HUM RI JULY 28, 2017 LECTURE
SEC. 5 FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5: 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. Principal parts of Section 5:
1. The non-establishment clause—prohibits the establishment of
any religion
2. The free exercise clause—guarantees the free exercise of
religion
There are two parts under this section:
1 NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
2 FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
Rationale: in man’s relationship with his idea of the supreme
being, is something that the State is not supposedly allowed to
intervene with. Why? Because that is a pure matter of the mind.
Pure act of the mind in the sense that neither of us are not
competent to deal with. Like matters of thought, conscience
about that is undebatable.
The belief of one being is a matter of man’s own business. In any
case, it is hardly possible for a worldly reinstitution that the
government will support a religion because of that. Religion,
remember that us a matter of faith nd belief. Not of scientific fact
interpretation. That’s why we are incompetent to judge someone
kung naa silay relihiyon. And getting into the act of religious
matters would hardly be benefiial to anyone. What would the
state derive if naa sily any favour na religion, to the detriment of
other religion?
Lessons from the past where government is dominated by
religion, proved to be a disaster. Spanish time, who dominated
the Spanish govt? catholic church, state policies. Why? Because
the church saw that every actiin by the state must conform to the
belief of religion.
Daghan polisiya na wala na implement because it violated
religion, maski beneficial kayo para sa citizens. That’s why the
constitution put there in no estavlishment of religion, beause
that is a matter of ones belief, which cannot be proved by
scientific fact or interpretation.
But despite the insulation of religion from poitics, still the
constitution gives us the freedom of religion. Which grants is to
believe without any interference form the State.
The right ot act or translate that belief into action, however, may
be subject to certain regulation. Althoyg we have a freedom to
believe, that’s lright because that is section 5, but once you put
tht freedom into action, or freedom to believe and out into action
which causes injury to another person, that is proscribed by law.
“Religion is like a penis. It is okay to have one and be proud of it.
But once you stick that out in public and wave it in everyone’s
faces , that’s the time you can have problems. That si religion”
Besides Section 5, the first statement is about non establishment.
It is not only section 5 which prohibits non-establishment clause.
There are other provisions:
1. Art. II, section 6,
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable
Inviolable, means church and state must be delieanated.
2. Art VI, Section 29 pr. 2
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, 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
3. Art IX-C, Section 2 paragraph 5
Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to
this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
government shall likewise be refused registration.
- Prohibition of religious sect from registering as political
parties. There is no political party which is dominated by
church.
Purpose of the non-establishment clause
It protects 2 values, which are, voluntarism and insulation of the
political process from interfaith dissension. Why? The cause
against establishment of religion by law, was intended to erect a
wall between separation of church and state.
Meaning of the non-establishment clause
The State cannot
a. set up a church
b. pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
religion over the other
c. openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious
organizations or groups and vice versa
While there is a prohibition as to non-establishment clause,
there’s a certain instance where it will not prohibit all
government aid that might redound to a particular religion.
There are certain instances where state allows a particular
gathering, which basically or collaterally promotes religion. But
before that is allowable, it must pass a certain test.
THE LEMON TEST. (Lemon vs Birchman)
If the following requisites are confirmed, then it allows such
practice:
1 it must have a secular legislative purpose
2 it must primary, effect of which, neither advances nor inhibits
religion.
3 it must not require excessive entanglement with recipient
institutions.
That means, collateral lang na maka benefit ang particular sect or
religion.
Cases:
Manosca vs. CA
FACTS:
In this petition for review on certiorari, the Court is asked to
resolve whether or not the “public use” requirement of
Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation by
the Republic of a 492 -square-meter parcel of land so declared
by the National Historical Institute (“NHI”) as a national
historical landmark. Petitioners inherited a 492 sq.m. land
located at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig, Metro Manila.
When the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have been the
birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it
passed Resolution No. 1, Series of 1986, pursuant to Section 4
of Presidential Decree No. 260, declaring the land to be a
national historical landmark. It was approved by the Minister
of Education, Culture and Sports, while the Secretary of
Justice, in his opinion on the legality of the measure, said in
part that “the birth site of the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo,
the late Felix Y. Manalo, who, admittedly, had made
contributions to Philippine history and culture has been
 declared as a national landmark. It has been held that places
invested with unusual historical interest is a public use for
which the power of eminent domain may be authorized
x x x. it is believed that the NHI… may initiate the institution of
condemnation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring the
lot in question in accordance with the procedure provided for
in Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court.”
In May 1989, the Republic, through the OSG, instituted a
complaint for expropriation before RTC Pasig for and in behalf
of the NHI. At the same time, it filed an urgent motion for the
issuance of an order to permit it to take immediate possession
of the property. The motion was opposed by petitioners. The
trial court ruled in favor of the Republic. Petitioners moved to
dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intended
expropriation was not for a public purpose and, incidentally,
that the act would constitute an application of public funds,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia
ni Cristo, a religious entity ,contrary to the provision of Section
29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution. Motion was
dismissed. Petitioners then lodged a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the expropriation of the land in the case at bar
is for public use.
HELD:
YES. Petitioners ask about the so-called unusual interest that
the expropriation of (Felix Manalo’s) birthplace become so
vital as to be a public use appropriate for the exercise of the
power of eminent domain” when only members of the Iglesia
ni Cristo would benefit. This attempt to give some religious
perspective to the case deserves little consideration, for what
should be significant is the principal objective of, not the
casual consequences that might follow from, the exercise of
the power. The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially
to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix
Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to
commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni
Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may be
derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most
others could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still
remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature.
Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the
expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the
essence and character of public use. All considered, the Court
finds the assailed decision to be in accord with law and
jurisprudence. The petition is DENIED
the birthplace of Felix Y. Manalo. The founder of INC, was
expropriated by the government. Now, there are oppositors re.
expropriation. They contend that they are establishing religion.
Also, it will dessicrate the beloved place of felix Manalo, as said
by the congregation.
Rule: it did not establish religion. Because expropriation of the
birthplace of Manalo is sought for public use. It neither advances
nor inhibits a religion. For public, historical purpose, it cemented
the legacy made by felix Manalo. As a matter of fact, this
birthplace can be visited by anybody., not just the INC. the
government maintains the place.
Garces vs Estenzo
FACTS:
The case is about the constitutionality of four resolutions of
the barangay council of Valencia, Ormoc City, regarding the
acquisition of the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be
used in the celebration of his annual feast day. That issue was
spawned by the controversy as to whether the parish priest or
a layman should have the custody of the image. On March 23,
1976, the said barangay council adopted Resolution No. 5,
“reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration” every fifth
day of April “of the feast day of Señor San Vicente Ferrer, the
patron saint of Valencia”
ISSUE:
Is the holding of fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio,
valid and constitutional
RULING:
Yes. The wooden image was purchased in connection with the
celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, San
Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion
nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of
the barrio residents. One of the highlights of the fiesta was the
mass. Consequently, the image of the patron saint had to be
placed in the church when the mass was celebrated.
If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta
and having a patron saint for the barrio, then any activity
intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as
the acquisition and display of his image) cannot be branded as
illegal. As noted in the first resolution, the barrio fiesta is a
socio-religious affair. Its celebration is an ingrained tradition in
rural communities. The fiesta relieves the monotony and
drudgery of the lives of the masses.
Not every governmental activity which involves the
expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint
is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding
separation of church and state, freedom of worship and
banning the use of public money or property.
In Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201, what was involved was Act No.
4052 which appropriated sixty thousand pesos for the cost of
plates and the printing of postage stamps with new designs.
Under the law, the Director of Posts, with the approval of the
Department Head and the President of the Philippines, issued
in 1936 postage stamps to commemorate the celebration in
Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress
sponsored by the Catholic Church.
The purpose of the stamps was to raise revenue and advertise
the Philippines. The design of the stamps showed a map of the
Philippines and nothing about the Catholic Church. No
religious purpose was intended.
Monsignor Gregorio Aglipay, the founder and head of the
Philippine Independent Church, sought to enjoin the sale of
those commemorative postage stamps.
It was held that the issuance of the stamps, while linked
inseparably with an event of a religious character, was not
designed as a propaganda for the Catholic Church. Aglipay’s
prohibition suit was dismissed.
The instant case is easily distinguishable from Verzosa vs.
Fernandez, 49 Phil., 627 and 55 Phil. 307, where a religious
brotherhood, La Archicofradia del Santisimo Sacramento,
organized for the purpose of raising funds to meet the
expenses for the annual fiesta in honor of the Most Holy
 Sacrament and the Virgin Lady of Guadalupe, was held
accountable for the funds which it held as trustee.
The brgy council, through solicitations by the residents, purchase
a statue of st. vicente ferrer. And placed it under the care of
Hermana mayor. On the occasion of the fiesta, the statue was left
to the church. the church refused to take care of the statue. The
brgy council issued a resolution, calling for the return of the
statue.
(Both made by LGUs. Ordinance is a law. A resolution is made by
the council, calling for the legislative to do something)
The church, countered that it violated the non0establishment
clause. Also, it likewise violated the prohibition te use of money
for religious purposes.
Ruled: No violation. Considering that the image was purchased
with, private funds, not necessarily the funds of the brgy. Why?
The solicitations, being handed by the brgy. And this solicitation,
received by them, they used it for the purchase of the statute. So,
the allegation that there is a prohibition against the use of money
for religious purposes was not met. It si not taxpayer’s money. It
is private funds. Donation.
The wooden image was purchased in connection with the fiesta
in the barrio, honouring the patron saint, and in that ordeal
religion. Diba naa man tai mga fiesta ana, there’s no religion
there. That is a customary practice.. lingaw2. No establishment
of religion there. It could have been different if the brgy
celebrated a fiesta, kanag catholic. Tapos naa ang santo papa..
kana, establishment of religion nan a.
Austria vs NLRC
KTA: Relationship of the church as an employer and the
minister as an employee is purely secular in nature because it
has no relation with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines
of the church, such affairs are governed by labor laws.
The Labor Code applies to all establishments, whether
religious or not.
Facts:
The Seventh Day Adventists(SDA) is a religious corporation
under Philippine law. The petitioner was a pastor of the SDA
for 28 years from 1963 until 1991, when his services were
terminated.
On various occasions from August to October 1991, Austria
received several communications form Ibesate, the treasurer
of the Negros Mission, asking him to admit accountability and
responsibility for the church tithes and offerings collected by
his wife, Thelma Austria, in his district and to remit the same
to the Negros Mission.
The petitioner answered saying that he should not be made
accountable since it was Pastor Buhat and Ibesate who
authorized his wife to collect the tithes and offerings since he
was very ill to be able to do the collecting.
A fact-finding committee was created
to investigate. The petitioner received a letter of dismissal
citing:
1) Misappropriation of denominational funds;
2) Willful breach of trust;
3) Serious misconduct;
4) Gross and habitual neglect of duties; and
5) Commission of an offense against the person of
employer's
duly authorized representative as grounds for the termination
of his services.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for illegal
dismissal, and sued the SDA for reinstatement and backwages
plus damages. Decision was rendered in favor of petitioner.
SDA appealed to the NLRC. Decision was rendered in favor of
respondent.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the termination of the services of the
petitioner is an ecclesiastical affair, and, as such, involves the
separation of church and state.
2. Whether or not the Labor Arbiter/NLRC has jurisdiction to
try and decide the complaint filed by petitioner against the
SDA.
Held/Ratio:
1. No. The matter at hand relates to the church and its
religious ministers but what is involved here is the relationship
of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee,
which is purely secular because it has no relationship with the
practice of faith, worship or doctrines. The grounds invoked
for petitioner’s dismissal are all based on Art. 282 of Labor
Code.
2. Yes. SDA was exercising its management prerogative (not
religious prerogative) to fire an employee which it believes is
unfit for the job. It would have been a different case if Austria
was expelled or excommunicated from the SDA.
Pastor Austria. Naa siyay gina gunitan na kwarta, sa church niya.
Siya ang accountant. The church found out that wala niya na
properly acct tanan kwarta na iyang na gunitan. Kana gung mga
abuloy. What did the congregation do?nag file sila, g dismiss nila
si pastor Austria.
Pastor Austria filed a illegal dismissal before NLRC. He argued that
NLRC has no personality, why, this is a church. it is an
ecclesiastical affair.
Rule: The filing of the case against pastor Austria before NLRC is
not an ecclesiastical affair.
Ecclesiatical affair is one that concerns doctrine and form of
worship of the church, for adoption and enforcement within
religious association and congregations.
The act of pastor Austria, misappropriating money, an
ecclesiastical affair? No. the church is concerned about our faith,
not money. It si purely incidental.their relationship is, employer-
employee relationship. That’s why allowed ang pag tanggal sa
iyaha. Because his function as a money caretaker, has no
relation with faith, practice, or doctrines with the church.
Long vs Basa
Facts: a church member was expelled, then the expelled member
questioned it, before the courts of law. Ang file siag certiorari,
grvae abuse of dicretion on the part of the church because it is a
tribunal.
Rule: you cannot question it. The decision of the church tribunal
is already conclusive. The courts of law will not inquire into the
correctness of the said tribunals. That is a matter of faith worship,
or church doctrine.
Adopted in: Taruc vs Bishop
Facts:
Petitioners were lay members of the Philippine
Independent Church (PIC). On June 28, 1993, Bishop
de la Cruz declared petitioners
expelled/excommunicated from the Philippine
Independent Church. Because of the order of
expulsion/excommunication, petitioners filed a
complaint for damages with preliminary injunction
against Bishop de la Cruz before the Regional Trial
 Court.They contended that their expulsion was illegal
because it was done without trial thus violating their
right to due process of law.
Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of religious
rights in this case?
Held:
No. The expulsion/excommunication of members of a
religious institution/organization is a matter best left to
the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons,
of said institution/organization. It is not for the courts
to exercise control over church authorities in the
performance of their discretionary and official
functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious
institutions/organizations to conform to just church
regulations. “Civil Courts will not interfere in the
internal affairs of a religious organization except for
the protection of civil or property rights. Those rights
may be the subject of litigation in a civil court, and the
courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted
claims to the title, use, or possession of church
property.” Obviously, there was no violation of a civil
right in the present case.
What other matters that the courts will not inquire?
-Matter of faith
-Religious doctrines
-Forms of worship
-church law and customs
Ecclesiastical affair
One that concerns doctrine, creed or form or worship of
the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a
religious association of needful laws and regulations for the
government of the membership, and the power of
excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy
of membership
Certain exceptions: besides, lemon test.
 Art VI, Sec. 29 pr. 2 (assigned to armed forces, penal
institution…)
Kaning mga churches, naa silay gina dawat na kwarta, but not for
establishment fo religion, but rathr their services. Orpahnages,
leprosarium, hospital. These priests are allowed.
 Art Vi, sec. 28 (3)
Tax exemptions. Any establishment, as long as it promotes
religion, it is not taxable. And that is going to change, due to the
advent of the passage of….
 Art XIV, Sec. 3 (3)
At the option expressed in writing by the parents 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
which the children or wards belong, without additional cost
to the Government.
Indoctrination, allowed. Rationale: it is not perfectly alright for a
child to grow up without religion. There is a presumption that
when you are in elementary, high school that you will be a better
child when you have a religion.
Those are the exceptions where you can establish a religion.
Free exercise Clause
2 aspects, that taking into notice
1. It forestalls compulsion by the law of the acceptance of
any practice of any form of worship. There is no definite
standard, how you exercise the religion.
2. It safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of
religion. In short, it embraces two concepts:
a. Freedom to Believe
b. Freedom to act
Meaning of the Free Exercise of Religion Embraces 2
concepts:
1. Freedom to believe—absolute; the government, while it
may look into the good faith of a person, cannot inquire
into a person’s religious pretensions
2. Freedom to act—subject to government regulation
The freedom to believe is absolute. But the second is not allowed.
The moment that it will take into action, injuring another
person’s riht, then see you in court for damages. Because of this,
we have this religious test, the freedom to believe and freedom
to act.
Purpose of the prohibition of religious tests
To render the government powerless “to restore the
historically and constitutionally discredited policy of
probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public
offices to persons who have, or profess to have a belief in
some particular kind of religious concept.” Torcaso v.
Watkins
In the free exercise clause, it likewise involves the free exercise
with such absence of any derogatory remark from strangers.
When we exercise, we are free, unbesmirched by any strangers.
If we believe in catholic church, dapt, wa pui mag critic sa atoa.
Case:
INC vs Geronela
Facts: unsay gi ingon sa judge? The members of INC are a bunch
of gimmicks. Murag joke ba. Diba sakit?
The supreme court punished the judge because of that. It
violated free-exercise clause. Because the free exercise clause
likewise included therein to be, absent form any derogatory
remarks from starngers.
American Bible society vs City of Manila
Facts: bible na gagmay. The supreme court allowed that because
it only serves as the distribution of church literature. It’d a work
of art daw. And besides, kadtong ga pamphlet na ginahatag,
there’s no benefit derived by it.
Gerona vs secretary of Education
Facts: A sudent, gi expel. Wala niya g repseto ang flag ceremony.
We should respect the Philippines. Dapat unity. Regardless of her
belief, sex r religion, we must respect lupang hinirang. We must
all stand and bow before the Philippine flag.
But this was reversed in
Ebralinag vs Division Schools Superintendent of Cebu
Same ghapon ug facts. But this time, the SC recognizes their
freedom of religion. Perfectly alright. ‘
Bitaw, why, remember that, the bill of rights, the provisions are
self-executing, then it must be respected, therefore the free
exercise clause must be respected. Unlike other provisions, only
transitory
Estrada vs Escritor
Tng mga Jehovah. It’s about the lovers. Girl, court interpreter. Sila
duha. But the impediment, ang lalaki kasado na. it was allowed.
The relationship because of benevolent neutrality. There was no
compelling interest on the art of the state to nullify the belief.
Because of the exercise.
Remember that if the OSG, by pieces of evidence, failed to give a
compelling State interest why it must not be allowed. To question
a particular exercise of the church, there must be a compelling
state interest. Otherwise, that is because the benevolent
neutrality, if the free exercise clause.
In another case, ANG LADLAD VS COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner is a national organization which represents the
lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders. It filed a
petition for accreditation as a party-list organization to
public respondent. However, due to moral grounds, the
latter denied the said petition. To buttress their denial,
COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their
decision. It also stated that since their ways are immoral and
contrary to public policy, they are considered nuissance. In
fact, their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal
Code in its Article 201.
A motion for reconsideration being denied, Petitioner filed
this instant Petition on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar
as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated
the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of
religion. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed
Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy,
freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of
laws, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines’
international obligations against discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner
does not have a concrete and genuine national political
agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was
validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the
first time that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors
enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that
petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when
it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification
reports by COMELEC’s field personnel.
Issue:
WON Respondent violated the Non-establishment clause of
the Constitution;
WON Respondent erred in denying Petitioners application
on moral and legal grounds.
Held:
Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong
Bayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors
specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors
(labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be
registered under the party-list system. As we explicitly ruled
in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections, “the enumeration of marginalized and under-
represented sectors is not exclusive”. The crucial element is
not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether
a particular organization complies with the requirements of
the Constitution and RA 7941.
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “[n]o
law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our
non-establishment clause calls for is “government neutrality
in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on
religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of
neutrality.” We thus find that it was grave violation of the
non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the
Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Be
it noted that government action must have a secular
purpose.
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought
to be prevented, or why special protection is required for the
youth. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its
position that petitioner’s admission into the party-list
system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the
moral fabric of society.
We also find the COMELEC’s reference to purported
violations of our penal and civil laws flimsy, at best;
disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines
a nuisance as “any act, omission, establishment, condition of
property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or
disregards decency or morality,” the remedies for which are
a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local
ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial
proceedings. A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal
Code, on the other hand, requires proof beyond reasonable
doubt to support a criminal conviction. It hardly needs to be
emphasized that mere allegation of violation of laws is not
proof, and a mere blanket invocation of public morals
cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings
and a judicial determination of liability or culpability.
As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is
not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of
homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. The
denial of Ang Ladlad’s registration on purely moral grounds
amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of
homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial
public interest.
Association of LGBT . in 2010, they are excluded from party-list
participation, on the ground among others, because of morality.
The court ruled, that it violates the teaching on religious
neutrality. But, this is in 2010. The ladlad now are allowed to join.
The comelec cannot question. The act of comelec classifying
them is no valid classification. If these fishermen cn join, form
groups, why not lgbt, besides the fact that they are advancing
their rights as a person.
Free exercise.
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers Union
This involves the right not to be compelled to join a union. Under
labor law, although it is proscribed under the constitution tahyt
you are not allowed to join a union is not absolute, especially if
th company has a CBA – the law between the employer and
employees. It is a CBA, then the union must respect it. It is an
agreement where kailangan jud ka mu join ug union para ma avail
nimo and benefits sa union. The constitution promotes unionism.
You must join. If you will not join because of that, pwede ka
pahawaon sa trabaho. Here comes this case. Wa siya ni join
despite the CBA. Because it violates his right to religion. Gitanggal
gihapon isa, and he opposed it.
Rule: Respect his right to religion. (EXN sa CBA- Religion) Naa pui
common ani na, mga religion na dili magputol ug buhok.
Remember that right to freedom of religion reigns supreme
because of these cases.
Other cases, you cannot exercise religion, okay.
Section 6: The liberty of abode and of changing the same
within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the
right to travel be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health, as may
be provided by law.
Liberties guaranteed by Section 6
1. Liberty of Abode—Freedom to choose and change one’s
place of abode
2. Right to Travel—Freedom to travel both within the
country and outside

Section 6 –
Man loves to travel a lot. It is undeniable. If he canot set his foot
outside his huse, the possibility of catching fever is prevalent.
Perhaps, the main reason why man is not contented to stay in
one place, because of the possibility na he will commit suicide
bec of boredom. Although that man has a right to abode abd to
travel, the same is not absolute. Due to the concerns of various
diseases, like swine flu, mers, being ffered by neighboring state,
you will be prohibited to ravel. But the point is man loves to travel
a lot.

You have the right to travel but it may be restrained due to a

lawful order of the court, interest of natl security, public safety
or health as may be provided by law. Those will be thr grounds
when you will be prohibited to travel outside.

The right protected under this sections if the right to:

-choose a person’s abode
-and the right to travel both at home and out of the country.

These rights, the right to abode, may only be limited upon a court
order, whereas the right to travel may be limited by admin
authorities as provided by law.

The right to travel shall not be impaired, as a general rule. But it

has exceptions:
1. Law made by congress on the gorund of natl security,
gubot, redzone, public safety or health
2. Court order- issuance is inherent, a proper adm of
justice, even if there is no express grant of the consti:
Bail bond – g file-an kag kaso, kung nag pyansa ka, you
cannot go out. The purpose of bail bond is to assure your
presence every trial.

i.e Seaman, lol, file-an ug VAWC. Naga gamay ang remittance. Wa

ka gawas, bonded. If nay VAWC, nay hold departure order, di ka
kagawas.

3. By administrative and executive officials on the gorund

of natl security, public safety or health.

All three branches of the gov’t may issue impairment of right to

travel, sae grounds. But in court order, if the court will allow, the
court may do so, but nakabutang, pila ka adlaw. To ensure that
the accused is not a flight risk.