Church and State - Free Exercise Clause

consti part 10: free exercise clause AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs. CITY of MANILA

FACTS: o

o

o

o

o

o

o

the plaintiff is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit religious, missionary corporation duly registered and doing business in the Philippines through its Philippines agency established in November of 1898 the defendant appellee is a municipal corpo rporation tion with powers that are to be excercised in conformity with the provisions of R.A No. 409, known as the revised charter of the city of manila the plaintiffs agency has been distributing and sell sellin ing g bibl bibles es and and gosp gospel el pori porion onms ms ther thereo eof f throughout the Philippines the acting city treasurer nformed plaintiff that it was conducting business of general merchandis merchandise, e, without without providing providing itself itself with the necessary mayors permit and municipal license, in violation of various ordinances, and asked the plaintiff to secure within 3 days, the correspondi corresponding ng license license and fees, fees, together together with compro compromis mise e coveri covering ng the period period from the 4 th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953 in the sum of Php 5,821 plaintiff paid the sum and acquired the license fees but at the same time filed a complaint to the courts plaintiff was able to show that they were exempt from from real real estat estate e taxes; taxes; and that that it was never never required to pay any municipal licence or atx fee before before the war, nor does the American American bible society in the U.S pay license fee or sales tax for the sale of the bible. however a witness for the appellees was able to prove prove that that the Americ American an bibler bibler societ society y in fact fact does profit from the sale of the Bible.

ISSUES: (1) whether or not the ordinances of the City of Manila, Nos. 3000, as amended, and 2529, 3028 and 3364, are constitutional and valid?.YES!!! (2) whether said ordinances are inapplicable, invalid or uncons unconstit tituti utiona onall if applie applied d to the allege alleged d busine business ss of dist distri ribu buti tion on and and sale sale of bibl bibles es to the the peopl people e of the the Philippines by a religious corporation like the American Bible Society? Sayang pero YES invalid!

HELD: *The *The only only esse essent ntia iall diff differ eren ence ce that that We find find between these two provisions that may have any bearing on the the case case at bar, bar, is that that whil while e subs subsec ecti tion on (m-2 (m-2)) prescribes that the combined total tax of any dealer or manufacture manufacturer, r, or both, enumerated enumerated under subsections subsections (m-1) and (m- 2), whether dealing in one or all of the articles mentioned therein, shall not be in excess of P500 per annum, the corresponding section 18, subsection (o) of Republic Act No. 409, does not contain any limitation

as to the amount of tax or license fee that the retail dealer has to pay per annum. Hence, and in accordance with the weight of the authorities above referred to that mainta maintain in that that "all "all rights rights and liabil liabiliti ities es which which have have accrued accrued under the original statute are preserved and may be enforced, since the reenactment neutralizes the repeal repeal,, theref therefore ore contin continuin uing g the law in force force withou withoutt interruption", We hold that the questioned ordinances of the City of Manila are still in force and effect. *The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and and enjo enjoym ymen entt of reli religi gious ous profe profess ssion ion and and wors worshi hip p carr carrie ies s with with it the the righ rightt to diss dissem emin inat ate e reli religi giou ous s inform informati ation. on. Any restrain restraintt of such such right right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substant substantive ive evil which which the State has the right right to prevent". (Tañada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 297). In the case at bar the license fee herein involved is imposed u pon appellant for its distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature. *The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and and enjo enjoym ymen entt of reli religi gious ous profe profess ssion ion and and wors worshi hip p carr carrie ies s with with it the the righ rightt to diss dissem emin inat ate e reli religi giou ous s inform informati ation. on. Any restrain restraintt of such such right right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substant substantive ive evil which which the State has the right right to prevent". (Tañada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 297). In the case at bar the license fee herein involved is imposed u pon appellant for its distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature. *(Citin *(Citing g Murdoc Murdoch h vs. Pennsy Pennsylva lvania nia)) It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the the privil privilege ege of delive delivering ring a sermon sermon.. The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a priv privil ileg ege e is the the powe powerr to cont contro roll or supp suppre ress ss its its enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of t he resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close all its doors to all 'those who do not have a full purse. Spreading religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus be denied the needy. . . . *It may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same, but this cannot mean that appellant was engaged engaged in the business business or occupation of selling selling said "merchandise" for profit. For this reason We believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it would would impair impair its free free exerci exercise se and enjoymen enjoymentt of its

consti 2 all stars

1

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.







consti part 10: free exercise clause religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. *Ord *Ordin inanc ance e No. No. 3000 3000 cann cannot ot be cons consid ider ered ed unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society. But as Ordi Ordina nanc nce e No. No. 2529 2529 of the the City City of Mani Manila la,, as amende amended, d, is not applic applicabl able e to plainti plaintiffff-app appell ellant ant and defend defendant ant-ap -appel pellee lee is powerl powerless ess to licens license e or tax the business of plaintiff Society involved herein for, as stated befo before re,, it woul would d impa impair ir plai plaint ntif iff' f's s righ rightt to the the free free exercise exercise and enjoyment enjoyment of its religious profession profession and worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs, We find that Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, is also inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff. Reversed and Remanded

GERONA vs. SECRETARY of EDUCATION

(1959) Montemayor J

FACTS: RA 1265 is a law that makes a flag ceremo remon ny comp compul ulso sory ry for for scho school ols. s. The The impl implem emen enti ting ng rule rules s (Depar (Departme tment nt Order Order 8)says 8)says that the anthem anthem must must be played while the flag is raised. It also says that everyone must salute the flag and no one is to do anything while the ceremony is being held. After the flag everyone is to recite the patriotic pledge (panatang makabayan). Petit etitiione oners chi childre ldren n atte ttendin nding g the the Bue Buenav navista ista Community School in Uson, Masbate refused to salute the flag, sing the anthem and recite the pledge. They did not do so out of religi religious ous belief. belief. They They are are Jehova Jehovah's h's Witnesses. They followed Exodus 20:4-5 'thou shalt not make make unto unto thee thee a grav graven en imag image, e, or any any like likene ness ss of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. They consider the flag to be an image in this context. Because of this they were expelled from the school in Sep 1955. Petiti Petitione oners rs thru thru couns counsel el petiti petitione one SecEd SecEd that that their their children be exempt from the law and just be allowed to remain remain silent silent and stand stand at attent attention. ion. SecEd SecEd denied denied petition. petition. Writ of preliminary preliminary injunction was petitioned petitioned and issued.

ISSUE: WON Dep Order 8 is unconstitutional

The freedom of belief is limitless and boundless but it's exercise is not. If the belief clashes with law then the former must yield. What is the nature of the flag? Petitioners maintain that it is an image but that is not so. It is the symbol of Republic of the Philippines. It is not a religious symbol. Saluti Saluting ng it is not theref therefore ore a religi religious ous ceremo ceremony. ny. The determinati determination on whether a ceremony ceremony is religious religious or not is left to the courts not to any religious group. Petitioners are willing to remain silent and stand during flag flag ceremon ceremony. y. Petiot Petiotner ners s salute salute the flag flag during during boy scout activities. Their objection then rests on the singing of anthem and recitation of pledge. The pledge is judged to be comp comple lete tely ly secu secula lar. r. It does does not not even even pled pledge ge allegiance to the flag or to the Republic. The anthem is also secular. It talks about patriotism. It does not speak of resorting to force, military service, or duty to defend the country. There was no compulsion involved in the enforcement of the flag flag salute salute.. They They were were not crimin criminall ally y prosec prosecute uted d under a penal sanction. If they chose not to obey the salute regulation they merely lost the benefits of public education. Take it or leave it. Hamilton vs Univ of California: Apellants were members of Methodist Methodist Episcopal Church who believed believed that war and preparations preparations for war are gainst gainst God's wishes. wishes. They did not take required military service training which was requirement to graduate. Court said that they were not being being drafte drafted d to attend attend univer universit sity. y. Unive Universi rsity ty did not violate due process when it required the mil service. Miners Minersvil ville le School School Distri District ct vs Gobitis Gobitis:: two Jehova Jehovahs hs Witness Witness children children were expelled expelled from school school for refusing refusing to salute salute flag. Requirement Requirement of participation participation of all pupils in flag flag ceremo ceremony ny did not infrin infringe ge due process. process. West West Virg Virgin inia ia Stat State e Boar Board d of Educ Educat atio ion. n. vs. vs. Barn Barnet ette te:: reversed the former decision at a divided court. Thi This s cour courtt lean leans s towar towards ds Gobit Gobitis is deci decisi sion on.. Spec Specia iall circumstance of Barnette case was that it expelled the students although attendance in schools is mandatory turnimg turnimg them all into truants headed for reformatories. reformatories. Fortunatel Fortunately, y, the law requiring requiring compulsory compulsory enrollment enrollment here in the Philippines is so riddled with exceptions and exemptions that there is no crisis if the children didn't attend school. There is no penal sanction for failing to attend school. When Whenev ever er a man man enjo enjoys ys the the bene benefi fits ts of soci societ ety y and and community life he becomes a member and must give up







consti part 10: free exercise clause pamphl pamphlets ets.. Court Court said said that that state state can limit contro controll of parent/guardian. The right of practice religion freelydoes not include liberty to expose child to ill health. This case was decided after Barnette, supra. SecEd was not imposing a religious belief with the flag salute salute.. It was Merely Merely enforc enforcing ing a non-di non-disc scrimi riminato natory ry regulation applicable to members of all religions. State carried carried out duty to supervise supervise educational educational institutions institutions and teach civic duty. Petiti Petitione oners rs do not question question the right right of the school school to cond conduc uctt the the flag flag Salut Salute e cere ceremon mony y but but ques questi tion on the the attempt attempt to compel them. them. The trouble trouble of exempting exempting the petioners is that it would disrupt school discipline and demoralize the greater student population. There are exemptions for cases of religiious belief like an understanding that anti-war religious believers will not be made to fight but help war effort in other non-combat ways. But that is for the legislature to decide, not the courts.

DISPOSITION: decisi decision on affirm affirmed. ed. consti constituti tutiona onal. l. writ writ of prelim prelimina inary ry injunction dissolved. No costs.

ERBALINAG vs. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT

March 1, 1993 Ponente: Griño-Aquino, J:

FACTS: All the petitioners in these two cases are school children who are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who were were expell expelled ed from from their their class classes es by the public public school school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required required by R.A. No. 1265 (July 11, 1955) and by DECS Department Order No. 8 (July 21, 1955) which makes the the flag flag cere ceremo mony ny comp compul ulso sory ry in all all educ educat atio iona nall institutions.

ISSUE: Whe Whether ther or not not scho school ol chi childre ldren n who who are memb member ers s of a reli religi giou ous s sect sect know known n as Jeho Jehova vah’ h’s s Witnesses may be expelled from school (both public and private) for refusing, on account of their religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony.

country, etc., is a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to students and teachers regardless of their religion. While the necessity to develop such respect for the flag and respect for the country still persists until today, there is recognition recognition that religious freedom is a fund fundam amen enta tall righ rightt whic which h is enti entitl tled ed to the the high highes estt priority and the amplest protection among human rights (Fernando separate opinion in German vs. Barangan) Two-fold aspect of religious profession: Free Freedo dom m to beli believ eve e – abso absolu lute te as long long as  confined to the realm of thought Free Freedo dom m to act act on one’ one’s s beli belief ef – subj subjec ectt to  regula regulation tion where where the belief belief is transl translate ated d into into external acts affecting the public welfare Petit etitiione oners cont ontend that that whil while e the they did did not not participate in the flag ceremony, they did not engage in any disrupt disruptive ive behavi behavior or that that would would offend offend those those who choose to participate but rather they just quietly stood at attention during the flag ceremony to show respect to their countrymen. Therefore, in the absence of a grave and present danger which is the sole justification for a prio priorr rest restra rain intt on the the exerc xercis ise e of reli religi giou ous s accord rdin ing g to Teeh Teehan anke kee e in his his diss dissen entt in freedom , acco German vs. Barangan, there is no warrant to justify their expulsion. What petitioners seek is only exemption from the flag ceremony and therefore the virtues (e.g. patriotism, respect for human rights, love of country, etc.) they are supposed to imbibe from their participation in the flag cerem remony, they can get in their study of the Consti Constituti tution, on, the democa democarat ratic ic way of life life and form of government, the history and culture of the Philippines, the life of our heroes, etc. To force a small religious group through the iron hand hand of the the law, law, to part partic icip ipat ate e in a cere ceremon mony y that that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted authorities which are precisely the values the court in Gerona feared will be lost by exempting some members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to participate in the flag ceremonies.  let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even to the the coun countr try… y… is not not a goal goal that that is cons consti titu tuti tion onal ally ly obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means. (Meyer vs. Nebraska) 

expulsion of the members will violated their right as citizens under the Constitution to receive free education which is the duty of the State to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education and to make such education applicable to all.







consti part 10: free exercise clause

NEWDOW vs. vs. U.S. CONGRESS

-

FACTS:

1.

Newdow Newdow is an atheist whose daughter attends publ public ic elem elemen enta tary ry schoo schooll in the the Elk Elk Grov Grove e Unified School District ("EGUSD") in California. In acco accorda rdanc nce e with with stat state e law law and and a scho school ol district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school day by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance ("the Pledge").

2.

The The Califo Californi rnia a Educat Education ion Code Code requir requires es that that publ public ic schoo schools ls begi begin n each each scho school ol day day with with "appropriat "appropriate e patriotic patriotic exercises exercises"" and that "the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy" this requirement.

3.

To implement the California statute, the school distri district ct that that Newdow Newdow's 's daught daughter er attend attends s has promulgated promulgated a policy that states, in pertinent pertinent part: "Each elementary elementary school class recite recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day." (students are led by teachers)

4.

Newd Newdow ow does does not not alle allege ge that that his his daug daught hter er's 's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge. Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is comp compel elle led d to "wat "watch ch and and list listen en as her her stat state e employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that ours is 'one 'one nation nation under under God.'

5.

-

He challenges the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Newdow argues that the addition of these words by a 1954 federal statute to the previous version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which made no reference to God) and the daily recitation in the classroom of the Pledge of Allegiance, with the added added words words includ included, ed, by his daught daughter' er's s publ public ic scho school ol teac teache herr are are viol violat ation ions s of the the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

ISSUES: WON WON the the adde added d phra phrase se “und “under er God” God” cons consti titu tute tes s a violation of the U.S. Consti? HELD: Yes. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff to recover costs on his appeal.

-

and (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Historically, the primary purpose of the 1954 Act was to advance religion, in conflict with the first prong of the Lemon test. The federal defendants "do not dispute that the words 'under God' were intended" "to recognize a Supreme Being," at a time time whe when the the gover overnm nme ent was publ public icly ly inveighing against atheistic communism. the federa federall defend defendant ants s argue argue that that the o Pledge must be considered as a whole when assessing whether it has a secular purpose. They claim that the Pledge has the the secu secula larr purp purpos ose e of "sol "solem emni nizi zing ng public occasions, expressing confidence in the the futu future re,, and and enco encour urag agin ing g the the recogniti ition of what is worthy of appreciation in society." Court said: said: As was the case case with with the o amendment amendment to the Alabama statute in Wallac Wallace, e, the legis legislat lative ive histor history y of the 1954 1954 Act Act reve reveal als s that that the the Act' Act's s sole sole purpo purpose se was was to adva advanc nce e reli religi gion, on, in order to differentiate the United States from nation nations s under under commun communist ist rule. rule. "The First Amendment requires requires that a stat statut ute e must must be inva invali lida date ted d if it is enti entire rely ly moti motiva vate ted d by a purp purpos ose e to advance religion." Defendants: The phrase 'under God' recognizes only the guidance of God in our national affairs. Court: This alleged alleged distinction distinction is irrelevan irrelevantt for constitutional purposes. The Act's affirmation of "a beli belief ef in the the sove sovere reig ignt nty y of God" God" and and its its reco recogn gnit itio ion n of "th "the guid guida ance nce of God" God" are are endors endorseme ements nts by the govern governmen mentt of religi religious ous beliefs. The Establishment Clause is not limited to "religion as an institution"; this is clear from cases such as Santa Fe, where the Court struck down student-initiated and student-led prayer at high school football games.. The Establishment Clause guards not only against the establishment of "religion as an institution," but also also agai agains nstt the the endo endors rsem emen entt of reli religi giou ous s ideolo ideology gy by the govern governmen ment. t. Becaus Because e the Act fails the purpose prong of Lemon, we need not examine the other prongs. Similarly, the school district policy also fails the Lemon test. Although it survives the first prong of Lemon because, because, as even Newdow Newdow concedes, concedes, the school district district had the secular purpose of fostering patriotism in enacting the policy, the policy fails the second prong. The second Lemon prong asks whether the challenged government action action is suffic sufficien iently tly likely likely to be cei d by







consti part 10: free exercise clause message of endorsement to some and disapprova disapprovall to others others of their their beliefs beliefs regarding regarding the existence of a monotheistic God. Therefore the policy fails the effects prong of Lemon, and fails the Lemon test

Justice O’ Connor’s “endorsement test” In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. . To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the value alues s for for which hich the the flag flag sta stands: nds: unit unity, y, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -monot monothe heis ism. m. The The text text of the the offic officia iall Pled Pledge ge,, codifi codified ed in federa federall law, law, imperm impermiss issibl ibly y takes takes a positi position on with with respec respectt to the purely purely religi religious ous question of the existence and identity of God. Furthe Furthermor rmore, e, the school school distri district' ct's s practi practice ce of teac teache herr-le led d reci recita tatio tion n of the the Pled Pledge ge aims aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot cannot be forced forced to participate participate in recitation recitation of the Pledge Pledge,, the school school distri district ct is noneth nonethele eless ss conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious religious belief when it requires requires public school school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge. “Coercion test” on the the prin princi cipl ple e that that "at "at a mini minimu mum, m, the the Constitution Constitution guarantees guarantees that government government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise to act in a way way whic which h esta establ blis ishe hes s a stat state e reli religi gion on or religious faith, or tends to do so." -

Although the defendants argue that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal, to an atheist or a believer believer in certain certain non-Judeonon-JudeoChri Christ stia ian n reli religi gion ons s or phil philos osop ophi hies es,, it may may reasonably appear to be an attempt to enforce a "relig "religious ious orthod orthodoxy oxy"" of monoth monotheis eism, m, and is theref therefore ore imperm impermiss issibl ible. e. The coerci coercive ve effect effect of this this policy policy is partic particula ularly rly pronoun pronounce ced d in the school setting given the age and impressiona impressionability bility of schoolchil schoolchildren, dren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students.

(Reversed and Remanded)

agreement, all employees would be required to join the Union and must stay in the Union to be able to retain employment in the Hacienda. In 1963 and 1964, 150 members of the Inglesia ni Cristo sought resignation from the Union pursuant to a circular give given n by Ingl Ingles esia ia in 1959 1959 proh prohib ibit itin ing g any any of thei theirr membe members rs from from join joinin ing g any any outs outsid ide e asso associ ciat atio ion n or organizatio organization. n. Members Members of Inglesia Inglesia were told that they would not lose their jobs pursuant to RA 3350, that says that members of religious sects that prohibit affiliation may may not not be laid laid off simply simply on grou ground nds s of thei theirr nonnonaffiliation with any worker’s union. Later this number went down to 115 due to 2 of them having already been deceased and 27 not having been in the Union to begin with. The Union then infomed the Hacien Hacienda da that that the the 115 members members have have resign resigned ed and dema demand nded ed for for thei theirr imme immedi diat ate e laylay-of offf due due to the the stipulations of the CBA. The Union even proceeded to go on strike until the 115 workers were laid off. Responden Respondentt Union assailed assailed the constitutio constitutionalit nality y of RA 3350 and the Court on Industrial Relations struck down the the stat statut ute. e. Peti Petiti tion oner ers s here here have have appe appeal aled ed to the the Supreme Court.

ISSUES: 1)

WON WON the the Cour Courtt of Indus ndusttrial rial Relat elatio ion ns had had jurisdiction. 2) WON RA 3350 is uncons unconstitu titutio tional nal..

HELD: 1) 2)

No it did did not. not. The Cour Courtt of Agric Agricul ultu tura rall Relations had jurisdiction. No, RA 3350 3350 is not not unco unconst nstitu itution tional. al.

RATIO: 1)

Petitioners claim that the Court of Agri Agricu cult ltur ural al Rela Relati tion ons s shou should ld have have had had jur juris isdi dict ctio ion n as the the Haci Hacien enda da is of an agricultural agricultural nature, not an industrial industrial one. Here Here the Court Court says says that that the agricu agricultur ltural al nature nature of the Hacienda Hacienda is unquestiona unquestionable. ble. As such uch it is clear lear tha that the the Cour Courtt of Agri Agricu cult ltur ural al Rela Relati tion ons s shou should ld have have had had jurisdiction. 2) The cons onstitutiona onality of RA 3350 was attacked the Union and struck down by the Cour Courtt of Indu Indus stria triall Relati lation ons s on the the following grounds:







consti part 10: free exercise clause D) it denies denies equal equal protec protectio tion n

On the the first first clai claim, m, the the Court Court said said that that both both the the Const Constii and and RA 875 875 (the (the origina originall Indust Industria riall Peace Peace Act, Act, later amended by RA 3350) recognized recognized freedom freedom of associatio association. n. RA 875 875 prov provid ides es for for the the formi forming ng,, joining or assisting of labor orga organi niza zatio tions ns for the the purp purpos ose e of collective bargaining. The court also said said that that this this righ rightt to join join also also includes the right not to join or to abstain from joining any union. The court explains, however, the idea of a closed shop, wherein an agre agreem emen entt of this this natu nature re bind binds s employ employees ees to the the union union bargai bargained ned wit with. h. “Hen “Hence ce,, the the righ rightt of said said employee not to join the labor union is curt curtai aile led d and withd ithdra raw wn”. n”. Howe Howeve ver, r, RA 3350 3350 incl includ uded ed the the exception exception with regards regards to religious religious sects that prohibit affiliation. Here, the members are not being prohib prohibite ited d as they they may still join, join, neithe neitherr are they they being being coerce coerced d to join. Therefore, there is no curta urtail ilme ment nt of the the free freedo dom m of association. B) With regards to impairing the obliga obligation tion of contra contracts cts,, the Court Court said said that that legisl legislati ation on impair impairing ing the obli obliga gati tion on of contr ontrac acts ts can be sustained when it is enacted for the promotion of the general good of the people, and when the means adop adopte ted d to secu secure re that that end end are are reasonable. Here the purpose is to insure insure freedom freedom of religion, religion, prevent disc discri rimin minat ation ion,, and and prot protec ectt the the member members s of those those religi religious ous sects sects.. Also stated by the Court is that the free exercise of religious profession or beli belief ef is supe superi rior or to cont contra ract ct rights. C) The Court cited Aglipay v. Ruiz where they stated that the government should not be precluded from from purs pursui uing ng vali valid d obje object ctiv ives es secu secula larr in char charac acte terr even even if the the incidental result would be favorable to a religion or sect. The purpose of RA 3350 3350 is secu secula lar, r, worl worldl dly, y, and and

Here we see that the classification is based on real and importan tant difference differences, s, as religious religious beliefs beliefs are not not mere mere beli belief efs s or idea ideas, s, bit bit are are motives motives of certa certain in rules rules of human human cond conduc uct. t. Such Such clas classi sifi fica cati tion on is therefore valid.

A)

IGLESIA ni CRISTO vs. CA

1996 Ponente: Puno FACTS: 1.

Iglesia ni Cr Cristo (IN (INC) has has a tel television prog progra ram m entitl entitled ed “Ang “Ang Iglesi Iglesia a ni Cristo Cristo”” aired aired on 2 TV channels. The program presents and propagates peti petiti tion oner er’s ’s reli religi giou ous s beli belief efs, s, doct doctri rine nes s and and practi practice ces s often often times times in compar comparati ative ve studie studies s with other religions.

2.

Sometime in 19 1992, IN INC sub subm mitted to to th the BR BRMPT (Board) the VTR tapes of its TV program Series Nos. Nos. 116, 116, 119, 119, 121 121 and 128. 128. The The Board Board class classifi ified ed the series series as “X” or not for public public viewin viewing g on the ground that they they “offen “offend d and consti constitut tute e an attack attack agains againstt other other religi religions ons which is expressly prohibited by law.”

3.

Petitioner pursued two (2) courses of action agains againstt the Board. Board. First, First, it appeal appealed ed to the Office of the President the classification of its TV Series Series No. 128. It succeeded succeeded in its appeal appeal and and the Office of the Pres. reversed the decision of the Board. Board. Second, Second, petitioner petitioner filed filed a civil case against the Board with the RTC Quezon City.

4.

INC alleged that the Board acted w/o jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in requir requiring ing INC to submit submit the VTR tapes tapes of its program and x-rating them. The Board invoked its power under P.D. 1986 in relation to Art. 201 of the RPC. The RTC ordered the Board to grant the INC the permit for all the series of the “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” program.

5.

The The Boar Board d app appe eale aled to to the the Cour Courtt of of App Appea eals ls afte afterr its motion for reconsideration was denied. The CA reversed reversed the trial trial court’s court’s decision. decision. It ruled ruled that: (1) the respondent board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not









consti part 10: free exercise clause ISSUES: 1.

WoN th t he Bo B oard ha h as th t he po p ower to t o re review petiti petitione oner’s r’s TV program program “Ang “Ang Iglesi Iglesia a ni Cristo,”

2.

Assuming it it ha has th the po power, wh whether or or no not the Board Board gravel gravely y abuse abused d its discre discretio tion n when it prohibited the airing of petitioner’s religious program, series Nos. 115, 119 and 121, for the reason that they constitute an attack against other religions and that they are are inde indece cent nt,, cont contra rary ry to law law and and good good customs.

invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting inherent police police power the general general welfare welfare. The inherent can be exerci exercised sed to preven preventt religi religious ous practi practices ces inimical inimical to society. society. And this is true true even if such practi practices ces are pursued pursued out of sincer sincere e religi religious ous conv convic ictio tion n and and not not mere merely ly for the the purpos purpose e of evadi vading ng the the reaso easona nabl ble e req require uireme ment nts s or prohibitions of the law. Issue No. 2 •

DECISION: The Decision of the CA sustaining the jurisdiction of the Board to review the TV program entitled “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” is AFFIRMED. Its decision sustaining the action of the Board xrating petitioner’s TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, and 121 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

RATIO:

The The evid eviden ence ce show shows s that that the the Boar Board d x-ra x-rate ted d petitioners TV series for “attacking” other religions, especially the the Catholic church. church. An examination of the evidence will show that the so-called “attacks” are mere criticisms of some of the deeply deeply held dogm dogmas as and tene tenets ts of othe otherr reli religi gion ons. s. The The videotapes were not viewed by the CA as they were not not pres presen ente ted d as evid eviden ence ce.. Yet Yet they they were were considere considered d by the CA as indecent, indecent, contrary to law and good customs, hence, can be prohibited from public viewing under Section 3(c) 3(c) of PD 1986. This ruling clearly suppresse suppresses s petitioner’ petitioner’s s freedom freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion.

Issue 1. •

•

The law gives the Board the power to screen, review and examine all “television programs.” the Board has the the power power to “approve “approve,, delete delete x x x and/or and/or proh prohib ibit it the the x x x exhi exhibi biti tion on and/ and/or or tele televi visi sion on broadcast of x x x television programs x x x The law also also direc directs ts the the Boar Board d to appl apply y “con “conte tempo mpora rary ry Filipino Filipino cultural cultural values values as standard” to determine determine those which are objectionab objectionable le for being “immoral, “immoral, indec indecent ent,, contra contrary ry to law and/or and/or good good customs customs,, inju injuri riou ous s to the the pres presti tige ge of the the Repu Republ blic ic of the the Philip Philippin pines es and its people people,, or with with a danger dangerous ous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of a wrong or crime.”

•

The The resp respon onde dent nt Board Board may disag disagre ree e with the criticism criticisms of other religions religions by petitioner petitioner but that gives gives it no excu excuse se to inter interdi dict ct such such criti critici cism sms s, howe howeve ver, r, uncle unclean an they they may may be. be. Unde Underr our our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor favor any religion religion by protec protecting ting it against against an attack attack by another religion. religion. Religious Religious dogmas dogmas and beli belief efs s are are ofte often n at war and to pres preser erve ve peac peace e among their followers, especially the fanatics, the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the State from leaning towards any religion The Board cannot squelch the speech of petitioner INC simply because it attacks other religions, even if said religio religion n happe happens ns to be the most numero numerous us







consti part 10: free exercise clause runs smack against the doctrine that administrative rules and regulations cannot expand the letter and spirit spirit of the law they they seek seek to enforc enforce. e. Moreov Moreover, er, Arti Articl cle e 201 201 (2) (2) (b) (b) (3) (3) of the the Revi Revise sed d Pena Penall Code Code shou should ld be invo invoke ked d to justi ustify fy the the subsequent punishment of a show which offends any religion. It cannot cannot be utiliz utilized ed to justify justify prior censorship of speech. •

•

Respondents Respondents failed to apply the clear and present danger rule. The records show that the decision of the Board is completely bereft of findings of facts to justify the conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute constitute impermissibl impermissible e attacks attacks against against another another religion. There is no showing whatsoever whatsoever of the type especially the of harm the tapes will bring about especially gravit gravity y and immine imminence nce of the threat threatene ened d harm. harm. Prior Prior restra restraint int on speec speech, h, includ including ing religi religious ous speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but but only only by the showing showing of a substa substanti ntive ve and immi immine nent nt evil evil whic which h has has take taken n the the life life of a reality already on ground. It is also opined that it is inappropriate to apply the clear clear and present present dange dangerr test test to the case at bar because because the issue issue involves involves the content of speech speech and and not not the the time time,, plac place e or mann manner er of spee speech ch.. Allege Allegedly dly,, unless unless the speech speech is first first allowe allowed, d, its impa impact ct cann cannot ot be meas measur ured ed,, and and the the caus causal al conn connec ecti tion on betw betwee een n the the spee speech ch and and the the evil evil apprehended cannot cannot be established. The contention contention over overlo looks oks the the fact fact that that the the case case at bar bar invo involv lves es videot videotape apes s that that are pre-taped and hence hence,, their their speech speech content content is known known and not an X quanti quantity. ty. Given the specific content of the speech, it is not unreasonable to assume that the respondent Board, with its expertise, can determine whether its sulphur will bring about the substantive evil feared by the law. vs. TELERON PAMIL

the constitutio constitutional nal convention. convention. An opposing opposing candidate candidate,, appellee Selma Cash Paty, sued in the Chancery Court for a declaratory judgment that McDaniel was isqualified from from servi serving ng as a delega delegate te by a Tenne Tennesse ssee e statut statutory ory provision establishing the qualifications of constitutional conv conven enti tion on dele delega gate tes s to be the the same same as thos those e for for membership in the State House of Representatives, thus invoking invoking a Tennessee Tennessee constitution constitutional al provision provision barring barring ministers of the Gospel, or priests of any denomination whatever." That court held that the statutory provision violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. and for a judgment striking striking his name from the ballot. Chancellor Chancellor Franks of the Chancery Court held that 4 of ch. 848 violated the Firs Firstt and and Fourt Fourtee eent nth h Amen Amendm dmen ents ts to the the Feder Federal al Constitution and declared McDaniel eligible for the office of delegate. Accordingly, McDaniel's name remained on the ballot and in the ensuing election he was elected by a vote almost equal to that of t hree opposing candidates. Afte Afterr the the elec electi tion on,, the the Tenn Tennes esse see e Supr Suprem eme e Cour Courtt reve revers rsed ed the the Cha Chancer ncery y Cou Court, rt, holdi olding ng that that the the disq disqua uali lifi fica cati tion on of cler clergy gy impo impose sed d no burd burden en upon upon "relig "religious ious belief belief"" and restri restricte cted d "relig "religious ious action action . . . [only] in the lawmaking process of government - where reli religi giou ous s acti action on is abso absolu lute tely ly proh prohib ibit ited ed by the the esta establ blis ishm hmen entt clau clause se . . . ."Th ."The e stat state e inte interes rests ts in preventing the establishment of religion and in avoiding the the divi divisi sive vene ness ss and and tend tenden ency cy to chan channe nell poli politi tica call acti activi vity ty alon along g reli religi giou ous s line lines, s, resu result ltin ing g from from cler clergy gy participati participation on in political political affairs, were deemed deemed by that court sufficiently weighty to justify the disqualification, notwit notwithst hstand anding ing the the guaran guarantee tee of the Free Free Exerci Exercise se Clause.

ISSUE/HELD: W/O Not a Tennessee Tennessee statute barring Ministers Ministers of the Gospel, or priests of any denomination whatever from serving as delegates to the State's limited constitutional conven conventio tion n depriv deprived ed appell appellant ant of the right right to the free free







consti part 10: free exercise clause of the disestablishment experiment was perceived, 11 of the 13 States disqualifying the clergy from some types of public office gradually abandoned abandoned that limitation. limitation. The essence of this aspect of our national history is that in all all but but a few few Stat States es the the sele select ctio ion n or reje reject ctio ion n of clergymen for public office soon came to be viewed as something safely left to the good sense and desires of the people. The right to the free exercise exercise of religion religion unquestionably unquestionably encompasses the right to preach, proselyte, and perform othe otherr simil similar ar reli religi gious ous func functi tion ons. s. Tenn Tennes esse see e also also acknowledges the right of its adult citizens generally to seek seek and hold office office as legisl legislator ators s or delega delegates tes to the state constitutional constitutional convention. convention. Yet under the clergyclergydisqualification provision, McDaniel cannot exercise both rights simultaneously because the State has conditioned the exercise of one on the surrender of the other. The Tennesse Tennessee e disqualific disqualification ation is directed directed primarily, primarily, not at religious belief, but at the status, acts, and conduct of the clergy. Therefore, the Free Exercise Clause's absolute prohib prohibiti ition on agains againstt infrin infringem gement ents s on the "freed "freedom om to believe" is inapposite here. The essence of the rationale underlying the Tennessee restriction on ministers is that if elected to public office they will necessarily exercise their powers and influence to prom promot ote e the the inte intere rest sts s of one one sect sect or thwa thwart rt the the interests of another, thus pitting one against the others, contra contrary ry to the anti-e anti-esta stabli blishm shment ent princi principle ple with with its command of neutrality. However widely that view may have been held in the 18th century by many, including enli enligh ghte tene ned d stat states esme men n of that that day, day, the the Amer Americ ican an experience provides no persuasive support for the fear that clergymen in public office will be less careful of antiestablishment interests or less faithful to their oaths of civil office than their unordained counterparts. The The chall challeng enged ed provis provision ion violat violates es appell appellant ant's 's First First Amendm Amendment ent right right to the the free free exerci exercise se of his religion religion because it conditions his right to the free exercise of his religi religion on on the surrende surrenderr of his right to seek seek office office..

On Oct Oct 2, 1984 1984,, peti petiti tion oner ers s compo compose sed d of abou aboutt 50 businessme businessmen, n, students students and office office employees employees and who were were member members s of the August August Twenty Twenty-On -One e Moveme Movement nt (ATOM), converged at J.P. Laurel Street, Manila, for the purpose of hearing Mass at the St. Jude Chapel, which adjoins adjoins the Malacañan Malacañang g grounds located located in the same street. Wearing yellow t-shirts, they marched down said street street with with raised raised clench clenched ed fists fists and shouts shouts of antiantigovern governmen mentt invect invective ives. s. Along Along the way, way, howeve however, r, they they were barred by respondent Major lsabelo Lariosa, upon orders of his superior and co-respondent Gen. Santiago Barangan, from proceeding any further, on the ground that St. Jude Chapel was located within the Malacañang secur security ity area. area. When When their their efforts efforts to enter enter the church church became became appare apparentl ntly y futile, futile, they they opted opted to stay stay outsid outside, e, kneeling on the sidewalk in front of the barricades and prayed the Holy Rosary. Afterwards, they sang Bayan ko with with clenc clenched hed fists fists of protes protestt agains againstt the violat violation ion of their rights and thereafter dispersed peacefully. Because of the alleged warning given them by respondent Major Lariosa that any similar attempt by petitioners to enter the church in the future would likewise be prevented, petitioners took this present recourse.

ISSUE

HELD:

1.

WON petitioners’ constitutionally protected freedom to exercise religion (Sec 8, Art IV of the 1973 Consti) was violated  NO

2.

WON petitioners’ freedom of locomotion was violated (Sec 5, Art IV of the 1973 Consti)  NO

RATIO: 1. Petitioners' alleged purpose in converging at J.P. Laurel Street was to pray and hear mass at St. Jude church. At the the hear hearin ing g of this this peti petiti tion on,, resp respon onde dent nts s assu assure red d petitioners and the Court that they have never restricted, and will never never restri restrict, ct, any person person or person persons s from from entering and worshipping at said church. They maintain, however, that petitioners' intention was not really to perform an act of religious worship, but to conduct an anti-government demonstration at a place close







consti part 10: free exercise clause Even assuming that petitioners' claim to the free exercise of reli religi gion on is genu genuin ine e and and vali valid, d, stil stilll resp respon onde dent nts s reaction to the October 2, 1984 mass action may not be charac character terize ized d as violat violative ive of the freedo freedom m of religi religious ous worsh worship. ip. Since Since 1972, 1972, when when mobs mobs of demons demonstra trators tors crashed crashed through the Malacañang Malacañang gates gates and scaled scaled its perime perimeter ter fence, fence, the use by the public of J.P. J.P. Laurel Laurel Stre Street et and and the the stre street ets s appr approa oach chin ing g it hav have been been rest restri rict cted ed.. Whil While e trav travel el to and and from from the the affec ffecte ted d thor thorou ough ghfa fare res s has has not not been been abso absolu lute tely ly proh prohib ibit ited ed,, pass passe ers-b rs-by y have have been been subj subje ecte cted to cour courte teou ous, s, unobtrusive security checks. The reasonableness of this restriction is readily perceived and appreciated if it is considered that the same is designed to protect the lives of the the Pres Presid iden entt and and his his fami family ly,, as well ell as othe otherr govern governmen mentt offici officials als,, diplom diplomats ats and foreig foreign n guests guests transacting business with Malacañang. The restriction is also also intend intended ed to secur secure e the sever several al execut executive ive offices offices within the Malacañang grounds from possible external atta attack cks s and and dist distur urba banc nces es.. Thes These e offi office ces s incl includ ude e comm commun unic icat atio ions ns faci facili liti ties es that that link link the the cent centra rall government government to all places in the land. Unquestiona Unquestionably, bly, the restri restricti ction on impose imposed d is necess necessary ary to mainta maintain in the smoot smooth h func functi tioni oning ng of the the exec execut utiv ive e branc branch h of the the gove govern rnme ment nt,, whic which h peti petiti tion oner ers' s' mass mass acti action on woul would d certainly disrupt. Cantwell Cantwell v Connecticut: Connecticut: The constitutional inhibition on legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual individual may choose cannot be restricted restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the amendment embraces two concepts –freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be. In the the case case at bar, bar, peti petiti tion oner ers s are are not not deni denied ed or restraine restrained d of their freedom of belief belief or choice of their their religi religion, on, but only only in the the manner manner by which which they had

2. Suffice it to say that the restriction imposed on the use of J.P. Laurel Laurel Street, Street, the wisdom and reasonableness reasonableness of which have already been discussed, is allowed under the fundamental law, the same having been established in the interest of national security.

Petition dismissed. Teehankee, dissenting: I vote to grant the petition on the ground that the right of free worship and movement is a preferred right that enjoys enjoys prece preceden dence ce and primac primacy y and is not subjec subjectt to prior restraint except where there exists the clear and pres presen entt dang danger er of a subs substa tant ntiv ive e evil evil soug sought ht to be prevented. prevented. There was and is manifestly manifestly no such danger in this case. 1. The right to freely exercise one's religion is guaranteed in Section 8 of our Bill of Rights. Freedom of worship, alon alongs gsid ide e free freedom dom of expr expres essi sion on and and spee speech ch and and peaceable peaceable assembly, assembly, along with the other intellectual intellectual free freedo doms ms,, are hig highly hly rank ranked ed in our our schem heme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the judiciary—even more so than on the other departments—rests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course course,, dispen dispense se with with what what has been been so felici felicitous tously ly termed by Justice Holmes 'as the sovereign prerogative of judgment.' Nonetheless, the presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such such righ rights ts,, enjo enjoyi ying ng as they they do prec preced eden ence ce and and primacy." 2. In the free exercise of such preferred rights, there is to be no prior restraint although there may be subsequent punish punishmen mentt of any illega illegall acts acts commit committed ted during during the the exercise of such basic rights. The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of these basic rights is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or







consti part 10: free exercise clause Resp Respon onde dent nts s them themse selv lves es in the the Soli Solici citor tor Gene Genera ral' l's s commen commentt admit admit that that "true, "true, there were only only about about 80 person persons s in petiti petitione oners' rs' group on Octobe Octoberr 2 and this numbe numberr coul could d hard hardly ly pose pose the the dang danger er fear feared ed," ," but but expressed the fear that petitioners' ranks could within hours reach hundreds if not thousands and "peaceful "peaceful dispersal becomes impossible as in recent demonstrations and rallies." Respondents were in full control and there is no question as to the capability of the the secu securi rity ty forc forces es to ward ward off off and and stop stop any any They had had pla placed an adva dvance nce untow untoward ard move. move. The checkpoint as far back as the Sta. Mesa Rotonda and coul could d stop stop the the flow flow of peop people le in the the chur church ch if they they deemed it unmanageable. There definitely was no clear and present danger of any serious evil to public safety or the security of Malacañang.

CANTWELL vs. CONNECTICUT

COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEAL TH vs. TWITCHELL

(1993) WILKINS, J. FACTS: David and Ginger Twitchell appeal from their convictions of involuntary manslaughter death of their 2 1/2 year old old son son Roby Robyn. n. Roby Robyn n died died of the the cons conseq eque uenc nces es of peritonitis caused by the perforation of his bowel which had been obstructed as a result of an anomaly known as Mecke Meckel's l's diverti diverticul culum. um. There There was eviden evidence ce that that the condit condition ion could could be correc corrected ted by surge surgery ry with with a high high success rate. The defendants are practicing Christian Scientists [CS] who grew up in CS families. families. They believe believe in healing healing by spiritual treatment. During Robyn's five-day illness illness they

since since this this defens defense e has not been been presen presented ted to the jur jury y, the the judg judge ement ment must must be reve revers rsed ed and remanded.

ISSUES: WON WON the the law law gene genera rall lly y impo impose ses s a pare parent ntal al duty duty to provide medical services to a child. -  YES The duty to provide sufficient support for a child is legally legally enforceable enforceable in a civil civil proceeding proceeding against against a parent parent.. A breach breach of that that duty duty is a misdem misdemean eanor. or. Where Where necessary necessary to protect protect a child's child's well-being well-being,, the Commonw Commonweal ealth th may interv intervene ene,, over over the parent parents' s' obje object ctio ions ns,, to assu assure re that that need needed ed serv servic ices es are are provided. Parental duty of care has been recognized recognized in the common law of homicide in this Commonwealth. There is also a common law duty to provide medical services for a child, the breach of whi which ch can be the the basi basis, s, in the the appr approp opri riat ate e circum circumsta stance nces, s, for the convic convictio tion n of a parent parent for involuntary manslaughter. •

WON the STP bars any involuntary manslaughter charge against a parent who relies on spiritual treatment, and who does not seek medical attention for his or her child (even (even if the parent's parent's failure failure to seek seek such such care care would would otherwise be wanton or reckless reckless conduct). -  NO STP provid provides es no comple complete te protec protectio tion n to a parent parent against a charge of involuntary manslaughter that is based on the parent's wanton or reckless failure to provide medical services to a child. Sec.1 concerns child support and care in a chapter that deals with the Commonwealth's interest that persons within its territ territory ory should should not be killed killed by the wanton wanton and reckless reckless conduct conduct of others. It is unlikely that the Legislature placed the STP in Sec. 1 to provide a defense to common law homicide. The act that added the the STP STP was was enti entitl tled ed "An "An Act Act defi defini ning ng the the term term 'proper 'proper physical physical care' under the law relative relative to care of children children by a parent." The amendment's concern seems focused on the subject matter of sec.1 and certainly not directed toward changing the common law of homicide. •









consti part 10: free exercise clause

•

•

mino minorr chil child d who who wilf wilful ully ly fail fails s to prov provid ide e necessary and proper physical, educational or mora morall care and and gui guidan dance shall hall be punished." The STP was was added in 1971. Section 1 was rewritten removing from sec. 1 any refere reference nce to willfu willfull failur failure e to provid provide e necess necessary ary and proper proper physic physical al care care and limited any violation to matters of failure to supp suppor ort. t. Neve Nevert rthe hele less ss,, the the STP STP was was retained. Because of the 1986 amendment, the STP of sec. 1 has an application outside of sec. 1 that it did not have before. The The STP STP refe refers rs to negl neglec ectt and and will willfu full fail failur ure e to provi ovide prope oper physical care as bases for for puni punish shme ment nt.. Thes These e conce concepts pts do not not unde underl rlie ie involun involuntar tary y mansla manslaugh ughter ter.. Wanton Wanton or reckle reckless ss conduc conductt is not a form form of negl neglige igence nce.. Wanton Wanton or reckless conduct does not involve a willful intention to cau cause se the the res resul ulti ting ng har harm. m. Invo Involu lunt ntar ary y manslaught manslaughter er does does not not require require willfulnes willfulness. s. Thus, the the STP STP in sec. sec. 1 does does not not appl apply y to invo involun lunta tary ry manslaughter.

WON the failure to extend the protection of the STP to them them would would be a denial denial of due process process becaus because e they they lacked "fair warning" because they were officially misled by an opinion of the Attorney General of the the Commonwealth. - YES Atty Gen, who is statutorily empowered to give his opinio opinion n upon upon questi questions ons of law, law, gave gave an opinion opinion which answers a general question "whether parents •

•

The There re is spec specia iall meri meritt to such such a rule rule if reli religi gious ous beli belief efs s are are invo involv lved ed and and if the the defend defendant ant was attemp attemptin ting g to comply comply with with the the law law while while adhe adherin ring g to his his reli religi giou ous s beliefs and practices.

CASE REMANDED because some ‘Questions of Fact’ need be answered: Whether Whether a person would reasonably reasonably conclude o that the Attorney General had ruled that sec. 1 provide provided d protec protection tion agains againstt a mansla manslaught ughter er charge. Whether the defendants reasonably relied on the o church's church's publication publication and on the advice advice of the Committee on Publication.

ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR







i

Church and State - Free Exercise Clause

Recommend Documents