CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Gertrude
SECTION 5
AGLIPAY V. RUIZ
Petitioner Aglipay, Supreme Head of Philippine 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 33 rd International
Eucharistic Congress
Facts:
 1936, Director of Posts announced that it would order the 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 is sought to be prevented by petitioner herein
 Petitioner alleged that action of respondent is violative of Section 13, Sub
Section 3 of Art 6 of the 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 institution, orphanage, leprosarium”
- Direct collorary of principle of separation of church and state
 In this country, we enjoy both religious and 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 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 morality. Its influence
is deeply felt and highly appreciated.
1|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
 Preamble, exempt from taxation properties devoted exclusively to religious
purposes
 Act 4052 : An act appropriating P60,000 and making the same 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 : Government would 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
HELD: NO
 Act No 4052 contemplates no religious purpose.
 Stamps would be advantageous to the government.
 It is not inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor a particular church or
religious denomination.
 Stamps were not issued and sold for the benefit of Roman Catholic
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.
 It is significant to note that stamps as actually designed and printed,
instead of showing a Catholic Church chalice as originally planned,
contains a map of the Philippines and the location of City of Manila
 It is obvious that while issuance and sale of stamps in question may be
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:
 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

 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:
WHETHER THE PARISH PRIEST OF LAYMAN SHOULD HAVE CUSTODY
OF THE IMAGE OF SAN VICENTE
HELD: NO
 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
2|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
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.
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.
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.
Facts:
 Based on the findings that “public welfare 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
 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.”
3|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
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.
 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 secular 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.
4|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
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
 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
5|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
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
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Gertrude

Facts: filed a suit against county and city, seeking permanently to enjoin the
county from displaying crèche and menorah.
(COUNTRY COUNTHOUSE)
 They claim that such display violate Establishment Clause of the first
 Country Courthouse owned by Allegheny County, houses offices of county amendment made applicable to state government by 14th amendment
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 ISSUE :
season.
 Christmas has a secular as well as religious dimension WON DIPLAY VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF FIRST
 The crèche is a visual representation of scene in manger in Bethlehem AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF IMPERMISSIBLE EFFECT OF ENDORSING
shortly after birth of Jesus. RELIGION
 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 HELD:
and bore a plaque stating “the display is donated by the holy name society”
 Because of religious diversity, that is our national heritage, the founders
 Altogether, crèche, fence, poinsettias and trees occupied substantial
added to the Constitution a Bill of rights which declares that “Congress
amount of Grand Staircase. No figures of Santa Claus or other
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
decorations.
free exercise thereof”
 The county uses crèche as setting for its annual Christmas carol program.  Establishment clause: means that government may not promote or affiliate
itself with any religious doctrine or organization, may not discriminate
(CITY COUNTRY BUILDING)
among persons on basis of their religion, beliefs and practices may not
 Jointly owned by Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. delegate a governmental power to religious institution and may not involve
itself too deeply in such institutions affairs.
 For a number of years, city had a large Christmas tree under the middle
 3 TESTS: (LAE) (lemonv. Kurtzman)
arch outside the Grant street entrance.
1.) Statue: Secular Legislative Purpose
 At least since 1982, city expanded its grant street holiday display to include
2.) Principal effect nether advances nor inhibits religion
a symbolic representation of Chanukah, an 8 day Jewish Holiday.
3.) Not foster execessive government entanglement with religion
 In 1986: Chanukah began at sundown on Dec 26,--- holiday central ritual
 Prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion precludes
the lighting of lamps.
government from conveying or attempting to convey a message that
 Chanukah is observed by American Jews to a extent greater than its
religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.
religious importance Socially heightened status of Chanukah reflects its
 Fullest realization of true religious liberty requires government .. effect no
cultural or secular dimension
favoritism among sects or between religion or non-religion.”
 Dec 22,1986: City placed at Grant Street entrance of City County Building
 Whether the key word is “endorsement” “favoritism” “promotion” :essential
an 18 foot Chanukah menorah of an abstract tree and branch design. It
principle remains the same
was placed next to the 45 foot Christmas tree. The Menorah is owned by
 Establishment clause at the very least prohibits government from
Chabad, a Jewish group
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
 Litigation began on Dec 10, 1986 when respondents, the Greater political community
Pittsburgh Chapter of American Civil Liberties Union and 7 local residents

6|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 DOCTRINE FROM LYNCH : Government’s use of religious symbolism 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 nativity 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 1st 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
7|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
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 favor 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 reach 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 in 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.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Gertrude

IMBONG V. OCHOA  Medical Practitioners = Beliefs prohibit actual participation and cooperation
 RA No.10354 otherwise known as Responsible Parenthood and to the process
Reproductive Health Act of 2012: enacted by Congress Dec 2012.  It denies the sovereign rule of God: Transmission of human life
State sponsored (tax payers) : Expenditure contravenes their religious beliefs
 Challengers from various sectors of society came knocking on the doors of
ON RELIGIOUS ACCOMOATION AND DUTY TO REFER
the court, beckoning t to wield the sword that strikes down constitutional
 Yes It respects religious accommodation
disobedience  But imposes upon conscientious objector the duty to refer
GROUNDS:  Duty to refer = cooperation with the very thing he refuses to do.
o Allows purchase of o Right to Religious Freedom  No escape is afforded to conscientious objector
contraceptives = abortives Authorizes use of public funds:  WHO ARE OBLIGED
o Violates Sec 12 Protection of Life procurement of contraceptives 1.Worker: public health facilities
of the Unborn o Threat Conscientious Objectors: 2.Public officers implementing law
o Violates Right to Health  Criminal Prosecution 3.Teachers in public schools
Hazardous Products o Medical Practitioners are obliged  Duty to refer is still a compulsion
o Violates equal protection clause: with duty to refer patients who  Compelling act against their will : VIOLATATES DOCTRINE OF
Discriminates against poor: seek advice to other doctors and BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY--- authorizes contraceptives with abortive
primary target provide full and correct effects, mandatory sex ed, pro bono health services = Encroach religious
o Void for vagueness: violates due information on Reproductive freedom
process: does not define conduct Health Services  Conscientious objector = unwilling participant in commiting sin
in violation of RH Law o Skilled Health Professionals at  No compelling state interest to justify the regulation on religious freedom
o Removes from people right to public office cannot be  (x) emergency risk/threat to state interest
manage own affairs to decide conscientious objectors  Requirement: Couple ::: Family Planning and Parenthood Seminar with
what kind of health facility o Mandatory Sec Education Affront Certificat of Compliance –forces participate even if it contravenes their
services they shall avail to religious beliefs religious belief
o Violates right to free speech (X) o Fails to satisfy Clear and Present
right to expound preferred way of danger test and compelling state RESPONDENT POSITION
family planning interest test  No specific mode or type of contraceptive imposed
o Intrudes Zone of privacy – o Involuntary servitude: compel  Public Interest : provide accessible effective and quality reproductive
mandatory sex ed medical practitioners : 48 hrs pro health services
o Non-legis power : FDA: to bono indigent : force to render  PI: State’s duty : social justice health guarantee
determine WON product is an reproductive health services  Purpose of law: guarantee informed choice
abortifacient and included in  To declare unconstitutional would mean recognizing catholic church’s
emergency drug list natural family method and impose such to the citizenry
 March 2013: RH IRR took effect  It’s a careful balanced compromise Religious objector x Duty to Refer
 RH law: enactment measure to fortify and make effective current laws on  Mandatory Family Planning Seminar =reasonable regulation : Access
contraception, women’s health and population control. information to parenthood, family planning, breast feeding and infant
nutrition
 Rationale: Rapid Health Growth: & Provide Fil Access and Info to modern
HELD
Family Planning methods.  Preamble – imploring the aid of almighty God = spirituality innate :
 Natural and Consciousness : Shaped by tradition and religious experience
ISSUES ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH  Art 2, Sec 6: Separtion of Church and State shall be inviolable
ON CONTRACEPTION  Based on mutual respect
CLAIM  State may not meddle into internal affairs/dogmas dictated upon it
 People: Sincerely believe, abortifacients or not, it is evil  Nor favor or discriminate against the other religions

8|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
Gertrude

 Consti assurance of RH law

1.) Establishment Clause: prohibits favor/sponsoring:  Institutional Health providers : Penalized from failure to comply,
- STRICT NEUTRALITY AFFARS AMONG RELIGIOUS GROUPS  Religious freedom of health care providers must be respected
PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION  Freedom of religion occupies a preferred status in our fundamental law
2.) Free Exercise Clause : Respect to inviolability of humane conscience:  The punishment of heath care service providers, who fails to accept patient
-State prohibited from unduly interfering on matters of faith and belief is a clear inhibition of constitutional guarantee which court could not allow
 Establishment and Free Exercise Clause: GOAL : PROMOTE FREEDOM  Government health officers : (X) Conscientious objectors
OF INVIDUAL’S RELIGIOUS BEIEFS AND PRACTICES  ---- violative of equal protection clause:: DISCRMINATION
 Guarantees to religious freedom :  COURT FINDS::: NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST WHICH WOULD
(1) Freedom to believe- Absolute LIMIT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
(2)Freedom to Act one’s belief –may be regulated HOWEVER FEW IN NUMBER.
 State Adherence to Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality –accommodation of  Only the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to security and
religion may be allowed but not promotion of government favored religion welfare of community can justify infringement of religious freedom
 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

9|Page
“Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus”