CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
SECTION 5
AGLIPAY V. RUIZ Petitioner Aglipay, Supreme Head of Philippine Independent Independent Church seeks the issuance of court of writ of prohibition to prevent respondent Director of Post from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of 33rd International Eucharistic Congress
Facts:
Gertrude
Preamble, exempt from taxation properties devoted exclusively to religious purposes Act 4052 : An act appropriating appropriating P60,000 and making making the same available available out of funds in the insular treasury not otherwise appropriated for the cost of plates and printing of postage stamps with new designs and for other purposes Approval of Secretary of Public Works and Communications Approved by authority of president Respondent Director alleges alleges : Government would suffer suffer losses if writ is granted. Likewise, an estimated revenue of P1,618,178.00 could be derived from the sell of such
ISSUE: WON SALE OF SAID STAMPS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION
1936, Director of Posts announced that it would order the issuance issuance of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in City of Manila of 33 rd International Eucharistc Congress organized by the Catholic Church In the center is a chalice, with grape vine and stalks of wheat border design. Further sale of stamps stamps is sought to be prevented by petitioner petitioner herein herein Petitioner alleged alleged that action of respondent respondent is violative of Section 13, 13, Sub Section 3 of Art 6 of t he Constitution “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied or used, directly or indirectly for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian, institution or system of religion, for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal instit ution, orphanage, leprosarium” Direct collorary of principle of separation of church and state In this country, we enjoy both both religious and civic civic freedom. All officers of government, in taking their oath to support and defend the Constitution bind themselves to recognize ad respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom with its inherent limitations and recognized implications. Guarantee of the Constitution is religious liberty and not not mere religious toleration Religious Freedom – constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion instills into the mind the purest principles of of morality. morality. Its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated.
HELD: NO Act No 4052 4052 contemplates contemplates no religious purpose. purpose. Stamps would be advantageous advantageous to the government. favor a particular church church or It is not inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor religious denomination. and sold for the benefit of Roman Roman Catholic Stamps were not issued and Church. Nor were money derived from sale of stamps given to that church. The only purpose for issuing and selling the stamps was “to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists to the country” Officials concerned merely took advantage of event considered of international importance to give publicity to Philippines and its people. designed and printed, It is significant to note that stamps as actually designed instead of showing a Catholic Church chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of City of Manila issuance and sale of stamps in question question may be It is obvious that while issuance said to be inseparably linked with an event of a religious character, resulting propaganda, if any, received by Roman Catholic Church was not the aim and purpose of the government
GARCES V. ESTENZO Constitutionality of the 4 resolutions of Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City regarding the acquisition of wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in the celebration of annual feast day
Facts:
1|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
1976, Barangay Council adopted Resolution No. 5 “Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration of the feast day of San Vicente Ferrer, the parton saint of Valencia. Resolution 5 (1) Acquisition of image (2) Construction of waiting shed as barangay projects Resolution No 6: Chairman or Hermano Mayor of Fiesta would be the caretaker of image and would retain such in his residence for 1 year until
Gertrude
next election. Image would be available to Catholic Church during the celebration of feast day Image was acquired, it was temporarily placed in the Altar of Catholic Church Controversy arose : Father Osmena refused to return the image claiming that it was the property of church because church funds were used for its acquisition.
Osmena did not accede to the request of Cabatingan to have custody and maliciously ignored Council’s resolution No 6
OSMENA’s CLAIM:
He claims that resolution is void by virtue of Manago’s absence (barangay youth chariman) Resolution contravenes the constitutional provision that “no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion” and that No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied or used, directly or indirectly for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian, institution or system of religion, for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage, leprosarium” Barangay council favored the Catholic religion: by using the funds raised by solicitations and donations for purchase of patron saint’s wooden image and making such available to the catholic church
ISSUE:
private funds, not tax money. The construction of waiting shed is entirely a secular matter. Wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint and not for the purpose of favoring any religion or interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents. One of the highlights of Fiesta was the mass. Consequently, the image of patron saint had to be placed in church were mass is to be celebrated. 1st Resolution : Barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Celebration is an ingrained tradition in rural communities. The fiesta relieves the monotony and drudgery of lives of the masses. Barangay Council designated a layman as the custodian of wooden image to forestall the suspicion that it is favoring the Catholic Church This case is a petty quarrel over a custody of a saint’s image. There is no question that the image belongs to the barangay council. Not every activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the Constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of worship and banning of use of public money or property.
WHETHER THE PARISH PRIEST OF LAYMAN SHOULD HAVE CUSTODY OF THE IMAGE OF SAN VICENTE
BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN Law of State of New York requires public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grades 7 to 12 students attending private schools are included.
HELD: NO
Facts:
Questioned resolutions do not directly or indirectly establish any religion, nor abridge religious liberty, or appropriate public money or property for the benefit of any sect, priest, or clergyman. The image was purchased with
Based on the findings that “public welfar e and safety requires that state and local communities give assistance to educational programs which are important to our national defense and the general welfare of state.” There was an amended Section 701. Educational Law of State of New York
2|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Beginning SY 1966-1967, local school boards were required to purchase textbooks and lend them without charge to all children residing in such school district who are enrolled in grades 7-12 which complies with compulsory educational law Books loaned are textbooks which are designated for use of any public, elementary or secondary schools Appellant Board of Education of Central School District 1 brought suit against James Allen
CLAIMS
Sec 701 violated both State and Federal Constitution If appellants, in reliance on their interpretation of the Constitution, failed to lend books to parochial school students within their countries, Appellee Allen would remove appellants from office and that to prevent this, appelants were complying with law and submitting to their constituents a school budget ncluding funding of books to be lent to parochial school pupils
TC: LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL CA: REVERSED Law’s purpose was to benefit all school children, regardless of the type of school they attend, and that only textbooks approved by public school authorities could be loaned. Completely neutral with respect to religion, merely making available secular text books at request of individual student and asking no question of which school he attends. ISSUE: WON THIS STATUTE THAR AUTHORIZES LOAN OF TEXTOOKS TO STUDENTS ATTENTDING PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS IS A LAW RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING FREE EXERCISE THEREOF AND SO IN CONFLICT WITH THE 1ST AND 14TH AMENDMENT HELD: NO
Establishment clause bars state from passing laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. IT bars too any “tax in any amount, levied to support any religious activities or institutions whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice of religion.”
Gertrude
Nevertheless, Establishment Clause does not prevent State from extending the benefits of state laws to all citizens without regard for their religious affiliation Line between state neutrality to religion and state support of religion is not easy to locate Constitutional standard is the separation of Church and State. TEST: - To withstand the strictures of Establishment Clause : There must be a secular or legislative purpose and primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion Exact purpose of Sec 701 was stated by New York Legislature : to be furtherance of educational opportunities available to young. Law merely makes available to ALL children the benefits of general program to lend school books free of charge. Books are furnished at the request of pupil and ownership remains, at least technically instate. NO BOOKS OR FUNDS are furnished to parochial schools and the financial benefit is to the parents and children, not the schools. Although books loaned are those required by parochial schools, only secular books may receive approval. No suggestion that religious books have been loaned. Religious schools pursue two goals (1) Religious instruction (2) Secular education State’s interest in education would be served sufficiently by reliance on the secular teaching that accompanied religious training in schools maintained. Nothing in this record supports the proposition that all textbooks, whether they deal with math, physics, foreign language etc are used by parochial schools to teach religion.
LEMON V. KURTZMAN Rhode Island’s 1969 Salary Supplement Act provides for a 15% salary supplement to be paid to teachers in non-public schools at which average per pupil expenditure on secular education is below the average of public schools. Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Act authorizes state Superintendent of Public Instruction to “purchase” certain secular educational services from nonpublic schools, directly reimbursing those schools solely for teacher’s salaries, textbooks and instructional materials.
3|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Facts:
(RHODE ISLAND STATUTE)
Rhode Island Salary Supplemental Act rests on legislative finding that quality of education available in nonpublic elementary schools has been jeopardized by rapid rising salaries needed to attract competent and dedicated teachers. Act authorizes state officials to supplement salaries of teachers of secular subject in non-public elementary schools by paying directly to the teacher an amount not in excess of 15% of his current annual salary. Recipient must teach in non-public school at which the average per-pupil expenditure on sec ular education is less than average in the State’s public schools during a specified period. Appellant State Commission requires eligible schools to submit financial data. If this information indicates a per pupil expenditure in excess of statutory limitation, schools in question must be examined in order to assess how much expenditure is attributable to secular education and how much to religious activity. Teachers eligible for salary supplements must teach only those subjects that are offered in State’s public schools. They must use only teaching materials that are used in public schools. Finally, teacher must first agree in writing “not to teach a course in religion for so long as during such time, as he/she receives any salary supplement under the act. Federal court found: nonpublic elementary schools accommodated approximately 25% of the States pupils About 95% pupils attended schools affiliated to Catholic Church. –although the court found that concern for religious values does not necessarily affect the content of secular subjects, it also found that parochial school systems was an “integral part of religious mission of catholic church” Violated the Establishment Clause : excessive entanglement between government and religion. (PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE)
Passed in response to crisis that Pennsylvania Legislature found existend in State’s non-public schools due to rapidly rising costs. Goal: Support of those purely secular educational objectives achieved through non-public education.
Gertrude
State directly reimburses nonpublic schools solely for their actual expenditures for teachers salaries, textbooks, and educational materials. School seeking reimbursement must maintain prescribed accounting procedures that identify “separate” cost of secular educational service” Reimbursement is limited to courses presented in the curricula of public schools. It further limited “solely” to courses in the secular subjects. Statute prohibits reimbursement for any course that contains any subject matter expressing religious teaching or the morals or forms of worship of any sect. $5,000,000.00 has been expended annually under act. State has now entered into contracts with 1,181 nonpublic elementary and secondary schools with student population of some 535,215. –more than 20% of total number of students in state. 96% if these pupils, attended church-related schools, most are affiliated with Catholic Church. District court held that it violated neither establishment nor free exercise clause.
ISSUE: WHETHERR OR NOT STATUTES CHALLENGED ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT HELD: Language of Religious Clauses of First Amendment is at best, opaque, particularly when compared with other portions of the Amendment. It authors did not simply prohibit establishment of state church or a state religion, they commanded that there should be “no law respecting establishment of religion” 3 main evils: Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: 1. Sponsorship 2. Financial Support 3.Active Involvement of Sovereign in religious activity 3 TESTS: (LAE) 1.) Statue: Secular Legislative Purpose 2.) Principal effect nether advances nor inhibits religion 3.) Not foster execessive government entanglement with religion
4|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Inquiry in the legislative purpose of Pennsylvania and Rhode island statute affords no basis for conclusion that the legislative intent was to advance religion. On the contrary, statutes themselves clearly state that they are intended to enhance the quality of secular education in all schools covered by the compulsory attendance laws. Two legislatures however have also recognized that church-related elementary and secondary schools have a significant religious mission, and that substantial portion of their activities is religiously oriented. They are therefore sought to create statutory restrictions designed to guarantee separation between secular and religious educational functions and to ensure that State financial aid supports only the former. Cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statute in each State involves excessive entanglement between government and religion. Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. WHAT TO CONSIDER?---character and purpose of institutions that are benefited, the nature of aid that state provides and the resulting relationship between government and religious authority. BOTH STATUTES: IMPERMISSIBLE DEGREE OF ENTANGLEMENT Church schools involved are located close to parish churches. This understandably permits convenient access for religious exercises. Although only 30 minutes a day are devoted to direct religious instruction, there are religiously oriented extra-curricular activities. Approximately 2/3 of the teachers in these schools are nuns of various orders. Their dedicated efforts provide an atmosphere in which religious instruction and religious vocations are natural and proper parts of their life. Substantial religious character of these church related schools give rise to entangling church-state relationships of this kind of Religion clauses sought to avoid. Compared to Allen (Text Books) : In some aspect of faith or morals in secular subject, a textbook’s content is ascertainable, but a teachers handling of a subject is not. Parish priest retains discretion in negotiating salary levels. Religious authority necessarily pervades the school system. Schools are governed by the standards set forth in a handbook of school regulations which has the force of synodal law in the diocese
Gertrude
Religious formation is not confined to formal courses, nor is it restricted to a single subject area. Finally handbook advices teachers to simulate interest in religious vocations and missionary work We do not assume that teachers in parochial schools are guilty of bad faith or any conscious design to evade the limitations imposed by statute and 1st amendment We simply recognize that a dedicated religious person, teaching school affiliated with his/her faith and operated to inculcate its tenets will inevitably experience great difficulty in remaining religiously neutral. (hard:total separation) A comprehensive, discriminating and continuing state surveillance will inevitably be required to ensure that these restrictions are obeyed. These prophylactic contracts will involve excessive and enduring entanglement between church and state. Fraught with the sort of entanglement that Constitution forbids. It is a relationship pregnant with dangers of excessive government direction of church schools and hence of churches
Pennsylvania statute, moreover has further defect of providing financial aid directly to church related school
Obviously, direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and as with most governmental grant programs; could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for the enforcement of statutory and administrative standards.
Government’s post-audit power to inspect and evaluate church related school’s financial record and to determine which expenditures are religious and secular creates an intimate and continuing relationship between church and state.
COUNTRY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Concerns the constitutionality of two recurring holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburg. The first, a crèche depicting Christian Nativity scene: placed on Grand Starecase of Allegheny County Courthouse : most public part of the court house. The second, is an 18 foot Chanukah menorah or candelabrum which is placed outside of City-County Building next to 45 foot decorated Christmas tree
5|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Facts:
Gertrude
filed a suit against county and city, seeking permanently to enjoin the county from displaying crèche and menorah.
(COUNTRY COUNTHOUSE)
Country Courthouse owned by Allegheny County, houses offices of county commissioners, controller, treasurer, sheriff and clerk of court. Since 1981, county permitted Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic Group to display a crèche in the county courthouse during Christmas season. Christmas has a secular as well as religious dimension The crèche is a visual representation of scene in manger in Bethlehem shortly after birth of Jesus. During 1986-1987 holiday season, crèche was on display on grand staircase from November 26 to January 9. It has wooden fense on 3 sides and bore a plaque stating “the display is donated by the holy name society” Altogether, crèche, fence, poinsettias and trees occupied substantial amount of Grand Staircase. No figures of Santa Claus or other decorations. The county uses crèche as setting for its annual Christmas carol program.
(CITY COUNTRY BUILDING)
Jointly owned by Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. For a number of years, city had a large Christmas tree under the middle arch outside the Grant street entrance. At least since 1982, city expanded its grant street holiday display to include a symbolic representation of Chanukah, an 8 day Jewish Holiday. In 1986: Chanukah began at sundown on Dec 26,--- holiday central ritual the lighting of lamps. Chanukah is observed by American Jews to a extent greater than its religious importance Socially heightened status of Chanukah reflects its cultural or secular dimension Dec 22,1986: City placed at Grant Street entrance of City County Building an 18 foot Chanukah menorah of an abstract tree and branch design. It was placed next to the 45 foot Christmas tree. The Menorah is owned by Chabad, a Jewish group Litigation began on Dec 10, 1986 when respondents, the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of American Civil Liberties Union and 7 local residents
They claim that such display violate Establishment Clause of the first amendment made applicable to state government by 14 th amendment
ISSUE : WON DIPLAY VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF IMPERMISSIBLE EFFECT OF ENDORSING RELIGION HELD: Because of religious diversity, that is our national heritage, the founders added to the Constitution a Bill of rights which declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of” Establishment clause: means that government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, may not discriminate among persons on basis of their religion, beliefs and practices may not delegate a governmental power to religious institution and may not involve itself too deeply in such institutions affairs. 3 TESTS: (LAE) (lemonv. Kurtzman) 1.) Statue: Secular Legislative Purpose 2.) Principal effect nether advances nor inhibits religion 3.) Not foster execessive government entanglement with religion Prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion precludes government from conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred. Fullest realization of true religious liberty requires government .. effect no favoritism among sects or between religion or non- religion.” Whether the key word is “endorsement” “favoritism” “promotion” :essential principle remains the same Establishment clause at the very least prohibits government from appearing to take position on question of religious belief or from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community
6|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
DOCTRINE FROM LYNCH : Government’s use of religious sy mbolism is unconstitutional if it has the effect of endorsing religious beliefs and the effect of government’s use of religious symbolism depends upon the context. We must ascertain whether challenged government action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of controlling denominations as endorsement and by no adherents as disapproval of their individual religious choices
(CRECHE DISPLAY) No doubt: Crèche capable of communicating religious message Crèche uses words as well as picture of nativ ity with words “Glory to God in the Highest” “Glory to God because of Birth of Jesus”. “God” – indisputably religious ---indeed sectarian just as it when said in gospel or church service. Nothing in the context dispay detracts from crèche’s religious message. It stands alone and is the single element of the display on Grand staircase. The county could not say that surrounding it with traditional flowers would negate the endorsement of Christianity conveyed by the cross on staircase. Carols were likely to augment religious quality of scene than to augment or scrutinize it. It seats on the man and most beautiful part of the building. County sends an unmistakable message that it supports and promotes Christian praise to God and that is the crèche’s religious message Establishment caluse does not limit only the religious contect of government’s own communications, it also prohibits government’s support and promotion of religious communications by religious organization. Here: government lends support to communication of a religious organization’s religious message. Government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon but under the 1 st amendment, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting people to phrase God for the Birth of Jesus. “careful judicial scrutiny” : of government practices that purport to celebrate or acknowledge events with religious significance Justice Kennedy’s position: if government may celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas, then it must be allowed to celebrate the religious aspects as well because otherwise, the government would be
Gertrude
discriminating against the citizens who celebrate Christmas as religious and not just a secular holiday On the contrary, Constitution mandates that government remain secular rather than affiliate itself with religious beliefs or institutions precisely in order to avoid discriminating among citizens on basis of religious faiths. Claim prohibiting government from celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday discriminates against Christians in f avor of nonadherents must fail County’s endorsement of Christianity does not represent a hostility or indifference to religion but instead the respect for religious diversity the conation requires.
(THE MENORAH)
One must recognize, is a religious symbol, it serves to commemorate the miracle of oil as described in the Talmud. But menorah’s message is not exclusively religious. It’s a purely visual symbol for holiday that has both religious and secular dimensions. Moreover Menorah stands next to a Christmas tree and sign saluting liberty The necessary result : is to create an overall holiday setting. If city celebrates both Christmas and Chanukah as secular holidays, then its conduct is beyond the r each of Establishment Clause. Government may celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday. Relevant question: whether combined display of tree, sign and menorah has effect of endorsing both Christian and Jewish faiths, or rather simply recognizes that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter holiday season which attained a secular status i n society 40 foot Christmas tree was one of the objects that the crèche in lynch – Christmas tree : preeminent secular symbol of Christmas as a holiday season. Tree moreover is clearly the predominant element of city’s display, occupying central position beneth the archway in front of Grand Street Entrance to City County Building. Mayor’s sign further diminishes the possibility that the tree and menorah will be interpreted as dual endorsement. It serves to confirm what the context already reveals: display of menorah is not an endorsement of religious faith; but simply recognition of cultural diversity.
7|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
IMBONG V. OCHOA RA No.10354 otherwise known as Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012: enacted by Congress Dec 2012. Challengers from various sectors of society came knocking on the doors of the court, beckoning t to wield the sword that strikes down constitutional disobedience GROUNDS: Allows purchase of o Right to Religious Freedom o contraceptives = abortives Authorizes use of public funds: Violates Sec 12 Protection of Life o procurement of contraceptives of the Unborn Threat Conscientious Objectors: o Violates Right to Health o Criminal Prosecution Hazardous Products Medical Practitioners are obliged o Violates equal protection clause: o with duty to refer patients who Discriminates against poor: seek advice to other doctors and primary target provide full and correct Void for vagueness: violates due o information on Reproductive process: does not define conduct Health Services in violation of RH Law Skilled Health Professionals at o Removes from people right to o public office cannot be manage own affairs to decide conscientious objectors what kind of health facility Mandatory Sec Education Affront o services they shall avail to religious beliefs Violates right to free speech (X) o Fails to satisfy Clear and Present o right to expound preferred way of danger test and compelling state family planning interest test Intrudes Zone of privacy – o Involuntary servitude: compel o mandatory sex ed medical practitioners : 48 hrs pro Non-legis power : FDA: to o bono indigent : force to render determine WON product is an reproductive health services abortifacient and included in emergency drug list March 2013: RH IRR took effect RH law: enactment measure to fortify and make effective current laws on contraception, women’s health and population control. Rationale: Rapid Health Growth: & Provide Fil Access and Info to modern Family Planning methods.
ISSUES ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH ON CONTRACEPTION CLAIM People: Sincerely believe, abortifacients or not, it is evil
Gertrude
Medical Practitioners = Beliefs prohibit actual participation and cooperation to the process It denies the sovereign rule of God: Transmission of human life State sponsored (tax payers) : Expenditure contravenes their rel igious beliefs ON RELIGIOUS ACCOMOATION AND DUTY TO REFER Yes It respects religious accommodation But imposes upon conscientious objector the duty to refer Duty to refer = cooperation with the very thing he refuses to do. No escape is afforded to conscientious objector WHO ARE OBLIGED 1.Worker: public health facilities 2.Public officers implementing law 3.Teachers in public schools Duty to refer is still a compulsion Compelling act against their will : VIOLATATES DOCTRINE OF BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY--- authorizes contraceptives with abortive effects, mandatory sex ed, pro bono health services = Encroach religious freedom Conscientious objector = unwilling participant in commiting sin No compelling state interest to justify the regulation on religious freedom (x) emergency risk/threat to state interest Requirement: Couple ::: Family Planning and Parenthood Seminar with Certificat of Compliance –forces participate even if it contravenes their religious belief
RESPONDENT POSITION No specific mode or type of contraceptive imposed Public Interest : provide accessible effective and quality reproductive health services PI: State’s duty : social justice health guarantee Purpose of law: guarantee informed choice To declare unconstitutional would mean recognizing catholic church’s natural family method and impose such t o the citizenry It’s a careful balanced compromise Religious objector x Duty to Refer Mandatory Family Planning Seminar =reasonable regulation : Access information to parenthood, family planning, breast feeding and infant nutrition HELD Preamble – imploring the aid of almighty God = spirituality innate : Natural and Consciousness : Shaped by tradition and religious experience Art 2, Sec 6: Separtion of Church and State shall be inviolable Based on mutual respect State may not meddle into internal affairs/dogmas dictated upon it Nor favor or discriminate against the other religions
8|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Consti assurance 1.) Establishment Clause: prohibits favor/sponsoring: - STRICT NEUTRALITY AFFARS AMONG RELIGIOUS GROUPS PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION 2.) Free Exercise Clause : Respect to inviolability of humane conscience: -State prohibited from unduly interfering on matters of faith and belief Establishment and Free Exercise Clause: GOAL : PROMOTE FREEDOM OF INVIDUAL’S RELIGIOUS BEIEFS AND PRACTICES Guarantees to religious freedom : (1) Freedom to believe- A bsolute (2)Freedom to Act one’s belief –may be regulated State Adherence to Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality –accommodation of religion may be allowed but not promotion of government favored religion COMPELLING STATE INTEREST –LAWS BURDENING EXERCISE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ::: LAW IS SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY Compelling state interest requires state to carry heavy burden of compelling / substantial interest Reasonableness--- guide (x) within the province of court to determine what is moral from religious stand point Jurisdiction of courts : Public and secular morality It has authority to determine WON Contravene guarantees of religious freedom RH law recognizes and respects religious freedom Limits what each can do against the other (State-Religion) State is not precluded to pursue secular objectives wihout being dictated by policies of religions. Free exercise clause : Respects diverse religious beliefs Mandate: duty to refer: NO COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST = EXERCISE OF RELIGION GOVERNMENT LEGISLATURE MUST SHOW COMPELLING STATE INTEREST (X) DOCTRINE OF BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY Plea: Conscientious objectors: Strict Scrutiny Obligation to refer: violates religious belief and conviction of conscientious objector Free exercise clause: demands respect to the inviolability of human conscience It was a false compromise : DUTY TO REFER Guarantee of religious freedom is intertwined with right to free speech::: Externalization of thought and conscience includes the right to be silent Religious belief and morals over interest of state in access and infor to reproductive health products and services Conscientious objector should be exempt from compliance with mandate
Gertrude
of RH law Institutional Health providers : Penalized from failure to comply, Religious freedom of health care providers must be respected Freedom of religion occupies a preferred status in our fundamental law The punishment of heath care service providers, who fails to accept patient is a clear inhibition of constitutional guarantee which court could not allow Government health officers : (X) Conscientious objectors ---- violative of equal protection clause:: DISCRMINATION COURT FINDS::: NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST WHICH WOULD LIMIT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS HOWEVER FEW IN NUMBER. Only the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to security and welfare of community can justify infringement of religious freedom
9|Page “Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
