficiently compelling to justify content&based restrictions on
speech, but the conclusion that the interest is not implicated in this
case is strongly suggested by the presence here of the factors the
court considered determinative in stri;ing down state restrictions on
religious content in "amb3s chapel case.
Ma./s,a vs. CA
%5% SCRA #'%
7anosca inherited a piece of land at D. 8urgos .t. in 7anila with an
area of =F2 sq. m. 6owever, the parcel of land was ascertained by
the Nat3l 6istorical #nstitute as the birthplace of ,elix 7analo, the
founder of the #N'. Thus, it passed a resolution declaring the land
to be a national historical landmar;. The B%K allowed the institute
to conduct expropriation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring
the lot. #t stated that national landmar;s are places associated with
an event that ma;es a turning point in Dhilippine 6istory. 7anosca
opposed the petition. 6e contends that the sum to be used for the
exercise of the power of eminent domain was not for public use.
#ncidentally, such act would constitute an application of public funds
for the support or benefit of #N'.
H(l)*
Dublic use should not be restricted to its traditional uses. The
concept that it has to be actually used for the public has long been
discarded. 5hatever is beneficial to the community is public use.
5ith regards to the religion objection, what should be significant is
the principal objective and not the casual consequences that might
follow. The purpose of setting up the mar;er is to recogni*e the
distinctive contribution of 7analo to the culture of the Dhilippines
rather than to commemorate his founding of the #N'. The benefit to
the sect would merely be incidental in nature.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
FREE E=ERCISE OF RELIGION
Ca.-:(ll vs. C/..(,-i,-
2'& US %3"
7embers of Kehovah3s witnesses proceeded singly from house to
house selling boo;s and pamphlets on religious subjects. ( record
was played as a complement of the religious articles they sold. The
statute against solicitation states that no person shall solicit money
for religious causes from other than a member of the organi*ation
unless there has been approval of the secretary of the council. The
.' found the defendants to be within the purview of the statute due
to their acts.
HELD*
The 0
st
amendment embraces the freedom to believe and to act.
This latter may be regulated by the state according to time, manner
and place. 6owever, the statute here is not regulation since if a
certificate is procured solicitation is permitted without restraint, it not
then solicitation is total prohibited.
The nature of the power of the issuing officer amounts to censorship
of the religion. Epon his decision the right to solicit depends and
there are no adequate judicial remedies )prior restraint+. #t is a
denial of the religious liberty guaranteed by the 0
st
amendment. The
freedom to communicate information, even those religious, cannot
be abridged.
US vs. Balla+)
2%% US 74
espondents were convicted for using the mails to defraud. They
were alleged to perpetuate a scheme called the I AM movement
claiming to be designated by the ascended masters and .aint
$ermain to be the messenger of their words. They also claimed to
be able to heal people even of incurable diseases. The allegedly
false representations covered their religious beliefs.
( demurrer was filed to quash the counts since they
attac;ed the religious beliefs of the respondents and sought to
restrict the free exercise clause. The charge was limited to the
question of good faith in believing those things.
HELD*
.' does not agree that the truth of the doctrines should have been
submitted to the jury. The 0
st
amendment prohibits such a course.
7en may believe what they cannot prove but it can b hardly be
supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with
determining whether the teachings contained false representations.
#f one could be sent to jail because the jury found the belief false,
that would be the end of religious freedom.
A1(+i,a. Bi0l( S/,i(-y vs. Ci-y /5 Ma.ila
'&# P$il 24"
The society3s agent has been distributing and selling boo;s
throughout the Dhilippines and translating them to dialects. #n 0F><,
the city treasurer of manila informed the society that it was required
to obtain a mayor3s permit and to pay municipal license. ociety paid
the D>,A20 under protest. The municipal ordinances were assailed
by the society as illegal and unconstitu&tional.
HELD*
The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries with it the right to
disseminate religious information. (ny restraint should be upon a
showing of a clear and present danger. 6ere, the imposition of a
license tax on the exercise of the freedom is an act of censorship
which should be struc; down.
E0+ali.ag vs. Divisi/. Sp(+i.-(.)(.- /5 S,$//ls /5 C(0
%'3 SCRA %5"
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
.tudents were dropped from the roll of enrollees due to their refusal
to salute the flag. They were against such practices since it
countered the religious beliefs of the Kehovah3s 5itnesses. #n
$erona, it was held that the flag was not an image but a symbol of
the republic. #t stood for national sovereignty and is devoid of
religious significance. ,or students who choose not to obey, they
have merely lost the benefit of public education.
HELD*
The doctrine of $erona should be reexamined. .uch are
inconsistent and alien to the conscience of the present generation of
,ilipinos who value the bill of rights and the free exercise of religious
profession. eligious freedom is a right which is entitled to the
highest priority among human rights. Detitioners stand quietly at
attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect. There is no
clear and present danger for such an action.
Wis,/.si. vs. >/)(+
#&" US %&5
espondents were convicted by the 5isconsin courts for violation of
the compulsory school attendance law which required the
respondents to send their children to school until the age of 0?. The
respondents were of the (mish faith and maintained that requiring
such attendance was contrary to the (mish religion and would
endanger their own and their children3s salvation. The values taught
in secondary school are in mar;ed variance with the (mish way of
life.
HELD*
The state3s right to enforce compulsory education must be balanced
with ,ree !xercise and the rights of the parents to the religious
upbringing of their children. %nly those interests of the highest
order and those not otherwise served can overbalance such
legitimate claim to free exercise. The (mish way of life is deeply
rooted in religious conviction, not merely of preference. 7odern
secondary education is alien to the (mish way of life. The 5isconsin
law compels them to perform acts against their religious beliefs.
Pa1il vs. T(l(+/.
4" SCRA #'2
,ather $on*aga was elected to the position of municipal mayor of
(lburquerque, 8ohol. ( suit for quo warranto was filed by Damil
who was himself an applicant for said office. 6e based his suit on
the disqualification on the administrative code.
HELD*
The 0F<> constitution declared than no religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights. The challenged
provision of the administrative code is inconsistent with the
declaration of the constitution since to exclude would be to impose a
religious test. 6ere, being an ecclesiastic and therefore professing a
religious faith suffices to disqualify for a public office. 6ence, such
provision is held inoperative.
M,Da.i(l vs. Pa-y
#25 US "'4
Daty as;ed that 7cBaniel, an opponent to the position of delegate
for a Tennessee constitutional convention, being a baptist minister,
be disqualified to serve as a provision in the statutes required
delegates to have the same qualifications as members of the house
of representatives. 5ithin the latter, ecclesiastics were forbidden to
participate.
HELD*

The right to free exercise encompasses the right to preach or to be
a minister 7cBaniel was found to be. Ender the assailed provision,
7cBaniel cannot exercise bother rights to religion and public office
without surrendering the other. Thus, the state has encroached on
his right to free exercise.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
.uch disqualification establishes as a condition of office the
willingness to forego certain protected religious practices for an
opportunity to run for public office. $overnmental imposition of such
a choice would be the same as if a fine had been imposed. There
was therefore an unconstitutional penalty on free exercise.
G/l)1a. vs. W(i.0(+g(+
5# LW #%34
$oldman contends that the 0
st
(mendment permits him to wear a
yarmul;e while in uniform despite (ir ,orce regulation. 6e is a Kew
and an ordained abbi serving in the (ir ,orce in a mental health
clinic located within a base. 6e was informed that he was in
violation of (ir ,orce rules that no headgear shall be worn indoors.
6e received a letter stating that should he fail to obey he would be
court martialed.
HELD*
The military is a speciali*ed society separate from civilian society.
To accomplish its mission, the military must foster instinctive
obedience. The subordination of the desires of the individual is
needed for the service. The professional judgement of the (ir ,orce
is that the outfitting of personnel encourages the subordination of
identity in favor of the overall group mission. These things are better
left to the judgement of military officials. The 0
st
amendment does
not require them otherwise.
G(+1a. vs. Ba+a.ga.
'25 SCRA 5'#
Detitioners converged at KD laurel .t. for the purpose of hearing
mass at the .t. Kude 'hapel. They started to march down said
street with shouts of anti&government invectives but were barred by
the respondent 7ayor since the chapel was located within the
compound of 7alacanang. Bue to the alleged warning that such
would be similarly prohibited in the future, they filed a petition.
HELD*
The evidence cast serious doubts upon the sincerity of the
petitioner3s claim that they were just there to hear mass. The
exercise of such rights must be in good faith. The 7ayor3s
restrictions are intended to secure the several executive offices
within 7alacanang.
,reedom of religion includes the freedom to believe and the
freedom to act. The first is absolute, but the other one is not. 6ere,
petitioners are not denied the freedom to believe but only the
manner by which they attempted to translate such belied to action.
5hen the freedom to act clashes with the institutions of society, they
must be subordinated.
CENTENO ? ?ILLAON-PORNILLOS
%2" SCRA '37
.amahang Matandaan ng Nayon ng Ti;ay launched a fund drive for
the purpose of renovating the chapel of 8arrio Ti;ay. Detitioner
approached Kudge (ngeles, a resident of Ti;ay, and solicited from
her a contribution of D0,>II.II. The solicitation was made without
a permit from the Bepartment of .ocial 5elfare and Bevelopment.
(n information was filed against petitioner for violation of DB 0>?=
or the .olicitation Dermit "aw. Detitioner filed a motion to quash the
information claiming that DB 0>?= only covered solicitations made
for charitable or public welfare purposes, but not those made for
religious purpose such as the construction of a chapel.
H(l)*
"egislators never intended to include solicitations for religious
purposes within its coverage because in other enactments
GreligiousH and GcharitableH were enumerated while DB 0>?= merely
stated Gcharitable or public welfare purposesH. There are two
aspects in this freedom/ the freedom to believe and the freedom to
act on this belief. The second can be regulated. The .tate has the
power to determine whether or not there should be restrictions on
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 5
the soliciting by unscrupulous persons or for unworthy causes or for
fraudulent purposes.
LEE ?S WEISMAN
5&5 US 577
5eisman graduated from Nathan 8ishop 7iddle .chool, a public
school in Drovidence. ,or many years, it had been the policy of the
school committee and the .uperintendent of .chools to permit
principals to invite members of the clergy to give invocations at the
middle school and high school graduations. #n 5eisman3s school,
a rabbi was invited. 6e was given a pamphlet containing guidelines
for composition of public prayers and advised him that the prayers
should be non&sectarian. The 5eisman3s objected to such a
practice and sought a permanent injunction to prevent petitioners
from inviting clergy.
H(l)*
#ncluding clergy who offered prayers as part of an official public
school graduation ceremony was forbidden by the !stablishment
'lause. The good&faith attempt to ma;e the prayers acceptable did
not resolve the dilemma of the school3s involvement1
Drayer exercises carried a particular ris; of indirect coercion. %ption
not to attend did not excuse an inducement or coercion. 6igh
school graduation was one of life3s significant occasions and a
student was not free to absent herself.
CHURCH OF LU6UMI ?S CIT> OF HIALEACH
5&4 US 5%&
Detitioners practice the .antera religion, which employed animal
sacrifice as one of its principal forms of devotion. The animals were
;illed by cutting their carotid arteries, and were cooled and eaten
following all the .antera rituals except healing and death rites.
(fter the church leased land in respondent city and announced
plans to establish a house of worship and other facilities there, the
city council held an emergency public session and passed among
others esolution A@&??, which noted residents3 concern over
religious practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety.
%rdinance F@&=I, which incorporated the ,lorida animal cruelty
laws, broadly punished GwhoeverNunnecessarily or crueltyN;illed
animals.H
H(l)*
The 'ourt held that under the ,ree !xercise 'lause, a law that
burdened religious practice need not be justified by compelling
government interest if it is neutral and of general applicability.
6owever, if such law was not neutral or not of general application, it
must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny. The ordinances3 texts
and operation demonstrate that they were not neutral but had as
their objective the suppression of the .anteria3s central element,
animal sacrifice.
LAMB@S CHAPEL ?S SCHOOL DISTRICT
5&4 US 245
New 9or; law authori*ed local school boards to adopt reasonable
regulations permitting the after&hours use of school property for 0I
specified purposes, not including meetings for religious purposes.
espondent school board )Bistrict+ issued rules and regulations
allowing social, civic, and recreational uses of its schools, but
prohibiting use by any group for religious&oriented film series on
family values and childrearing on the ground that it was church&
related. The church filed this suit.
H(l)*
There was no question that the Bistrict may legally preserve the
property under its control. (ccess to a nonpublic forum can be
based on subject matter or spea;er identity so long as the
distinctions drawn were reasonable and neutral. .ince the film
series would not have been shown during school hours, nor that it
be sponsored by the school, or open to the public, there would be
no realistic danger that the community would thin; that the Bistrict
was endorsing any religion.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER