POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XII. THE BILL OF RIGHTS

G. Freedom of Religion

Non-Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Introduction

The Philippine Constitution guarantees freedom of religion under two key clauses: the Non-Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. These principles aim to protect the individual's right to religious belief and practice while preventing the government from favoring or endorsing any particular religion.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

The 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 5 states:

"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."

This provision contains both the Non-Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, forming the foundation of the state's relationship with religion.

1. Non-Establishment Clause

The Non-Establishment Clause reflects the principle of "separation of Church and State." This prohibits the government from enacting any law that establishes a state religion or favors one religion over another. It mandates the state to remain neutral in matters of religion.

Key Principles:

Neutrality: The government must not show favoritism toward any religion, nor should it inhibit religious practices.
Separation of Church and State: The state should not involve itself in religious matters, just as religious groups should not interfere in the affairs of the state. This includes political decisions, governance, and public education.
No Religious Tests: The government cannot impose any religious requirements for holding public office or exercising civil or political rights.

Landmark Cases:

Estrada v. Escritor (2006): This case tackled the issue of accommodation of religious beliefs in the workplace. The Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom must be balanced with state interests, particularly when moral issues are involved.
Aglipay v. Ruiz (1937): The Supreme Court ruled that the government, in issuing postage stamps to commemorate an international event that involved the Catholic Church, did not violate the Non-Establishment Clause. The Court held that the action was for secular purposes and not to promote the Catholic religion.
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (1993): Jehovah’s Witnesses were exempted from compulsory flag ceremonies in schools on account of their religious beliefs. The Court emphasized that the state must accommodate religious beliefs unless there is a compelling interest to restrict them.

Application in Government Practices:

Religious Displays in Public Spaces: The government must ensure that religious symbols or displays in public places do not violate the principle of non-establishment, except when the symbols serve secular or cultural purposes.
Public Funds and Religious Institutions: Public funds must not be used to support religious institutions. However, religious institutions can benefit from neutral government programs, like tax exemptions, provided they do not promote religious activities.

Test for Violation:

To determine if the government has violated the Non-Establishment Clause, the Philippine courts typically apply the "Lemon Test," derived from U.S. jurisprudence in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):

The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
The statute must not foster "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

2. Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause protects an individual’s right to believe in any religion or no religion at all, and to practice such beliefs without undue interference from the state. This clause ensures freedom of conscience and the right to engage in religious practices as long as they do not violate public order or the rights of others.

Key Principles:

Absolute Freedom of Belief: An individual's right to hold any religious belief is absolute. The state cannot regulate internal beliefs.
Qualified Freedom of Conduct: The right to act upon one’s religious beliefs can be subject to regulation, particularly when it conflicts with compelling state interests like public safety, health, and morals.
Accommodation of Religious Practices: The government should accommodate religious practices unless it can demonstrate a compelling state interest that justifies the restriction of religious exercise.

Landmark Cases:

Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals (1996): The Iglesia ni Cristo challenged restrictions imposed on their religious broadcast. The Court ruled that while freedom of speech and religious expression are protected, these rights are not absolute, especially when they conflict with the rights of others (in this case, allegations of defamation against other religions).
German v. Barangan (1985): The Court struck down the ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal to salute the flag as an infringement on their free exercise of religion, stressing that the state must accommodate sincere religious beliefs when possible.
People v. Zosa (1950): The Supreme Court ruled that members of a religious group who refused vaccination on religious grounds could not be prosecuted, recognizing the right to free exercise of religion. However, the Court acknowledged that in situations of public health emergencies, this right may be curtailed.

Limits to the Free Exercise Clause:

Compelling State Interest Test: The state can limit religious practices if it can demonstrate a compelling interest that outweighs the individual's religious freedom. For instance, public safety, national security, or public morals may justify restrictions on religious practices.
Neutral and Generally Applicable Laws: The government may enforce neutral laws of general applicability even if they incidentally burden religious exercise. For example, laws against polygamy or drug use apply even to religious groups that may claim religious justification for such acts.

Application in Government Practices:

Religious Exemptions: The government must weigh religious objections against public interests. For instance, exemptions from general legal obligations (like military service or participation in certain public ceremonies) may be granted to individuals who object on religious grounds.
Religious Freedom in Public Institutions: Individuals have the right to practice their religion in public spaces, such as schools or workplaces, unless doing so disrupts public order or infringes on the rights of others.

Interaction Between the Two Clauses

The Non-Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are closely related, and courts often have to balance them when disputes arise. While the Non-Establishment Clause prevents the government from endorsing or supporting religion, the Free Exercise Clause ensures that individuals can practice their religion freely. Courts strive to ensure that the government remains neutral, neither advancing nor inhibiting religion, while accommodating the individual’s right to religious expression.

Balancing Test:

In cases where the two clauses appear to be in conflict, courts employ a balancing test to assess whether the government action:

Unnecessarily burdens religious freedom (Free Exercise),
Or promotes religious establishment (Non-Establishment).

For instance, laws that indirectly benefit religious organizations (such as tax exemptions) may be permitted if they do not primarily advance religion. Likewise, religious practices that are inconsistent with general laws (such as refusal to perform vaccinations) may be restricted when public safety is at risk.

Conclusion

The protection of religious freedom in the Philippines hinges on the balance between the Non-Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Non-Establishment Clause ensures the government remains neutral toward religion, while the Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals the right to freely practice their religion. While freedom of belief is absolute, the exercise of religious practices can be subject to limitations when it conflicts with public interests. The Philippine judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting these clauses to ensure that the state respects the separation of Church and State while accommodating religious diversity.