FREEDOM of RELIGION Art. III, Sec.

5- 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.

I.

NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION - Prohibits the state from establishing one, some or all religion [cannot establish because freedom of religion is as well freedom from religion].

*What would the state keep in mind in making an accommodation that would seem to favor one religion?? (1) state must prove that the primary purpose must be secular; not religious [never mind if the secondary purpose]; (2) it does not foster excessive entanglement with religion. *What secular purpose is there in displaying Christmas trees in public places?? culture and heritage >> stance of the government: benevolent accommodation. a. OPERATION OF SECTARIAN SCHOOLS 1. Art. XIV Sec. 4 (2)- Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions. The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines. No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. The provisions of this sub section shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents. b. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1. Art. XIV Sec. 3 (3)- At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government. 2. Rev. Adm. Code Sec. 928 3. Civil Code, Art. 359 (1) c. TAX EXEMPTION 1. Art. VI Sec. 28 (3)- Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually,

directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

2. Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Provincial board 3. Lung Center- Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep. Act No. 7160 in order to be entitled to the exemption, the petitioner is burdened to prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a charitable institution; and (b) its real properties are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. "Exclusive" is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or enjoyment; and "exclusively" is defined, "in a manner to exclude; as enjoying a privilege exclusively."40 If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation.41 The words "dominant use" or "principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively" without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law.42 Solely is synonymous with exclusively.43 What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable purposes is the direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purposes for which the charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of the income from the real property that is determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt purposes ***If the state would tax religious establishments, it would foster an excessive entanglement with the latter. [this justifies the constitutionality of not taxing religious establishments]. Another reason is that to keep up with the separation of church and state principle. ***Lemon vs Kurtzman- Lemon Test: excessive entanglement test. d. PUBLIC AID TO RELIGION 1. Art. VI Sec. 29 (2)- No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, 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, or government orphanage or leprosarium. e. PUBLIC MORALS and RELIGION

II.

FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION - 2 aspects: (1) freedom to believe- this right is absolute; no exceptions (2) freedom to act in accordance of ones belief- 2 things: (i) compelling state interest; (ii) regulation is the least restrictive to religious freedom

***when can the state interfere in ones action in accordance to his belief?? (1) public and secular morality; (2) religious morality COMPELLING STATE INTEREST- but this latter test stressed that the state interest was not merely any colorable state interest, but must be paramount and compelling to override the free exercise claim; Sherbert v. Verner ***What to do in exempting or accommodating a religious belief: (a) to examine the sincerity and centrality of respondent's claimed religious belief and practice; (b) to present evidence on the state's "compelling interest" to override respondent's religious belief and practice; and (c) to show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondent's religious freedom CASES: Case # 1: It is a Mormon who proved that it was his religious duty to have several wives and that the failure to practice polygamy by male members of the religion when circumstances would permit would be punished with damnation in the life to come. Case #2: B is a merchant. The City council passed an ordinance requiring stores to close on Sundays to give employees rest day, thereby establishing uniform rest day in the locality. B, however, is an Orthodox Jew whose beliefs that Saturdays should be the rest day. two-part balancing test of validity where the first step was for plaintiff to show that the regulation placed a real burden on his religious exercise. Next, the burden would be upheld only if the state showed that it was pursuing an overriding secular goal by the means which imposed the least burden on religious practices. Case #3: A wrote the DoF asking the latter for an exemption from paying social security taxes on wages on the ground of religious beliefs. A was able to establish that in their religion payment of taxes is recognition of higher being that their God and therefore considered prohibited.