Section 5, Article III:

Freedom of Religion
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Aglipay v. Ruiz
64 Phil 201

1.

SIMILARITIES

2.

3.
4.

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.

Ebralinag v. Division

Estrada v. Escritor
408 SCRA 1 / 492 SCRA 1

COMELEC
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
618 SCRA 32
219 SCRA 256 / 251 SCRA 569
It is explained in these cases the assurance of religious freedom under the Constitution that principally consists of two (2)
guarantees:
Establishment Clause - prohibits the state from sponsoring any religion, or favoring any religion as against other religions. It
mandates a strict neutrality in affairs among religious group.
Free Exercise Clause under this guarantee, the state is prohibited from unduly interfering with the outward manifestations of
ones belief and faith. It extends protection to both beliefs and unbeliefs.
GENERAL RULE: The individual is free to believe as he pleases concerning the hereafter. He may indulge his own theories about life
and death; worship any god he chooses, or none at all. (Freedom to believe)
EXCEPTION: But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so
becomes subject to the authority of the state. (Freedom to act)
Adherence to the benevolent neutrality approach, where an exemption is sought from a law of general applicability that
inadvertently burdens religious exercise.
The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular, not religious. Religious teachings may influence the civil
public order but public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms.

1.

DIFFERENCES

2.

Aglipay
seeks
the
issuance of a writ of
prohibition
against
respondent Director of
Posts from issuing and
selling postage stamps
commemorative of the
33rd
International
Eucharistic
Congress
contending that such act
is a violation of the
Constitutional provision
a result of the principle of
the separation of church
and state, for the purpose
of avoiding the occasion
wherein the state will use
the church, or vice versa,
as a weapon to further
their ends and aims.
Director of posts contends
that such issuance is in
accordance to Act No.
4052, providing for the
appropriation funds to
respondent
for
the
production and issuance
of postage stamps as
would be advantageous to
the government.

1. COMELEC states that the

definition of the LGBT
sector makes it crystal
clear
that
petitioner
tolerates immorality which
offends religious beliefs.

2. Ang Ladlad argued that

the denial of accreditation,
insofar as it justified the
exclusionby using religious
dogma,
violated
the
constitutional guarantees
against the establishement
of religion.

1.

Petitioners were expelled

from school by the public
authorities in because they
refuse to salute the flag, sing
the national anthem, and
recite the patriotic pledge as
required by R.A. 1265 and
by D.O. 8 which made the
flag ceremony compulsory in
all educational institutions.

2.

According to the petitioners,

Jehovahs
Witnesses
admittedly
teach
their
children not to salute the
flag,
sing
the
national
anthem and recite the
patristic pledge for they
consider such acts as acts
of worship which should be
only given to God. So, they
feel bound by the Bibles
command
to
guard

1.

Petitioner contends that

Escritor is committing
an immoral act that
tarnishes the image of
the court.

2.

Escritor contends that

as a member of the
religious sect known as
the Jehovahs Witnesses
and the Watch Tower
and Bible Tract Society,
their
conjugal
arrangement
is
in
conformity with their

3.

4.

Issue: Whether or not

there was a violation of
the freedom to religion.

The issuance of postage

stamps comemorating the
celebration of the city of
Manila may be deemed
advantageous
to
the
government.

3. Issue: Whether or not the

contention
of
the
COMELEC in denying the
accreditation
of
LGBT
violates freedom of religion
as it utilizes religious
dogma
to
justify
the
exclusion of the Ang
Ladlad.

3.

4. Moral disapproval is not a

sufficient
governmental
interest to justify exlusion
of homosexuals from the
articipation in the partylist system.

4.

themselves against idols as

they also consider the flag as
an
image
or
idol
representing the State.
Issue: Whether or not the
school children who are
members of a religious sect
known
as
Jehovahs
Witnesses may be expelled
from school for refusing, on
account of their beliefs, to
take part in the flag
ceremony, which includes
playing by a band or singing
the
Philippine
national
anthem,
saluting
the
Philippine flag, and reciting
the patriotic pledge.
The
expulsion
of
the
petitioners from the schools
is not justified absent such a
threat to public safety.

religious beliefs.

3.

Issue: Whether or not

respondents right to
religious
freedom
should carve out an
exception
from
the
prevailing jurisprudence
on illicit relations for
which
government
employees
are
held
administratively liable.

4.

Involves purely conduct

arising from religious
belief; the case canot be
decided
using
the
compelling
state
interest test.

RULING

The issuance of the stamps was

not inspired by any feeling to
favor a particular church or
religious denomination. They
were not sold for the benefit of
the Roman Catholic Church.
The postage stamps, instead
of showing a Catholic chalice
as
originally
planned,
contains a map of the
Philippines and the location of
Manila. The focus of the
stamps
was
not
the
Eucharistic Congress but the
city of Manila, being the seat
of that congress.

This was to to advertise the

Philippines and attract more

tourists, the officials merely
took advantage of an event
considered of international
importance.

It was grave violation of Although petitioners do not take The Court does not and
Non-establishment
part in the flag ceremony, they
cannot say that her conduct
do not, however, engage in
should
be
made
clause for the COMELEC
external acts or behavior that
reprehensible in the realm of
to utilize any religious
would offend their countrymen
her church where it is
dogma, like the Bible
who
express
their
love
of
country
presently sanctioned and
and the Koran to justify
through flag ceremony. They
that she is answerable for
the exclusion of Ang
quietly stand at attention during
her immorality to Jehovah
Ladlad.
the flag ceremony to show
God nor that other religions
respect for the right of those who
prohibiting her conduct are
Moral
disaaproval,
participate
in
the
solemn
correct.
without more, is not a
proceedings. There is no warrant
sufficient governmental
for their expulsion.
In any event, even if the court
interest
to
justify
deems
sufficient
exclusion
of The expulsion will violate their
respondents evidence on the
homosexuals
from
right
as
citizens
of
the
sincerity of her religious
participation
in
the
Philippines,
under
the
belief and centrality to her
party-list system.
constitution, to receive free
faith, the case at bar cannot
education, because it is the duty
still be decided using the
of the State to protect and
compelling state interest
promote the right of all citizens
test.
to quality education and to make
such education accessible to all.