Kurt Ervin K.

Cajilla

Legal Research

LLB-1

Religious Freedom
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to
manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance without government influence or intervention.
It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief.

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamental human right.[2][3] In a
country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious
practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths. Freedom of belief is
different. It allows the right to believe what a person, group or religion wishes, but it does not necessarily allow the right
to practice the religion or belief openly and outwardly in a public manner.

History

Historically, freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while
freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Nevertheless, freedom from religion is a far more
pressing moralistic, legal, and peaceful solution. Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries
have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has also often been limited in practice through punitive taxation,
repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the
Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally "protected individuals" professing an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion.

In Antiquity, a syncretic point of view often allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs. When
street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was generally perceived to be an
infringement of community rights.

Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious
freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder.[4][5]

Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of
power: Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. Others have been where the established order has felt
threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 399 BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, and refusal to
offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance. This was the core for resentment and the
persecution of early Christian communities.

Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the
3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.

Greek-Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 73 AD and 117 AD and in Alexandria in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities
as scenes of tumult.
Religious Freedom in the Philippines
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II,
Section 6), and, 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. (Article III, Section 5).....

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, ruling in 2003[1] and 2006[2] in the landmark case of Estrada vs. Escritor,
established the doctrine of benevolent neutrality-accommodation. The 2006 ruling, penned by former Chief Justice
Puno, explained benevolent-neutrality in the context of U.S. jurisprudence as follows:

Under the benevolent-neutrality theory, the principle underlying the First Amendment is that freedom to carry out one’s
duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not one dependent on the grace of legislature. Religious freedom is
seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation. With religion looked upon with
benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances.[2]

The ruling went on to cite a U.S. Supreme Court decision which had held that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is
merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been
offended.[3] Though concurring in the decision, Justice O'Connor dissented strongly from the rationale, arguing that a
compelling state interest test should have been applied.[4]

Echoing Justice O'Connor's point from the U.S. case, the ruling in Estrada vs. Escritor went on to quote her as having said
that strict scrutiny is appropriate for free exercise challenges because “[t]he compelling interest test reflects the First
Amendment’s mandate of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.[2]

The ruling then declared Underlying the compelling state interest test is the notion that free exercise is a fundamental
right and that laws burdening it should be subject to strict scrutiny, and summarized a three-part compelling state
interest test by quoting Michael W. McConnell as follows:

If the plaintiff can show that a law or government practice inhibits the free exercise of his religious beliefs, the burden
shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law or practice is necessary to the accomplishment of some important
(or ‘compelling’) secular objective and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving that objective. If the plaintiff
meets this burden and the government does not, the plaintiff is entitled to exemption from the law or practice at issue.
In order to be protected, the claimant’s beliefs must be ‘sincere’, but they need not necessarily be consistent, coherent,
clearly articulated, or congruent with those of the claimant’s religious denomination. ‘Only beliefs rooted in religion are
protected by the Free Exercise Clause’; secular beliefs, however sincere and conscientious, do not suffice.[5]

The ruling noted that the then-current prevailing view under U.S. law is that there are no required accommodation under
the First Amendment, although it permits of legislative accommodations. Considering Philippine jurisprudence, though,
the ruling said:
By juxtaposing the American Constitution and jurisprudence against that of the Philippines, it is immediately clear that
one cannot simply conclude that we have adopted—lock, stock and barrel—the religion clauses as embodied in the First
Amendment, and therefore, the U.S. Court’s interpretation of the same. Unlike in the U.S. where legislative exemptions
of religion had to be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constituting permissive accommodations, similar exemptions
for religion are mandatory accommodations under our own constitutions.[2]

These landmark decisions in Estrada vs. Escritor established that benevolent neutrality-accommodation is the framework
by which free exercise cases must be decided in the Philippines. This amounts to a requirement that any law which
conflicts with a violator's sincerely held religious beliefs must pass a strict scrutiny test in order to be enforceable.

History

By passing through the numerous phases of colonial occupation, the relationship between religion and government in
the Philippines has repeatedly changed. The country had close ties between Roman Catholic Church and the government
during the Spanish colonial period from 1565 to 1898. The American concept of separation of church and state was
introduced during the American colonial period in the Philippine Constitution of 1899 and remains a part of the
Philippine constitution today.

Beginning with the Christianization of most of the Philippines in the 16th century, political power was shared by the
Roman Catholic Church and the Spanish civil authorities. Horacio de la Costa, a Filipino Jesuit historian, mentions that the
rules governing the cooperation of the two entities was set in the “Patronato Real de las Indias”, a combination of law
and jurisprudence that governed the delicate relationship of the Holy See and the Spanish monarchy regarding colonial
affairs. In the agreements, the Roman Catholic clergy gave the Spanish monarchy the responsibility of promoting,
maintaining, and defending the Roman Catholic religion in... all Spanish dominions overseas[6] (1). In return, the Spanish
were permitted to exercise numerous rights to autonomously govern the colonial Roman Catholic Church virtually
independent of Roman jurisdiction.[7] On the other hand, Teodoro Agoncillo, a Filipino historian from the University of
the Philippines, mentions that the collaboration enabled the Spanish to readily subjugate the Indios (natives of the
Philippines) by a potent combination of secular and religious might.[8] The successful Legazpi conquest of the Philippines
in 1565 recognized the power of clergy by bringing along Augustinian friar, navigator and priest Andrés de Urdaneta, to
help control the natives.[9] Other Spanish rulers acknowledged the importance of clergy. A Mexican viceroy (quoted in
Agoncillo) said that in each friar in the Philippines, they had a captain and a whole army.[10] However, Church
involvement had numerous ill effects, as antifriar Marcelo H. del Pilar of the late 19th century complains: ... the friars
control all the fundamental forces of society in the Philippines. They control the educational system, for they own the
University of Santo Tomás, and are the local inspectors of every primary school. They control the minds of the people
because in a dominantly Catholic country, the parish rectors can utilize the pulpit and confessionals to publicly or secretly
influence the people.[11]

In-fighting continued and reached its peak when the Gomburza, a triad of priests composed of Mariano Gómez, José
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, were executed by civil authorities in 1872[12] after being implicated in the failed Cavite
Mutiny in that same year. Popular discontent ensued, leading to the Philippine Revolution some twenty years later. The
Spanish were unable to cope with multiple uprisings since their limited military was overextended. Bereft of the civil
protection, clerics were at their most vulnerable. Rather than accept change, numerous friars handled the Mausers and
Remingtons when the tide of battle was going against the colonial government.[13] As the status quo was being
changed, the ties between Church and State began to fall apart.
Filipino nationalists in 1898 framed a constitution for an independent Philippine republic. There were heated discussions
on the provision on state and religion.[14] Felipe Calderón presented his draft proposal calling for Roman Catholicism to
be made a state religion. According to Jesuit historian John Schumacher, Calderón then attacked the position of
Apolinario Mabini who insisted on the separation of church and state.[15][16] The Calderón proposal, however, was
defeated by a single vote, and the provision was finally passed. The constitution of 1899 states in Article 5:

The State recognizes the freedom and equality of all religions, as well as the separation of Church and State.[17]

Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States in 1898. By the end of February, 1902, American forces had defeated the
Philippine forces seeking to establish an independent Philippine republic. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 provided,
among other things, "That no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed." [18]

Schumacher cites that William Howard Taft, the head of the Second Philippine Commission and the first civil governor of
the Philippine Islands, was very much aware of the need to defuse anti-friar feeling throughout the islands. He requested
the Spanish friars be given leave of their parish posts. Many of the friars left voluntarily, and were replaced by native
Filipino priests in lower ranks and American bishops in the ranks of the episcopacy. Negotiations also began for the
compulsory sale of vast Roman Catholic Church holdings. Although the sale was affected by pressure from influential
sectors like some bishops and certain delegates, it achieved Taft’s goal of sequestering all the Roman Catholic Church
lands, something that the ill-fated Philippine Republic had failed to achieve. After taking the land, the governor intended
to redistribute the land.[15][19] This not only reduced the financial position of the Roman Catholic Church, but also
diminished the influential clout it had during the Spanish colonial period.

American jurisprudence reintroduced separation of church and state relying on the First Amendment and the metaphor
of Thomas Jefferson on the wall of separation... between church and state[20] (10), but the Philippine experience has
shown that this theoretical wall of separation has been crossed several times by secular authorities. Schumacher states
that in 1906, the Philippine Supreme Court intervened in the issue of parish ownership by returning assets seized by the
Philippine Independent Church, while certain charitable organizations managed or influenced by the Roman Catholic
Church were either returned or sequestered.

The provision of the 1935 charter on religion mimicked the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but the
sentences

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be
forever allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights were appended and this
section became the basis for the non-establishment of religion and freedom of religion in the Philippines.[21]

With the guarantee of religious freedom in the Philippines, the Roman Catholic Church clergy subsequently remained in
the political background as a source of moral influence for many voters during elections until today. Political candidates
generally court the clergy for support, although this does not guarantee victory for a candidate. The Philippines was
placed under martial law by dictator Ferdinand Marcos and relations changed dramatically, as some bishops opposed the
martial law.[22]

A new constitution was ratified in 1973 which included the separation of church and state clause, signaling a new
development in the body of law on religious affairs.[23] Joaquin Bernas, a Filipino Jesuit specializing in constitutional law,
acknowledges that there were complex issues that were brought to court and numerous attempts to use the separation
of Church and State against the Roman Catholic Church, but he defends the statement, saying that the fact that he
[Marcos] tried to do it does not deny the validity of the separation of church and state.[24]

The Roman Catholic Church was instrumental in winning support for Corazon Aquino who replaced Marcos as president
with Cardinal Sin calling for support. Aquino then initiated a new constitutional commission to frame a new charter again
for the country. It is noted that Roman Catholic religious and clergy like Christine Tan, R.G.S., a nun, Joaquin Bernas, S.J.,
and Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani became part of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and left their mark on the
promulgation of the charter and its numerous provisions on the Church and state.[25]
Religious Freedom: Cases in the
Philippines
GREGORIO AGLIPAY, petitioner, vs. JUAN RUIZ, respondent

G.R. No. 45459. March 13, 1937

FACTS:

Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts from issuing

and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner

contends that such act is a violation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public funds shall be

appropriated or used in the benefit of any church, system of religion, etc. This provision is a result of the

principle of the separation of church and state, for the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will

use the church, or vice versa, as a weapon to further their ends and aims. Respondent contends that such

issuance is in accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the

production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion.

HELD:

The phrase in Act No. 4052 “advantageous to the government” does not authorize violation of the

Constitution. The issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or

religious denomination. They were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. The postage stamps,

instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location

of Manila, with the words “Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress.” The focus of the stamps was not

the Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila, being the seat of that congress. This was to “to advertise the

Philippines and attract more tourists,” the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of

international importance. Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic
Church, any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was not the aim or purpose of the

Government.
 AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CITY OF MANILA, defendant-appellee.

G.R. No. L-9637. April 30, 1957.

FACTS:

In the course of its ministry, American Bible Society’s Philippine agency has been distributing and

selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (since 1898, but except during the Japanese occupation)

throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects. On 29 May 1953, the

acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed the Society that it was conducting the business of general

merchandise since November1945, without providing itself with the necessary Mayor’s permit and municipal

license, in violation of Ordinance 3000, as amended, and Ordinances 2529, 3028 and 3364, and required the

Society to secure, within 3 days, the corresponding permit and license fees, together with compromise

covering the period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2ndquarter of 1953, in the total sum of P5,821.45. On

24 October 1953, the Society paid to the City Treasurer under protest the said permit and license fees, giving

at the same time notice to the City Treasurer that suit would be taken in court to question the legality of the

ordinances under which the said fees were being collected, which was done on the same date by filing the

complaint that gave rise to this action. After hearing, the lower court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not said Ordinances are constitutional and valid.

HELD:

Plaintiff is engaged in the distribution and sales of bibles and religious articles. The City Treasurer of

Manila informed the plaintiff that it was conducting the business of general merchandise without providing itself

with the necessary Mayor's permit and municipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and

Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, and required plaintiff to secure the corresponding permit and license.

Plaintiff protested against this requirement and claimed that it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles.

Held: It is true the price asked for the religious articles was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual

cost of the same, but this cannot mean that plaintiff was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said
"merchandise" for profit. For this reasons, the provisions of City Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, which

requires the payment of license fee for conducting the business of general merchandise, cannot be applied to

plaintiff society, for in doing so, it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and

worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. Upon the other hand, City Ordinance No.

3000, as amended, which requires the obtention of the Mayor’s permit before any person can engage in any of

the businesses, trades or occupations enumerated therein, does not impose any charge upon the enjoyment of

a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices? Hence, it cannot be considered

unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society. But as Ordinance No. 2529 is not applicable to plaintiff and

the City of Manila is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff society involved herein, for the reasons

above stated, Ordinance No. 3000 is also inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff.
 SABINA BASA, BONIFACIO BASA, BONIFACIO CABALHIN and PRIMlTIVO GALLARDO, plaintiffs-

appellees, vs. FEDERACION OBRERA DE LA INDUSTRIA TABAQUERA Y OTROS TRABAJADORES DE

FILIPINAS (FOITAF) and LA DICHA LA PAZ Y BUEN VIAJE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY,

defendants. FEDERACION OBRERA DE LA INDUSTRIA TABAQUERA Y OTROS TRABAJADORES DE

FILIPINAS (FOITAF),

defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. L-27113. November 19, 1974.

FACTS:

The plaintiffs-appellees Sabina Basa, Bonifacio Basa, Bonifacio Cabalhin and Primitivo Gallardo, who

are members of "Iglesia ni Cristo", have been employed with the defendant company, La Dicha La Paz y Buen

Viaje Cigar and Cigarette Factory, since 1949, 1952, 1960 and 1957, respectively, and were therefore

employees of that company on April 21, 1961, when the collective bargaining contract between the company

and the defendant union, Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas

(FOITAF) was executed.

The plaintiffs-appellees were members in good standing of the labor union until August 28, 1964, when

they formally resigned from the Union invoking their constitutional right to freedom of religion, the free exercise

of which exempts them from being compelled to join any labor organization, when such is contrary to their

religious beliefs and convictions, as provided by Republic Act No. 3350, which became a law on June 18,

1961.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Republic Act No. 3350 is violative of the fundamental charter, as it infringes on the

constitutional bar against a law respecting an establishment of religion or a religious test for the exercise of civil

and political rights.

HELD:
 Republic Act No. 3350 classifies employees and workers, as to the effect and coverage of union shop

security agreements, into those who by reason of their religious beliefs and convictions cannot sign up with a

labor union, and those whose religion does not prohibit membership in labor unions. The classification rests on

real or substantial, not merely imaginary or whimsical, distinctions. There is such real distinction in the beliefs,

feelings and sentiments of employees. Employees do not believe in the same religious faith and different

religions differ in their dogmas and canons. Religious beliefs, manifestations and practices, though they are

found in all places, and in all times, take so many varied forms as to be almost beyond imagination. There are

many views that comprise the broad spectrum of religious beliefs among the people. There are diverse

manners in which beliefs, equally paramount in the lives of their possessors, may be articulated. Today the

country is far more heterogenous in religion than before, differences in religion do exist, and these differences

are important and should not be ignored. Republic Act No. 3350 exempts them from joining any labor

organization, when such is contrary to their religious beliefs and convictions.