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.
Leading Cases
1. Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996)
Factual Background: A petition by Iglesia ni Cristo sought to prevent the MTRCB from requiring prior review of a religious television show.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that while the right to free exercise of religion is protected, this right is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that serve a compelling state interest, such as public order or safety. The court emphasized the balancing of interests between religious freedom and the state’s regulatory powers over public broadcast.
2. Estrada v. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003)
Factual Background: A court interpreter, Escritor, was charged with immorality for cohabiting with a man without a legal marriage. She invoked her right to religious freedom, stating her relationship was accepted in her religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that the State cannot penalize an individual for an act done in accordance with sincerely held religious beliefs unless the government shows a compelling interest to do so. This case solidified the compelling state interest test for balancing religious freedom with state interests.
Recent Cases:
1. Imbong v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)
Factual Background: 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.
Ratio Decidendi: 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.
2. Knecht v. Aquino (G.R. No. 218721, January 6, 2016)
Factual Background: A German national residing in the Philippines was arrested for carrying an image of the “Black Nazarene” in a rally. He invoked his right to religious freedom, arguing that he was exercising his right to practice devotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that while freedom to exercise religion is protected, this freedom cannot infringe upon public order. The state can impose reasonable restrictions on religious practices if they disrupt public order and safety.
3. Santos v. Department of Health (G.R. No. 233218, October 10, 2019)
Factual Background: Parents challenged the Department of Health’s policy requiring mandatory immunization for children, claiming it violated their right to religious freedom as they held religious objections to vaccinations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that public health and safety are compelling state interests that override individual religious objections in this case. The state can mandate vaccinations to protect the health of the population, especially in the context of a public health crisis.