Ebralinag, et al vs. Div. Supt. of Schools of Cebu G.R. No.

95770, March 1, 1993 Facts: In 1989, DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints about teachers and pupils belonging to the Jehovahs Witness, and enrolled in various public and private schools, which refused to sing the Phil. National Anthem, salute the flag and recite the patriotic pledge. Division Superintendent of schools, Susana B. Cabahug of the Cebu Division of DECS and her Assistant issued Division Memorandum No. 108, dated Nov. 17, 1989, directing District Supervisors, High School Principals and Heads of Private Educational institutions to remove from service, after due process, teachers and school employees, and to deprive the students and pupils from the benefit of public education, if they do not participate in daily flag ceremony and doesnt obey flag salute rule. Members of the Jehovahs Witness sect find such memorandum to be contrary to their religious belief and choose not to obey. Despite a number of appropriate persuasions made by the Cebu officials to let them obey the directives, still they opted to follow their conviction to their belief. As a result, an order was issued by the district supervisor of Daan Bantayan District of Cebu, dated July 24, 1990, ordering the dropping from the list in the school register of all Jehovahs Witness teachers and pupils from Grade 1 to Grade 6 who opted to follow their belief which is against the Flag Salute Law, however, given a chance to be re-accepted if they change their mind. Some Jehovahs Witness members appealed to the Secretary of Education but the latter did not answer to their letter. On Oct. 31, 1990, students and their parents filed special civil actions for Mandamus, Certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in ordering their expulsion without prior notice and hearing, hence, in violation of their right to due process, their right to free public education and their right to freedom of speech, religion and worship. Petitioners prayed for the voiding of the order of expulsion or dropping from the rolls issued by the District Supervisor; prohibiting and enjoining respondent from barring them from classes; and compelling the respondent and all persons acting for him to admit and order their(Petitioners) re-admission I their respective schools. On November 27, 1990, Court issued a TRO and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, commanding the respondents to immediately re-admit the petitioners to their respective classes until further orders. On May 31, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment to the petitions defending the expulsion orders issued by the respondents. Petitioners stressed that while they do not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they do not engage in external acts or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their love of country through observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who choose to participate in the solemn proceedings. Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion. Issue: Whether or not the expulsion of the members of Jehovahs Witness from the schools violates their right to; (a) right to religious profession and worship and (b) to receive free education. Held: The expulsion of the members of Jehovahs Witness from the schools where they were enrolled will violate their right to religious profession and worship on the ground that the freedom to believe is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. If they quietly stand at attention during flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing

the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we do not see how such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose a grave and present danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any legitimate public interest that the state has a right and duty to prevent. Hence, the state only regulates the freedom to act on ones belief. Moreover, it will violate their right as Philippine citizens, under the 1987 Constitution, to receive free education, for it is the duty of the state to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education, and to make such education accessible to all (Sec. I, Art XIV). Nevertheless, their right not to participate in the Flag Ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt such patriotic exercises. It is appropriate to recall the Japanese occupation of our country in 1942-1944 when every Filipino, regardless of religious persuasion, in fear of the invader, saluted the Japanese flag and bowed before every Japanese soldier, perhaps if petitioners had lived through that dark period of our history, they would not quibble now about saluting the Phil. Flag. The petitions for certiorari and prohibition are granted and expulsion orders are hereby annulled and set aside.

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. CITY OF MANILA [101PHIL 386; G.R. NO. 9637; 30 APR 1957] Saturday, February 07, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Facts: New Yorks Education Law requires local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grade 7 to 12, including those in private schools. The Board of Education contended that said statute was invalid and violative of the State and Federal Constitutions. An order barring the Commissioner of Education (Allen) from removing appellants members from office for failure to comply with the requirement and an order preventing the use of statefunds for the purchase of textbooks to be lent to parochial schools were sought for. The trial court held the statute unconstitutional. The Appellate Division reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint since the appellant have no standing. The New York Court of Appeals, ruled that the appellants have standing but the law is not unconstitutional.

Issue: Whether or Not the said ordinances are constitutional and valid (contention: it restrains the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of appellant).

Held: Section

1,

subsection

(7)

of

Article

III

of the

Constitution,

provides

that:

(7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. The provision aforequoted is a constitutional guaranty of the freeexercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, which carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. It may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the biblesand 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 in the business or occupation of selling said "merchandise" for profit. For this reason. The Court believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it would impair its free exerciseand enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, the Court do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. It seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional, however inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff. As to Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila, as amended, is also not applicable, so defendant is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff Society. WHEREFORE, defendant shall return to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected from it.

Constitutional Law II - Book 2005 - American Bible Society v. City of Manila [GR L-9637, 30 April 1957]
American Bible Society v. City of Manila [GR L-9637, 30 April 1957] Second Division, Felix (J): 7 concur, 1 concur in result Facts: In the course of its ministry, American Bible Societys Philippine agency has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (since 1898, but except during the Japanese occupation) throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects. On 29 May 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed the Society that it was conducting the business of general merchandise since November 1945, without providing itself with the necessary Mayors permit and municipal license, in violation of Ordinance 3000, as amended, and Ordinances 2529, 3028 and 3364, and required the Society to secure, within 3 days, the corresponding permit and license fees, together with compromise covering the period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, in the total sum of P5,821.45. On 24 October 1953, the Society paid to the City Treasurer under protest the said permit and license fees, giving at the same time notice to the City Treasurer that suit would be taken in court to question the legality of the ordinances under which the said fees were being collected, which was done on the same date by filing the complaint that gave rise to this action. After hearing, the lower court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. the Society appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in turn certified the case to the Supreme Court for the reason that the errors assigned involved only questions of law. Issue: Whether the Society is required to secure municipal permit to allow it to sell and distribute bibles and religious literature, and to pay taxes from the sales thereof. Held: No. Section 27 (e) of Commonwealth Act 466 (NIRC) exempts corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes, Provided however, That the income of whatever kind and character from any of its properties, real or personal, or from any activity conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be liable to the tax imposed under the Code. Herein, the act of distributing and selling bibles, etc. is purely religious and cannot be made liable for taxes or fees therein. Further, Ordinance 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to the Society, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. The fact that the price of the bibles and other religious pamphlets are little higher than the actual cost of the same does not necessarily mean that it is already engaged in the business or occupation of selling said merchandise for profit. Furthermore, Ordinance 3000 of the City of Manila is of general application and it does not contain any provisions whatsoever prescribing religious censorship nor restraining the free exercise and enjoyment of any religious profession. The ordinance is not applicable to the Society, as its business, trade or occupation is not particularly mentioned in Section 3 of the Ordinance, and the record does not show that a permit is required therefor under existing laws and ordinances for the proper supervision and enforcement of their provisions governing the sanitation, security and welfare of the public and the health of the employees engaged in the business of the Society.