Agostini v Fenton

FACTS:
New York Citys Title I Program sent public school teachers to parochial schools to provide remedial education to
disadvantaged children was declared unconstitutional in Aguilar v Felton for excessive entanglement of church and State,
and violated First Amendments Establishment Clause.
Petitioners prayed that the court re-examine the ruling set by Aguilar for being no longer a good law and cannot be squared
with the Courts intervening Establishment Clause jurisprudence
ISSUE:
W/N Title I is an excessive entanglement of church and state
HELD:
No, the decision set by Aguilar is no longer a good law because there is no excessive entanglement between
church and state.
School Dist. Of Grand Rapids v Ball: the Shared Time program which was similar to Title I. The conclusion rested on 3
assumptions: any public employee who works on a religious schools premises is presumed to inculcate religion, mere
presence creates an impermissible symbolic union between church and state, and public aid that aids education function of
religious schools finances religious indoctrination
Aguilar set a fourth assumption that public employees who teach on religious school premises must be closely monitored to
ensure they dont inculcate religion
Based on recent jurisprudence, placing govt employees on parochial school campuses dont, as a matter of law, have the
impermissible effect of advancing religion through indoctrination.
Court modified two aspects on how to assess whether govt has advanced religion by inculcating religious belief:
1. It abandoned the presumption that employees in parochial school grounds inculcate religion or their presence constitutes
symbolic union between the govt and religion.
2. Departed from the presumption that all govt aid that directly aid the educational function of religious schools is invalid
Title I dont give aid recipients incentives to modify their religious beliefs to obtain program services. Aid is allocated on the
basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion, and is made available to both secular and religious
beneficiaries. It is available to all eligible children no matter the religious beliefs or school.
To determined excessive entanglement between state and religion, the Court must look at:
1. The character and purpose of the benefited institutions
2. Nature of the aid
3. Resulting relationship between the government and religious authority.
Zobrest v Catalina Foothills School District: abandoned the presumption that public employees will inculcate religion by
virtue of being in a sectarian environment
In this case, due to the Zobrest ruling, pervasive monitoring of their activities is no longer required, lessening the chances
for entanglement

Austria v NLRC
Petitioner: Pastor Dionisio v. Austria
Respondent: Central Philippine Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA)

FACTS:

Austria was a pastor for SDA who was terminated after 28 years of service for misappropriation of funds, breach of trust,
gross misconduct, and habitual neglect of duties. His employment was terminated due to the finding of the non-remittance
of Austrias wife, Thelma, of church tithes and offerings that were collected.
Austria filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter who rendered judgment in his favor. NLRC reversed this. This was
reversed again by NLRC on MR of petitioner.
SDA filed MR and raised for the first time the lack of jurisdiction of NLRC due to separation of church and state. NLRC
reversed again its decision.
ISSUE
W/N NLRC has jurisdiction over the case
HELD:
YES, NLRC has jurisdiction because it was a labor case.
The contention of SDA that NLRC and LA has no jurisdiction because it involves religious matters has no ground. The
principle of separation of church and state has no application here.
Principle of separation of church and state: delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and to avoid
encroachments by the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions
Ecclesiastical affair: one that concerns doctrine, creed or form or worship of the church or the adoption and enforcement
within a religious association of needful laws for the government of the membership
An ecclesiastical affair involves relationship between church and state and relate to matters of faith.
Here, it doesnt concern an ecclesiastical affair. What is involved here is the relationship of the church as an employer and
the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and no relation with faith or worship.
OSG pointed out that the grounds invoked for Austrias dismissal are all based on the Labor Code.
It is obvious that reason for dismissal was not religious in nature. The act of SDA in giving NLRC a copy of the termination
letter is an admission that the cases falls under the latters jurisdiction. When SDA terminated services of petitioner, it was
exercising its management prerogative. Under the Labor Code, the provision on employee dismissal is broad enough to
include religious corporations.

Long v Basa
FACTS:
The Church in Quezon City Incorporated (Church) is a registered non-profit religious corporation for the administration of its
temporalities or the management of its properties. The Church granted absolute power to its Board of Directors (BOD) to
preserve, and protect their faith and to admit and expel a member of the church.
Under the by-laws of the Church, proper expulsion merely required that the BOB be informed that a member has failed to
observe any of the regulations and bylaws or has conducted himself in any manner dishonorable to the Church and, after
which, the BOD shall issue the corresponding Resolution for his expulsion, even without prior notice
BOD observed certain members, including the petitioners, exhibited conduct which was dishonorable, improper and
injurious to the character and interest of the church by introducing to the members doctrines and teachings which were not
based on the Holy Bible, and the principles of faith embraced by the church.
The petitioners were warned of their disorderly conduct and that if they continue they will be dropped from the membership
of the church.
BOD conducted a meeting for the purpose of updating its membership list, and removed the petitioners for espousing
doctrines injurious to the principles of faith of the church.
Petitioners filed a petition with the SEC Securities Investigation and Clearing Department. The sought the annulment of the
new membership list and reinstate the original one on the ground that the expulsion was made without prior notice and
hearing.
SEC Hearing Officer Manuel Perea ruled that the expulsion was done in accordance with the Bylaws of the church. SEC en
banc affirmed the ruling and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. The respondents filed a petition for review on certiorari
with SEC en banc which ruled to set aside the expulsion of the petitioners of the church for being void. CA reversed the
decision.

ISSUE:
W/N the expulsion of the petitioners is in accordance with law
HELD
Yes, the expulsion of the petitioners was in accordance to the bylaws of the church.
The bylaws of the church dont require the BOD to give prior notice to the erring members in cases of expulsion. The only
requirements before expulsion of a member are: BOD was notified that a member failed to observe the regulations of the
church or the conduct is dishonorable and injurious to the character of the church, and a resolution was passed by the
board expelling the member concerned.
It is clear that members may be expelled by the BOD, through a resolution, without giving prior notice. It need not even
state a reason.
Although the provision on expulsion may sound unusual to petitioners, this is how peculiar the nature of a religious
corporation is vis-a-vis an ordinary corporation organized for profit. The basis of the relationship between a religious
corporation and its members is the absolute adherence to a common religious belief. Once the basis stops, membership
must also stop. Thus, generally, there is no room for dissent.
Any member of a religious corporation is expelled from membership for espousing doctrines contrary to the churchs, the
established doctrine in this jurisdiction is that such action from church authorities is conclusive upon civil courts.
US v Canete: in matters purely ecclesiastical the decisions of the proper church tribunals are conclusive upon the civil
courts.
The Corporation Code leaves the matter of ecclesiastical disciple to the religious group concerned. Admission to or
excommunication from churches is a matter left entirely upon their discretion and the State has no business in it.