Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
10) FONACIER VS. COURT OF APPEALS [96 PHIL 417; G.R. L-5917;
28 JAN 1955]
1 2 ) M A R S H v. A L A B A M A
Facts of the Case
Grace Marsh, a Jehovah's Witness, attempted to distribute religious
literature on the sidewalk near a post office in Chickasaw, Alabama. The
town of Chickasaw is owned and run by the Gulf Shipbuilding
Corporation and is not a public municipality. Despite this, the town
exhibits most of the same characteristics as any other town. After being
informed that she was on private property and told to stop distribution
of her religious material, Marsh refused. She was arrested, tried, and
convicted of trepass.
Question
Did Alabama violate Marsh's rights under the First and Fourteenth
amendments by refusing to allow her to distribute religious material in
the privately owned town of Chickasaw?
Conclusion
Yes. In an opinion by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court found, 5 to 3, that
there was no significant difference between the relationship between
Chickasaw and private citizens and the relationship between any other
town and its citizens. As such, it employed a balancing test, weighing
With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, the Court do not find
that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the
Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices.
It seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered
unconstitutional, however inapplicable to said business, trade or
occupation of the plaintiff. As to Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of
Manila, as amended, is also not applicable, so defendant is powerless to
license or tax the business of plaintiff Society.
WHEREFORE, defendant shall return to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45
unduly collected from it.
FACTS:
1. Petitioners belong to the Jehovas Witness whose children were
expelled from their schools when they refused to salute, sing the
anthem, recite the pledge during the conduct of flag ceremony. DO No. 8
issued by DECS pursuant to RA 1265 which called for the manner of
conduct during a flag ceremony. The petitioners wrote the Secretary of
Education on their plight and requested to reinstate their children. This
was denied.
3. The lower court (RTC) declared DO 8 invalid and contrary to the Bill of
Rights.
2. All the petitioners in these two cases were expelled from their classes
by the public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag,
sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by
RA 1265 of July 11, 1955, and by DO No. 8 of the DECS making the flag
ceremony compulsory in all educational institutions
6. The students and their parents filed these special civil actions
for Mandamus,Certiorari and Prohibition alleging that the public
respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with
grave abuse of discretion (1) in ordering their expulsion without prior
notice and hearing, hence, in violation of their right to due process, their
right to free public education, and their right to freedom of speech,
religion and worship
NO. The court upheld the petitioners' right under the Constitution to
refuse to salute the Philippine flag on account of their religious beliefs.
Religious freedom as a fundamental right deserving the "highest priority
and amplest protection among human rights. It reversed the expulsion
orders made by the public respondents therein as violative of both the
free exercise of religion clause and the right of citizens to education
under the 1987 Constitution.
entering the church because the same is within the vicinity of the
Malacanang. And considering that Germans group is expressively
known as the August Twenty One Movement who were wearing yellow
shirts with clench fists, Barangan deemed that they were not really
there to worship but rather they are there to disrupt the ongoings within
the Malacanang.
18) IN RE SUMMERS
19) PEOPLE V ZOSA
20) PAMIL VS TELERON
Political Law Inviolability of the Separation of Church and State
In 1971, Fr. Margarito Gonzaga, a priest, won the election for mayoralty
in Albuquerque, Bohol. He was also proclaimed as a mayor therein.
Pamil, a rival candidate file a quo warranto case against Gonzaga
questioning the eligibility of Gonzaga. He argued that as provided for in
the Revised Administrative Code; in no case shall there be elected or
appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service,
persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national
funds, or contractors for public works of the municipality. In this case,
the elected mayor is a priest. However, Judge Teleron ruled that the
Administrative Code is repealed by the Election Code of 1971 which
allowed the prohibitions of the revised administrative code.