STATE POLICIES:
Parreno vs COA
The constitutional right to equal protection
of the laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable
classification. To be reasonable, the classification (a)
must be based on substantial distinctions which make
real differences; (b) must be germane to the purpose
of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and (d) must apply equally to each
member of the class.
ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs .OFFICE OF THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the Office of
the President of the Philippines
Section 6. The separation of Church
and State shall be inviolable.
The act of certifying food products as halal is
one considered to be a religious function which can be
performed only by practicing Muslims. Thus, the
government cannot pass a law vesting the exclusive
authority to issue halal certificates to a government
agency without violating the constitutional provision
on the separation of Church and State.
DIGEST:
There is a substantial difference between retirees
who are citizens of the Philippines and retirees who
lost their Filipino citizenship by naturalization in
another country, such as petitioner in the case before
us. The constitutional right of the state to require all
citizens to render personal and military service
necessarily includes not only private citizens but
also citizens who have retired from military
service. A retiree who had lost his Filipino
citizenship already renounced his allegiance to the
state. Thus, he may no longer be compelled by the
state to render compulsory military service when the
need arises. Petitioner’s loss of Filipino citizenship
constitutes a substantial distinction that
distinguishes him from other retirees who retain
their Filipino citizenship. If the groupings are
characterized by substantial distinctions that make
real differences, one class may be treated and
regulated differently from another.
Republic Act No. 7077(RA 7077) affirmed
the constitutional right of the state to a Citizen
Armed Forces. Section 11 of RA 7077 provides that
citizen soldiers or reservists include ex-servicemen
and retired officers of the AFP. Hence, even when a
retiree is no longer in the active service, he is still a
part of the Citizen Armed Forces. Thus, we do not
find the requirement imposed by Section 27 of PD
1638, as amended, oppressive, discriminatory, or
contrary to public policy. The state has the right to
impose a reasonable condition that is necessary for
national defense. To rule otherwise would be
detrimental to the interest of the state.
Facts:
Petitioner IDCP is a non-governmental organization
that extends voluntary services to the Filipino
people, especially to Muslim communities. One of the
functions IDCP carries out is to conduct seminars,
orient manufacturers on halal food and issue halal
certifications to qualified products and
manufacturers. Subsequently however, respondent
Office of the Executive Secretary issued EO
46 creating the Philippine Halal Certification
Scheme. Under the EO, respondent OMA has the
exclusive authority to issue halal certificates and
perform other related regulatory activities.
 Finding EO 46 to be in violative of the
constitutional provision on the separation of Church
and State, IDCP filed the present petition for
prohibition praying that EO 46 be declared null and
void. According to IDCP, it is unconstitutional for the
government to formulate policies and guidelines on
the halal certification scheme because said scheme is
a function only religious organizations, entity or
scholars can lawfully and validly perform for the
Muslims. IDCP argues that a food product becomes
halal only after the performance of Islamic religious
ritual and prayer. Thus, only practicing Muslims are
qualified to slaughter animals for food. A
government agency like herein respondent OMA
cannot therefore perform a religious function like
certifying qualified food products as halal.

Issue: W/N EO 46 is constitutional

Held: Freedom of religion was accorded

preferred status by the framers of our
fundamental law. And this Court has consistently
affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it
is "designed to protect the broadest possible
liberty of conscience, to allow each man to
believe as his conscience directs, to profess his
beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to
live, consistent with the liberty of others and
with the common good."

Without doubt, classifying a food product as

halal is a religious function because the
standards used are drawn from the Qur'an and
Islamic beliefs. By giving OMA the exclusive
power to classify food products as halal, EO 46
encroached on the religious freedom of Muslim
organizations like herein petitioner to interpret
for Filipino Muslims what food products are fit
for Muslim consumption. Also, by arrogating to
itself the task of issuing halal certifications, the
State has in effect forced Muslims to accept its
own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah on
halal food.

Through the laws on food safety and quality,

therefore, the State indirectly aids muslim
consumers in differentiating food from non-food
products. The NMIC guarantees that the meat
sold in the market has been thoroughly
inspected and fit for consumption. Meanwhile,
BFD ensures that food products are properly
categorized and have passed safety and quality
standards. Then, through the labeling provisions
enforced by the DTI, muslim consumers are
adequately apprised of the products that contain
substances or ingredients that, according to
their Islamic beliefs, are not fit for human
intake. These are the non-secular steps put in
place by the State to ensure that the muslim
consumers' right to health is protected. The
halal certifications issued by petitioner and
similar organizations come forward as the official
religious approval of a food product fit for
muslim consumption.