Does the police power of the state include the power to promote religious solidarity?

The apparent goal of the Statute is to promote solidarity among all religions and to this end, the
State shall institute measures and incentives to bring people of different faiths together so that
they can understand each other better and pursue dialogue instead of conflict. These goals, by
themselves, may fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of
these ends does not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. The end does not justify
the means, as they say. Those means must align with the Constitution, as well as with our
emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people.
The Bill of Rights stands as a guarantee that there are certain areas of a persons life, liberty, and
property which governmental power may not touch. Otherwise, when the Government powers
appear unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The inherent powers of the Government such as the
power of taxation, power of eminent domain and the police power are limited by the Bill of
Rights
The police power of the State has been characterized as the most essential, insistent and the
least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. More so, it has been
defined as that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is
hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of the society. The police power rests upon public
necessity and upon the right of the State and of the public to self-protection. For this reason, its
scope expands and contracts with the changing needs.
The specific coverage that the police power of the State addresses is public health, public
morals, public safety, and public welfare. In the enforcement of police power, this can be limited
by reasonability. The Court looks at the test of reasonability to decide whether it encroaches
on the right of an individual. So long as legitimate means can reasonably lead to create that end,
it is reasonable.
As in the present case, the promotion of religious solidarity is not included in the contemplation
of the police power of the State. Religious solidarity does not fall within the specific coverage
(e.g. public health, public safety, public morals and public welfare), hence shall not be covered
by the States police power.
The freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights states that: No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise 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 or political rights.
[Art. III, Sec. 5]
Promoting religious solidarity as contemplated in the Bill of Rights is not in the particular
manifestation of police power. Providing safeguards towards religious solidarity under the
guise of police power impedes ones freedom to religion which consequently leads to an invalid
exercise of police power.
The elements to test whether there is a valid exercise of police power consist of a lawful subject,
lawful means and least restrictions of individual rights.
Lawful subject means that the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the general
welfare. Following the reaction to the all-out war waged first against the BIFF and then the MILF

after the BBL law was not enacted, the Philippine military is bogged down as unable to
effectively discharge its function to defend the national territory. Upset with the ignited all-out
war, the Congress and the elected President enacted a law under a peace platform. It is an Act
encouraging religious solidarity, providing incentives thereof, amending Articles 132 and 133 of
the Revised Penal Code, creating the Religious Solidarity Commission , and for other purposes
or the Republic Act No. XBYZ. The apparent goal of the said law is the curtailment of violence
through hate speech in traditional and social media which started after the Mamasapano
tragedy had sensationalized and abetted bigotry against the Muslims. Because of being a matter
of public interest, it may be conceded that the primary animus of the said law may have passed
its first test it has lawful subject.
But, does the law meets the second requisite or test which is lawful method?
Lawful means are those employed that must be reasonable and must conform to the safeguards
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In the subjected law, the lawful subject of promoting religious
solidarity is attained by means of instituting measures and incentives to bring people of
different faiths together so that they can understand each other better and pursue dialogue
instead of conflict. Particularly, this is done by providing funds and support in joint religious
celebrations especially in government functions. Also, as provided by said law, all government
programs, including all court proceedings, must always begin with an ecumenical prayer
representing the Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim religions.
The lawful means afforded by the law are unconstitutional. Firstly, instituting measures and
incentives to bring people of different faiths together is violative to the non-establishment
clause as accorded in one of the two principal parts of Section 5 in the Bill of Rights. It is
contrary to the purpose of the non-establishment clause which is expressed through
voluntarism and insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension. Voluntarism as a
value is both personal and social. As a personal value, it is nothing more than the inviolability of
the human conscience which is protected by the free exercise clause. As a social value, protected
by the non-establishment clause, it means that the growth of a religious sect as social force must
come from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief that both spiritual and
secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit
without benefit of official patronage. Instituting measures and incentives to bring people of
different faiths together is directly or indirectly tantamount to compelling them to gather
together. This signifies lack of volunteerism on getting them to pursue a dialogue. In such a case,
their consent in getting them to agree in the engagement may be vitiated through undue
influence on the part of the commission in charged to facilitate such talk.
Secondly, providing funds and support in joint religious celebrations expresses a violation of the
non-establishment principle contemplated not only in the Bill of Rights, but also in Article VI,
Section 29 (2) saying: No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or
other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage
or leprosarium. Also, Article II, Section 6 says: The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable. The Board of Education v. Emerson (1946) interpreted the clause as: Neither a
State nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one

religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another Neither can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of
Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a
wall of separation between the Church and the State.
Starting all government programs, and even in court proceedings, with an ecumenical prayer
representing the Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim religions likewise violates the establishment
clause of Section 5 of the Bill of Rights. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that
nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment (Freedom to Religion). Similarly, allowing any governmental function with a prayer
shall mean government interference with religion. Since Filipinos adhere to a wide variety of
beliefs, it is not appropriate for the government to endorse any particular belief system (i.e.
Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim religions). The majority noted that wars, persecutions, and
other destructive measures often arose in the past when the government involved itself in
religious affairs.
Least restrictions of individual rights shall mean that it is evident that no other alternative for
the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private works can work. The behavior
which the Law seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished
simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as [xxxx]. So would the strict
enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing[xxxx]. These measures would have
minimal intrusion on the businesses of the [xxx]. Further, it is apparent that the Ordinance can
easily be circumvented by [xxx]. Moreover, [xxx]