FREEDOM OF RELIGION
The right to religious freedom is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Article III, Section 5 of the Bill of Rights provides 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.”
​​This provision embodies two key principles:
[1] the non-establishment clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, and
[2] the free exercise clause, which guarantees individuals the right to practice their religion freely. The State is required to maintain neutrality towards religion, ensuring that individuals can enjoy the right to believe and act in accordance with their faith without interference.
Religious freedom is a fundamental right safeguarded by the Constitution. However, this right is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, especially when public safety, health, and order are at stake.
Courts have consistently applied the compelling state interest test to balance religious rights with government interests, ensuring that individuals can practice their faith while adhering to necessary regulations.
MAJOR CLAUSES
1. Non-Establishment Clause
This clause prohibits the government from enacting laws that favor or establish a state religion. The state must not prefer one religion over another or religion over non-religion.
​
2. Free Exercise Clause
The free exercise clause guarantees the right to practice one’s religion freely, as long as it does not violate public morals, public safety, or other important state interests. The government cannot unduly restrict religious practices without a compelling reason.
​
3. Religious Test Clause
The Constitution forbids any religious test as a requirement for the exercise of civil or political rights. This ensures that individuals of all faiths (or none) are equally eligible to participate in public life.
​​​​
Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Courts in Iligan City,
A.M. No. 02-2-10-SC, December 14, 2005
Muslim employees in Iligan City courts requested to adjust office hours during Ramadan (7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. without breaks) and be excused from work every Friday between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for prayer. The Court granted the first request but denied the second due to a lack of legal basis.
Issue: Whether the Muslim employees’ requests for flexible office hours and exemption from work are justified by religious freedom.
Ruling: The Court allowed the flexible office hours during Ramadan under existing statutory provisions but denied the Friday prayer exemption, emphasizing that religious practices should not conflict with state interests and public welfare.
​
G.R. No. 217453, July 19, 2017
Denmark Valmores, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, requested an exemption from attending classes and taking exams on Saturdays due to religious beliefs. Despite submitting certifications from his church, his request was denied by the faculty at Mindanao State University.
Issue: Whether the denial of Valmores’ request violated his right to religious freedom.
Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of Valmores, stating that the university violated his religious freedom and must comply with the 2010 CHED Memorandum allowing exemptions for religious obligations.
Non - Establishment Clause
The Non-Establishment Clause, part of the Right to Freedom of Religion, prohibits the government from establishing a national religion or favoring one religion over others.
It ensures that the state maintains neutrality in religious matters and avoids actions that support or prefer any religion. This clause guarantees that individuals can practice their faith freely without government interference, fostering religious diversity and preventing the imposition of religious doctrines through state actions.
The importance of this clause lies in preserving individual freedoms and preventing discrimination based on religion. It also promotes a secular government that respects all faiths equally, avoiding religious influence on public policy or lawmaking.
​
Sulu, et al. v. Medialdea, et al.
G.R. No. 242255, September 9, 2024
The case involves a petition questioning the constitutionality of the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL), arguing that it violates the Non-Establishment Clause by favoring Islam in the creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). Petitioners from Sulu claim that the law’s provisions, which grant substantial autonomy and the establishment of Shariah courts, unduly favor Islam, creating a potential breach of the constitutional principle separating church and state.
Issue:
Does the BOL violate the Non-Establishment Clause of the Philippine Constitution by favoring Islam in the BARMM?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the BOL. It ruled that the establishment of the BARMM, with its special provisions on Shariah law, does not violate the Non-Establishment Clause as it is part of a historical and cultural recognition of the predominantly Muslim population in the region. The law’s purpose was not to favor Islam but to accommodate religious and cultural distinctions within a specific region.
Significance:
This case clarifies that the Non-Establishment Clause does not prohibit all forms of accommodation for religious practices, particularly when such accommodations are meant to address historical grievances and promote peace in regions with significant religious or cultural identities. The ruling emphasizes that government action does not constitute an establishment of religion if its primary goal is secular—such as promoting regional autonomy and peace.
​
G.R. No. 160027, August 4, 2003
Escritor, a court interpreter, lived with a man without marriage, which violated the Revised Administrative Code’s provisions on moral turpitude. She defended her conduct, citing the religious freedom guarantee under the Constitution, as her cohabitation was part of her religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) filed administrative charges, arguing that such cohabitation violated public morals.
Issue:
Whether Escritor’s religious beliefs, protected by the Non-Establishment Clause and freedom of religion, exempt her from the administrative charge of immoral conduct under public morals.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Escritor. The Court held that the Non-Establishment Clause mandates government neutrality in matters of religion. It recognized that religious practices may be accommodated under certain conditions without violating the separation of church and state.
In this case, the Court balanced the state’s interest in upholding public morals with the individual’s right to religious freedom, concluding that Escritor’s religious belief did not warrant punishment under secular law.
Significance:
The case emphasized the importance of the Non-Establishment Clause in ensuring that the government does not favor or inhibit religious practices. It affirmed that laws of general applicability must be flexible enough to accommodate sincere religious beliefs, provided they do not infringe on compelling state interests.
​​
The Salvation Army v. Social Security System
G.R. No. 230095, September 15, 2021
​
The Salvation Army, a religious organization, challenged the Social Security System (SSS) for requiring mandatory SSS contributions from its employees, arguing that it should be exempt from such laws because of its religious mission. The petitioner claimed that forcing the organization to comply with SSS regulations violated its religious freedom and the Non-Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Issue:
Does the mandatory inclusion of The Salvation Army in the SSS violate the Non-Establishment Clause and the organization’s right to religious freedom?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that requiring The Salvation Army to comply with SSS regulations does not violate the Non-Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that the SSS is a social welfare measure applicable to all employees, regardless of religious affiliation, and does not unduly interfere with religious freedom. The SSS law serves a secular purpose—providing social security to workers—and does not promote or favor any religion.
Significance:
The case illustrates that the Non-Establishment Clause does not grant religious organizations immunity from generally applicable laws, especially when such laws serve a secular purpose.
The ruling highlights the balance between ensuring religious freedom and applying neutral laws in a non-discriminatory manner to all entities, including religious organizations.
​
Free Excercise of Religion Clause
The Religious Freedom Clause, ensures that individuals and religious groups are protected from government interference in their religious beliefs and practices.
Historical Background:
The protection of religious freedom has roots in the colonial experiences of the Philippines, particularly during Spanish rule, when Catholicism was the state religion. Non-Catholics faced various forms of religious persecution and limited opportunities for worship.
When the Philippines was ceded to the United States after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. brought the concept of religious freedom, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, to the Philippines. The Malolos Constitution of 1899, the first republican constitution of the Philippines, also contained provisions for religious freedom.
However, it was the 1935 Constitution under the Commonwealth that formalized the separation of church and state and clearly provided for the free exercise of religion, following the American model. This protection continued in the 1973 Constitution and was further strengthened in the 1987 Constitution after the fall of the Marcos regime, reinforcing the importance of both the free exercise of religion and the non-establishment of a state religion.
Importance of the Free Exercise Clause:
1. Individual Liberty: The Free Exercise Clause upholds the right of every individual to practice, profess, and propagate their faith without fear of governmental intervention. This is a cornerstone of individual liberty, ensuring that beliefs, whether religious or non-religious, are respected by the state.
2. Diverse Religious Practices: The Philippines is home to various religious groups, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and indigenous belief systems. The free exercise clause promotes peaceful coexistence, allowing these diverse groups to worship freely.
3. Government Neutrality: The clause imposes a duty on the government to remain neutral in matters of religion, meaning it cannot favor or inhibit any particular religion or religious practice. This is tied to the Non-Establishment Clause, which ensures that no religion is promoted by the state, creating a secular government framework.
4. Judicial Interpretation: Courts play a crucial role in balancing the free exercise of religion with other constitutional rights and public interests. For instance, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled in cases where religious beliefs conflict with public policies, ensuring that religious practices do not violate other people’s rights or harm public welfare.
Modern Relevance:
In recent decades, the clause has been pivotal in protecting minority religions and addressing issues where religious freedom intersects with labor, education, and public health policies. For example, cases involving religious objections to certain vaccinations or religious exemptions from labor laws highlight the ongoing importance of judicial interpretation to ensure that the free exercise of religion remains a protected yet balanced right in society.
Ultimately, the Free Exercise of Religion clause ensures that all Filipinos can practice their faith freely while maintaining the secular nature of the state, thus fostering both religious diversity and public order in a democratic society.
​
MTRCB v. ABC Development Corp. (G.R. No. 212670, July 6, 2022)
This case revolved around a show aired by ABC Development Corp. (now TV5) that was reviewed by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). The show allegedly violated ethical standards and included material offensive to certain religious groups, leading MTRCB to impose sanctions. ABC Development Corp. invoked the right to the free exercise of religion and freedom of expression, challenging MTRCB’s jurisdiction.
Emphasis on Free Exercise of Religion:
ABC Development Corp. argued that the show’s content, which included critical religious views, was protected under the free exercise of religion and the right to freedom of expression. They claimed that MTRCB’s actions were an undue restriction on religious freedom, violating the constitutional protection that ensures no government body can interfere with religious expression unless there is a compelling state interest.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of balancing freedom of religion with other constitutional principles. While recognizing the right to religious freedom, the Court emphasized that the state also has a legitimate interest in protecting public morals and general welfare. Thus, the MTRCB’s regulation did not violate the Free Exercise Clause but was a valid exercise of its power to regulate television content for the common good.
Conclusion:
This case demonstrated the need to balance the free exercise of religion with the government’s responsibility to regulate public content, particularly when sensitive or offensive material is involved. The Supreme Court underscored that while religious freedom is fundamental, it is not absolute when it conflicts with state interests in maintaining public order and morality.
​
Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. v. Senate of the Philippines (G.R. No. 184635 and G.R. No. 185366, June 13, 2023)
This case involves a petition challenging Republic Act No. 9372, also known as the Human Security Act of 2007. The petitioners, including Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS), claimed that the law violated civil liberties, particularly the right to freedom of religion. Petitioners argued that the provisions could be used to suppress religious practices, especially among marginalized and minority religious groups.
Issue:
Whether or not the Human Security Act of 2007 violated the free exercise of religion.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the free exercise of religion was not violated by the Human Security Act. The Court held that while the law grants the government power to curtail acts related to terrorism, it does not impede religious freedom as it is not intended to target religious beliefs or practices. The law’s focus is on addressing terrorism, which is a legitimate government interest, and does not infringe on constitutionally protected religious rights unless such practices involve violence or terrorism.
Emphasis on Free Exercise of Religion:
The Court affirmed that while religious freedom is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. The government may regulate religious practices if they threaten public safety or security. In this case, the law did not violate the free exercise of religion, as it was directed toward preventing terrorism, not restricting religious activities. The ruling reiterated the balance between the protection of religious freedom and the need for national security measures.
Conclusion:
The case illustrates how the free exercise of religion can be limited when it conflicts with public safety. The Supreme Court clarified that laws aimed at protecting national security, like the Human Security Act, do not inherently infringe on religious freedoms unless there is direct evidence of misuse against religious groups.
​
Superior General of the Religious of the Virgin Mary (R.V.M.) v. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 205641, October 05, 2022.
The Religious of the Virgin Mary (R.V.M.) filed a case concerning the tax exemption of its properties used for religious and charitable purposes. The R.V.M. argued that taxing their properties violated their right to the free exercise of religion, as these properties were integral to their religious missions, education, and charitable works.
Issue:
Whether or not the imposition of taxes on R.V.M.’s properties violates the free exercise of religion under the Constitution.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that while the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, it also provides specific limits, especially concerning tax exemption. The Court ruled that religious organizations may only claim tax exemption for properties directly used for religious purposes. Since some of the properties in question were used for income-generating purposes, such as schools and rented buildings, they did not qualify for tax exemption under the law.
Emphasis on Free Exercise of Religion:
The Court underscored that the free exercise of religion does not automatically entitle religious organizations to tax exemptions on all their properties. The exemption applies strictly to those used for religious worship or purely charitable purposes. Any property used for profit, even if owned by a religious institution, may be taxed without infringing on religious freedom. This ruling highlights the balance between religious rights and the state’s authority to impose taxes on properties used for commercial purposes.
Conclusion:
The Court affirmed that while religious freedom is a protected right, it must be harmonized with the state’s legitimate power to collect taxes on properties not directly used for religious or charitable functions. The free exercise of religion does not include financial privileges beyond those specifically provided by law.
​
Ebralinag, et al. v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, et al.,
G.R. No. 95770, December 29, 1995
Minors, members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, were expelled for refusing to participate in the flag ceremony on religious grounds. The government argued that the exemption granted violated the Establishment Clause and equal protection, asserting that the State should promote patriotism.
Issue: Whether the expulsion violated religious freedom and the right to education.
Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, stating the expulsion violated their right to free exercise of religion. The Court emphasized that the State’s interest in fostering patriotism must not infringe on fundamental rights, including religious freedom.
​
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996)
Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) petitioned against the Court of Appeals, the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television, and Judge Henrietta S. Mendez regarding the “X” rating given to their TV program Ang Iglesia ni Cristo. The “X” rating was based on the claim that the program attacked other religions. INC argued this was a violation of their freedom of speech and religious expression.
Issue: Whether the government can impose censorship on a religious program and restrict freedom of speech based on the “X” rating.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of INC, stating that the Board had no authority to prohibit the program’s broadcast. It emphasized that the x-rating violated the petitioner’s freedom of speech and religious expression. Furthermore, the Court found that the Board had failed to apply the “clear and present danger” rule to justify censorship, and that prior restraint on speech by an administrative body was unconstitutional in this case.
Doctrine: The decision highlighted that freedom of speech, particularly religious expression, cannot be curtailed by prior restraint unless there is a clear and present danger to public safety, peace, or order.
​
Imbong v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, arguing that it violated their religious freedom by mandating access to contraceptives and requiring the government to distribute them.
The Supreme Court partially upheld the law but struck down provisions that forced religiously-affiliated hospitals and employers to provide contraceptives against their religious beliefs. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing religious freedom with the state’s duty to promote public health, allowing exemptions for conscientious objectors.
Religious Test Clause
Historical Context:
1. Colonial Period:
Under Spanish rule, religious affiliation was often a requirement for holding positions in government and was closely tied to the Catholic Church, which held significant power. During this period, religious tests were enforced, restricting non-Catholics from public service.
2. American Colonial Era:
When the Philippines became a U.S. colony in 1898, there was a shift toward secularization. The American period emphasized individual freedoms, including religious freedoms, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the 1902 Philippine Bill, which prohibited religious tests for public office. This laid the groundwork for modern religious freedom protections in the Constitution.
3. Post-Independence Constitution:
Upon the establishment of the Third Republic, the 1947 Philippine Constitution contained similar provisions guaranteeing freedom of religion and prohibiting religious tests for public officeholders. However, these provisions were more focused on the protection of individual religious freedoms rather than state control over religion.
4. 1961 Amendment and Current Constitution:
The current Constitution, enacted in 1987, reinforces these principles. It explicitly prohibits the establishment of religion and the imposition of religious tests for public office. It emphasizes the right of individuals to freely exercise their religious beliefs without governmental interference, ensuring that religious belief is not a criterion for holding public office or engaging in any state function.
Importance:
The religious test clause is significant as it embodies the principle of religious neutrality in the Philippine government, ensuring no individual is excluded from holding public office based on their religion or lack thereof.
It reflects the country’s commitment to a pluralistic and inclusive society, where all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation, can fully participate in governance. By prohibiting any religious qualification for officeholders, it prevents religious discrimination and ensures that the state remains neutral in matters of religion.
In essence, this clause helps preserve the separation of church and state, a fundamental principle that ensures government policies are formed without religious influence and protects citizens’ rights to freely practice their faith without fear of political or social repercussions.
​Political speech, even if motivated by religious beliefs, is protected under the Constitution
​
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 205728 (January 21, 2015)
​
Petitioners, associated with the Catholic Church, posted a tarpaulin opposing the RH Law, categorizing candidates into “Team Patay” and “Team Buhay” based on their votes on the law. The COMELEC issued a notice and letter, claiming this violated election regulations. Petitioners argued the message was protected religious speech.
Issue:
Whether the tarpaulin’s message constitutes religious speech protected by the Constitution.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the tarpaulin, although reflecting Catholic doctrine on the RH Law, is not religious speech. It is a political expression, and thus, the COMELEC’s actions were unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the freedom of speech, particularly in the electoral context, is a fundamental right.
Significance:
This case highlights the importance of protecting speech related to political expression, even if it intersects with religious beliefs, affirming that such expressions do not automatically fall under religious speech protections.
​
​
Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, an ecclesiastic, was elected mayor of Albuquerque, Bohol, in 1971. Petitioner, Fortunato Pamil, sought to disqualify him under the Revised Administrative Code, which prohibited ecclesiastics from holding elective municipal offices. The lower court upheld Gonzaga’s eligibility, ruling that the provision was impliedly repealed by the Election Code of 1971.
Issue:
Whether the prohibition against ecclesiastics holding municipal office, found in the Revised Administrative Code, violates constitutional provisions.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court was divided. Seven justices viewed the provision as superseded by the 1935 Constitution, which prohibits religious tests. However, five justices upheld the provision. The Court ultimately declared that ecclesiastics could not be disqualified under the Revised Administrative Code due to the constitutional mandate of religious freedom and non-establishment of religion.
Significance:
The ruling reaffirmed the principle of religious freedom and the prohibition against imposing religious tests for public office, emphasizing the constitutional separation of church and state. It marked the first time the Court addressed the incompatibility between a religious test and constitutional guarantees of religious liberty.
​
Basa, et al. v. Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas (FOITAF), et al., G.R. No. L-27113 (November 19, 1974)
​
In this case, the petitioners, workers who were members of the FOITAF, were challenged by the respondent labor union regarding their membership eligibility. The issue arose because the union imposed a religious test for membership, excluding non-Catholic workers.
Issue:
Whether the imposition of a religious test for union membership violates the constitutional provision on religious freedom.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of a religious test for union membership was unconstitutional. The decision emphasized that no person should be forced to adhere to a particular religion as a condition for exercising civil rights, including the right to join a union.
Significance:
This case underscores the principle that the government and organizations must respect the separation of church and state, particularly in relation to individual freedoms and civil rights, without imposing religious tests.
​