Chapter 11- LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
and prevented from returning until the danger is over.
Fundamental freedoms are beyond the province of commerce or
any other business enterprise.
Sec. 6 of the Bill of Rights.
“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.”
The purpose of the guaranty is to further emphasize the individual's
liberty as safeguarded in general terms by the due process clause.
Liberty under that clause includes the right to choose one's
residence, to leave it whenever he pleases, and to travel wherever
he wills. Section 6 is a specific safeguard of these rights and is
intended to underline their importance in a free society.
-a person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the court
from leaving the country or, if abroad, compelled to return.
-A lessee may be judicially ejected for violation of his contractual
duties. The judge may prevent a person from entering certain
premises under dispute or declared off-limits by the proper
authorities.
-health officers may restrict access to contaminated areas and also
quarantine those already exposed to the disease sought to be
contained. Where there is threat of a volcanic eruption, for
example, residents in the affected area may be forced to evacuate
-Secretary of State may regulate or even prohibit the travel of
citizens to hostile countries to prevent possible international
misunderstanding and conflict.
 Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro- the respondents were
justified in requiring the members of certain non-Christian
tribes to reside in a reservation, for their better education,
advancement and protection. The measure was held to be a
legitimate exercise of the police power.
 Villavicencio v. Lukban- the mayor of Manila was not
sustained by the Supreme Court when he "deported" some
one hundred seventy women of ill-repute to Davao, for the
admittedly commendable purpose of ridding the city of
serious moral and health problems.
 Manotoc v. Court of Appeals-the petitioner who was out on
bail while facing several criminal charges for estafa, filed
motions for permission to leave for the United States
"relative to his business transactions and opportunities."SC
dismissed the petition on the principal ground that the
condition of the bail bond that he would be available at any
time the court should require his presence was a valid
restriction on his right to travel.
 Service Exporters Case- SC temporarily suspending the
deployment ofFilipino female domestics abroad in view of
reports of their abuse and exploitation by their foreign
employers The ban on their right to travel was justified on
the ground of public safety
  Marcos v. Manglapus- refusal of the government to allow Art. II, Sec. 6.
the petitioner's return, on the ground that it would
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
endanger national security.
Art. VI, Sec. 28(3)
CHAPTER 12-FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents
Universal Declaration of Human Rights now affirms:
appurtenant thereto, mosques, and non-profit cemeteries, and all
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly and exclusively
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be
and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in exempt from taxation.
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
Art. VI, Sec. 29(2).
practice, worship and observance.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied,
Religion may be defined as "any specific system of belief, worship,
paid or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of
conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."
any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of
-"a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher,
man to his Creator. minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such except when
such priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed
-religion also includes a rejection of religion, a refusal to believe in a forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
hereafter or in the supremacy of a supernatural person with powers leprosarium.
over life and death.
Art. XIV, Sec. 4(2).
Religion in the Constitution-Provisions
Educational institutions, other than those established by
'Art. Ill, Sec. 5.
religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
citizens of the Philippines, or corporations or associations at
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious
test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased equity
participation in all educational institutions.
The control and administration of educational institutions
shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines.
No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens, and no
group of aliens shall comprise more than one third of the enrollment in any
school. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to schools established
for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise
provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents.
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.
Separation of Church and State
Article III, Section 5-"nolaw shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
Article II, Section 6-inviolable
-Church is likewise barred from meddling in
purely secular matters because “it tends to destroy
government and to degrade religion."
Everson v. Board of Education-"that the state cannot set
up a church; nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religion, or prefer one religion over another nor force nor
influence a person to go to or remain away from church
against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion; that the state cannot punish a person for
entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or nonattendance; that no tax in any
amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activity or institution whatever they may be
called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion; that the state cannot openly or secretly participate
in the affairs of any religious organization or group and vice
versa."
Freedom of religion
includes freedom from religion; the right to
worship includes the right not to worship.
School Prayer Case (US)- unconstitutional the recitation by the
students in public schools in New York of a prayer composed by
the board of regents, concededly for the purpose of setting the
spiritual tone of the schoolday.
Engel Case- Supreme Court struck down a Pennsylvania
statute that required that "at least ten verses from the Holy Bible"
be read daily, without comment, in all public schools of the
state. The requirement was held to be a "religious exercise" that
violated the establishment clause.
Tudor v. Board of Education-U.S. Supreme Court declared that
the teachers, employing government time, were participating in a
religious activity as they were an essential part in the machinery of
distribution of the Bibles.
Zorach v. Clauson- U.S. Supreme Court held that the wall of
separation between Church and State had not been breached by a
released-time arrangement which enabled the students in a public
school to attend religious instruction classes in a nearby private
building.
Board of Education v. Allen-a law required the
petitioner to lend textbooks free of charge to all students
from grades 7 to 12. No funds or books are furnished to parochial
schools, and the financial benefit is to parents and children, not to
schools.
-government aid was given directly to the student and his parents, not
to the church-related school
Aglipay v. Ruiz- any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a
religious institution, as long as such benefit was only incidental to
a legitimate secular objective, would not violate the prohibition.
-the purpose of the stamp issue was evidently to focus attention not
on the Eucharistic Congress but on its site, the idea being to attract
tourists to our country and not primarily to publicize the religious
event, it was held that the stamp issue was not invalid.
-"does not inhibit the use of public property for religious purposes
when the religious character of such use is merely incidental to a
temporary use which is available indiscriminately to the public in
general."
 The Constitution itself also provides for the
exemption from property taxes of religious
institutions and all lands, buildings and
improvements actually, directly and exclusively
devoted to religious purposes.
Exception to the general rule, public elementary and high
schools may be used for optional religious instruction in
accordance with Article XIV, Section 3(3).
Intramural Religious Disputes-whatever dogma is adopted by a
religious group cannot be
binding upon the State if it contravenes its valid laws. Whatever
dogma is adopted by a religious group cannot be binding upon the
State if it contravenes its valid laws.
-while the Church may provide for the dissolution of marriage by
its own courts, the ecclesiastical decree cannot prevail against the
Civil Code, which prohibits divorce.
-Where the dispute involves the property rights of the religious
group, or the relations of the members where property rights are
involved, the civil courts may assume jurisdiction.
Religious Profession and Worship-
CHAPTER 12- FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
FREEDOM OF SPEECH- "at once the instrument and the
guaranty and the bright consummate flower of all liberty."
-definition covers freedom of expression (embraces a number of
cognate rights all aimed at insuring the free and effective
communication of ideas from mind to mind)
Freedom of Expression
-freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition,
freedom of religion, the right of association, the right to access to
information on matters of public concern, and the right not to be
detained solely by reason of one's political beliefs and aspirations.
-freedom to speak includes right to be silent also right to audience
(State cannot prohibit the people from hearing what a person has to
say, whatever be the quality of his thoughts)
Article III, Section 4:
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.
Section 18(1) of Bill of Rights
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
Elements of Freedom of Expression
 (1) freedom from previous restraint or censorship
(2) freedom from subsequent punishment
Freedom from Previous Restraint or Censorship
Censorship - conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon
the prior approval of the government; only those ideas accept
able to it are allowed to be disseminated; all others are restricted or
suppressed; censor thus assumes the unlikely role of political,
moral, social and artistic arbiter for the people, usually applying only
his own subjective standards in determining what is good and what is
not good for them. Such authority is anathema in a free society.
Near v. Minnesota- law was annulled providing for the
suppression of any periodical found, after hearing, on the basis
of its past issues, to be obscene, malicious, scandalous
or defamatory
Censorship- need not partake of total suppression;even
restriction of circulation is unconstitutional
Grosjean v. American Press Co- a statute imposing a tax
upon all periodicals publishing more than 20,000 copies per
issue was declared invalid because it tended to limit the
circulation of any such periodical seeking to avoid the
payment of the tax (tax on knowledge; indirect attempt to
restrict the wide dissemination of ideas )
New York Times v. US- The Government's power to censor the press was
abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.
The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform
the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in
government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press
is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving
the people
Gonzales v. Commission on Elections- the law prohibited (exc.
during election) the solicitation or undertaking of any
campaign or propaganda, whether directly or indirectly, by
an individual, the making of speeches, announcements or
commentaries or holding of interviews for or against the election of
any party or candidate for public office, or the publication or
distribution of campaign literature or materials due to
inordinate preoccupation of the people with politics tended
toward the neglect of the other serious needs of the nation and the
pollution of its suffrages
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals- subject programs were
barred from public viewing by the Board for attacking
certain doctrines and practices of the Catholic and
Protestant religions; SC: freedom of expression and
religion
Santiago v. Far East Broadcasting- SC denied petition for
mandamus to compel the respondent to allow the
campaign manager of the opposition party to deliver a
speech over the radio without first submitting a copy
thereof for purposes of censorship by the Radio Board as
required by a law (for public safety and morality)
Primicias v. Fugoso- SC ordered permit to hold a public
meeting in Plaza Miranda holding that the respondent
could only reasonably regulate, not absolutely prohibit,
the use of public places for the purpose indicated.
Mutuc v. Commission on Elections- SC sustained petitioner
when respondent prohibited the use of taped jingles in the
mobile units used by the petitioner in his election campaign.
Petitioner protested, claiming infringement of his freedom of
expression
National Press Club v. Commission on Elections- validity of
Sec.11 of Republic Act 6646 (b) ... any newspapers, radio
broadcasting or television station, other mass media, or any
person making use of the mass media to sell or to give free of
charge print space or air time for campaign or other political
purposes except to the Commission as provided under Sections
90 and 92 of Batas Pambansa Big. 881.
-Cruz: the only limitation upon the free speech of candidates
imposed is on the right of candidates to bombard the helpless
electorate with paid advertisements commonly repeated in the
mass media ad nauseam. Frequently, such repetitive political
commercials when fed into the electronic media themselves
constitute invasions of the privacy of the general electorate.
Adiong v. Commission on Elections- posting of decals and stickers
on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs
the consent of the owner of the vehicle (preference of citizen
becomes crucial not the fin. Resources of the candidate)
Freedom from Subsequent Punishment
-includes freedom after speech
-freedom of expression is not absolute; it is subject to the police
power and may be properly regulated in the interest of the public;
does not cover ideas offensive to public order or decency or the
reputation of persons, which are all entitled to protection by the State
(ie. lewd, obscence, seditious word, slanderous word, cannot be
considered "a step to truth" and therefore will not enjoy immunity
from prohibition and punishment)
Three major criteria to determine the liability of the individual
for ideas expressed:
(a) the clear and present danger rule;
(b) the dangerous tendency doctrine;
(c) the balancing test
THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE
-whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of
such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will
bring about the substantive evils that the State has a right to prevent."
If they do, the speaker shall be punished; otherwise, not. "It is a
question of proximity and degree". "The character of every act
depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. (shouting of fire
to alarm people creates no liability)
- The rule is that the danger created must not only be clear and
present but also traceable to the ideas expressed; The danger must
not only be probable but very likely inevitable
Terminiello v. City of Chicago- SC reversed conviction when a
person delivered an address that attacked various political and racial
groups while an angry crowd of about one thousand gathered outside
to protest the meeting and a number of disturbances occurred (it is
only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that the
government remains responsible to the will of the people and
peaceful change is effected)
- accused was guilty of a "genuine attempt to arouse the Negro
people against the whites." (any improper noise, riot, disturbance,
breach of the peace, or diversion tending to the breach of the peace)
Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at
prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects
as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of
speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against
censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and
present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public
inconvenience, annoyance or unrest
Violent picketing –can be penalized; would create a clear and present
danger to the safety of persons and the public order and is therefore
not entitled to the protection of the Constitution
Primicias Case- (first clear and present danger rule)
- respondent mayor sought to defend his refusal to allow the
Nacionalista Party to hold a meeting at Plaza Miranda which might
threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order (SC
rejected as it does not justify the fear of serious injury)
- Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent
that it would be in appropriate as the means for averting a relatively
trivial harm to a society
Navarro v. Villegas- SC sustained the mayor who refused to permit
to students to hold rally in P. Miranda on the ground of students’
unrest and activism
Reyes v. Bagatsing-petition filed to compel the issuance of a permit
for a rally to be held at the Luneta, denied for fear that the
assemblage might be infiltrated by subversive elements to the
prejudice of the public order; SC held it invalid as no showing of the
probability of a clear and present danger(proof is in the mayor)
The Dangerous Tendency Doctrine-a person could be punished for
his ideas even if they only tended to create the evil sought to be
prevented. It was not necessary to actually create the evil; a mere
tendency toward the evil was enough. As a result, a number of
persons were convicted for expressing views against the government
even if they did not really endanger the public order; and many more,
it is supposed, were daunted into a mute if resentful docility that
debilitated popular freedom during that time.
another person, was: The Filipinos like myself must use bolos for
cutting off (Governor-General) Wood's head for having
recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our
independence." He was sentenced to jail.
- Calibrated Pre-emptive Response Policy- null and void and
respondents are enjoined to refrain from using it and to strictly
observe the requirements of maximum tolerance."
The Balance-of-Interest Test- When particular conduct is regulated
in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an
indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the
courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands
the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented.
Authority is preferred under the dangerous tendency doctrine,
liberty under the clear and present danger rule. The balancing test
resolves the issue in the light of the peculiar circumstances obtaining
in each particular case.
Criticism of Official Conduct

- "If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the

State has a right to prevent, then such words are
punishable...It is sufficient if the natural tendency and
probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the
substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent."
(Cabansag v. Fernandez)

People v. Perez- remark complained of, made by a lowly municipal

secretary in the course of a conversation at a casual meeting with