You are on page 1of 27

Narratives

Constitutional Law II
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2005 Shared under Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAli e !"0 #hili$$ines license"

Some %i&hts %eserved"

'able o( Contents

)strada vs" )scritor *AM #-02-+,5+- . Au&ust 200!/ 0 + Islamic 1a2wah Council o( the #hili$$ines vs" 3((ice o( the )4ecutive Secretar5 *G% +5!666- 7 8ul5 200!/ 0 2 )$$erson vs" Ar ansas *!7! 9S 7:- +2 November +7,6/ 0 ! )n&el vs" Vitale *!:0 9S .2+- 25 8une +7,2/ 0 . School 1istrict o( Abin&ton 'ownshi$- #enns5lvania vs" Schem$$ *!:. 9S 20!- +: 8une +7,!/ 0 5 Stone vs" Graham *..7 9S !7- +: November +760/ 0 : A&li$a5 v" %ui; *G% .5.57- +! March +7!:/ 0 6 Mueller vs" Allen *.,! 9S !66- 27 8une +76!/ 0 7 Lemon vs" <urt;man *.0! 9S ,02- 26 8une +7:+/ 0 +0 Stone vs" Graham *..7 9S !7- +: November +760/ 0 +2 =allace vs" 8a((ree *.:2 9S !6- . 8une +765/ 0 +! >onacier vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% L-57+:- 26 8anuar5 +755/ 0 +5 =est Vir&inia State ?oard o( )ducation vs" ?arnette *!+7 9S ,2.- +. 8une +7.!/ 0 +, )bralina& vs" 1ivision Su$erintendent o( Schools o( Cebu *G% 75::0- + March +77!/ 0 +6 American ?ible Societ5 v" Cit5 o( Manila *G% L-7,!:- !0 A$ril +75:/ 0 +7 8imm5 Swa&&art Ministries vs" ?oard o( )@uali;ation o( Cali(ornia *.7! 9S !:6- +: 8anuar5 +770/ 0 2+ Victoriano vs" )li;alde %o$e =or ers2 9nion *G% L-252.,- +2 Se$tember +7:./ 0 22 #amil vs" 'eleron *G% L-!.65.- 20 November +7:6/ 0 2. 'orcaso vs" =at ins *!,: 9S .66- +7 8une +7,+/ 0 25

This collection contains nineteen (19) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student) during the First emester! school year "##$%"##& in the 'olitical (aw )e*iew class under +ean Mariano Magsalin ,r. at the -rellano .ni*ersity chool of (aw (-. (). /om0iled as '+F! e0tember "#1". 1erne Guerrero entered -. ( in ,une "##" and e*entually graduated from -. ( in "##&. 2e 0assed the 'hili00ine bar e3aminations immediately after (-0ril "##4).

berne&uerrero"word$ress"com

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

457 Estrada vs. Escritor [AM P-02-1651, 4 August 2003] En Banc, Puno (J): 5 concur, 2 filed separate opinions, 1 filed dissenting opinion, another filed dissenting opinion to which 3 joined, 2 on official lea e Facts: In a sworn letter-complaint dated 27 July 2000, Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoi es, Jr., presiding judge o! "ranc# 2$%, &egional 'rial Court o! (as )i*as City, re+uesting !or an in,estigation o! rumors t#at -oledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is li,ing wit# a man not #er #us and. '#ey allegedly #a,e a c#ild o! ./ to 20 years old. Estrada is not personally related eit#er to Escritor or #er partner and is a resident not o! (as )i*as City ut o! "acoor, Ca,ite. 0e,ert#eless, #e !iled t#e c#arge against Escritor as #e elie,es t#at s#e is committing an immoral act t#at tarnis#es t#e image o! t#e court, t#us s#e s#ould not e allowed to remain employed t#erein as it mig#t appear t#at t#e court condones #er act. Judge Caoi es re!erred t#e letter to Escritor w#o stated t#at 1t#ere is no trut# as to t#e ,eracity o! t#e allegation1 and c#allenged Estrada to 1appear in t#e open and pro,e #is allegation in t#e proper !orum.1 Judge Caoi es set a preliminary con!erence on .2 2cto er 2000. Escritor mo,ed !or t#e in#i ition o! Judge Caoi es !rom #earing #er case to a,oid suspicion and ias as s#e pre,iously !iled an administrati,e complaint against #im and said case was still pending in t#e 2!!ice o! t#e Court Administrator 32CA4. Escritor5s motion was denied. '#e preliminary con!erence proceeded wit# ot# Estrada and Escritor in attendance. Estrada con!irmed t#at #e !iled t#e letter-complaint !or immorality against Escritor ecause in #is !re+uent ,isits to t#e 6all o! Justice o! (as )i*as City, #e learned !rom con,ersations t#erein t#at Escritor was li,ing wit# a man not #er #us and and t#at s#e #ad an ./-20 year old son y t#is man. '#is prompted #im to write to Judge Caoi es as #e elie,ed t#at employees o! t#e judiciary s#ould e respecta le and Escritor5s li,e-in arrangement did not command respect. Escritor, on t#e ot#er #and, testi!ied t#at w#en s#e entered t#e judiciary in .777, s#e was already a widow, #er #us and #a,ing died in .77/. -#e admitted t#at s#e #as een li,ing wit# (uciano 8uilapio, Jr. wit#out t#e ene!it o! marriage !or 20 years and t#at t#ey #a,e a son. "ut as a mem er o! t#e religious sect 9nown as t#e Je#o,a#5s :itnesses and t#e :atc# 'ower and "i le 'ract -ociety, t#eir conjugal arrangement is in con!ormity wit# t#eir religious elie!s. In !act, a!ter .0 years o! li,ing toget#er, s#e e;ecuted on 2/ July .77. a 1<eclaration o! )ledging Fait#!ulness.1 Escritor5s partner, 8uilapio, e;ecuted a similar pledge on t#e same day. "ot# pledges were e;ecuted in Atimonan, 8ue=on and signed y % witnesses. At t#e time Escritor e;ecuted #er pledge, #er #us and was still ali,e ut li,ing wit# anot#er woman. 8uilapio was li9ewise married at t#at time, ut #ad een separated in !act !rom #is wi!e. <uring #er testimony, Escritor ,olunteered to present mem ers o! #er congregation to con!irm t#e trut#!ulness o! t#eir 1<eclarations o! )ledging Fait#!ulness,1 ut Judge Caoi es deemed it unnecessary and considered #er identi!ication o! #er signature and t#e signature o! 8uilapio su!!icient aut#entication o! t#e documents. Judge Caoi es endorsed t#e complaint to E;ecuti,e Judge >anuel ". Fernande=, Jr., w#o, in turn, endorsed t#e same to Court Administrator Al!redo (. "enipayo. 2n .7 July 200., t#e Court, upon recommendation o! Acting Court Administrator ?enaida 0. Elepa*o, directed Escritor to comment on t#e c#arge against #er. In #er comment, Escritor reiterated #er religious congregation5s appro,al o! #er conjugal arrangement wit# 8uilapio. <eputy Court Administrator C#ristop#er 2. (oc9 recommended t#at t#e case e re!erred to E;ecuti,e Judge "oni!acio -an= >aceda, &'C "ranc# 2$$, (as )i*as City !or in,estigation, report and recommendation. In #is &eport and &ecommendation, in,estigating judge >aceda !ound Escritor5s !actual allegations credi le as t#ey were supported y testimonial and documentary e,idence. 6e also noted t#at 13 4y strict Cat#olic standards, t#e li,e-in relations#ip o! respondent wit# #er mate s#ould !all wit#in t#e de!inition o! immoral conduct, to wit@ 5t#at w#ic# is will!ul, !lagrant, or s#ameless, and w#ic# s#ows a moral indi!!erence to t#e opinion o! t#e good and respecta le mem ers o! t#e community51 6e pointed out, #owe,er, t#at 1t#e more rele,ant +uestion is w#et#er or not to e;act !rom Escritor, a mem er o! 5Je#o,a#5s :itnesses,5 t#e strict moral standards o! t#e Cat#olic !ait# in determining #er administrati,e responsi ility in t#e case at ar.1 '#e in,estigating judge ac9nowledged t#at 1religious !reedom is a !undamental rig#t w#ic# is entitled to t#e #ig#est priority and t#e amplest protection among #uman rig#ts, !or it in,ol,es t#e relations#ip o! man to #is Creator and t#ere y recommended t#e dismissal o! t#e complaint against Escritor. A!ter considering t#e &eport and &ecommendation o! E;ecuti,e Judge >aceda, t#e 2!!ice o! t#e Court Administrator, t#roug# <eputy Court Administrator 3<CA4 (oc9 and wit# t#e appro,al o! Court Administrator )res itero Aelasco, concurred wit#
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

t#e !actual !indings o! Judge >aceda ut departed !rom #is recommendation to dismiss t#e complaint. <CA (oc9 stressed t#at alt#oug# Escritor #ad ecome capacitated to marry y t#e time s#e joined t#e judiciary as #er #us and #ad died a year e!ore, 1it is due to #er relations#ip wit# a married man, ,oluntarily carried on, t#at respondent may still e su ject to disciplinary action.1 Considering t#e ruling o! t#e Court in <icdican ,. Fernan, et al. t#at 1court personnel #a,e een enjoined to ad#ere to t#e e;acting standards o! morality and decency in t#eir pro!essional and pri,ate conduct in order to preser,e t#e good name and integrity o! t#e court o! justice,1 <CA (oc9 !ound Escritor5s de!ense o! !reedom o! religion una,ailing to warrant dismissal o! t#e c#arge o! immorality. Accordingly, #e recommended t#at Escritor e !ound guilty o! immorality and t#at s#e e penali=ed wit# suspension o! B mont#s and one day wit#out pay wit# a warning t#at a repetition o! a similar act will e dealt wit# more se,erely in accordance wit# t#e Ci,il -er,ice &ules. ssu!: :#et#er Escritor5s rig#t to religious !reedom s#ould car,e out an e;ception !rom t#e pre,ailing jurisprudence on illicit relations !or w#ic# go,ernment employees are #eld administrati,ely lia le. "!#d: '#e case eing one o! !irst impression, t#e claim o! religious !reedom is su jected to t#e 1compelling state interest1 test !rom a ene,olent neutrality stance - i.e. entertaining t#e possi ility t#at Escritor5s claim to religious !reedom would warrant car,ing out an e;ception !rom t#e Ci,il -er,ice (awC necessarily, #er de!ense o! religious !reedom will e una,ailing s#ould t#e go,ernment succeed in demonstrating a more compelling state interest. In applying t#e test, t#e !irst in+uiry is w#et#er Escritor5s rig#t to religious !reedom #as een urdened. '#ere is no dou t t#at c#oosing etween 9eeping #er employment and a andoning #er religious elie! and practice and !amily on t#e one #and, and gi,ing up #er employment and 9eeping #er religious practice and !amily on t#e ot#er #and, puts a urden on #er !ree e;ercise o! religion. '#e urden on Escritor is e,en greater as t#e price s#e #as to pay !or #er employment is not only #er religious precept ut also #er !amily w#ic#, y t#e <eclaration )ledging Fait#!ulness, stands 1#onora le e!ore Dod and men.1 '#e second step is to ascertain Escritor5s sincerity in #er religious elie!. '#e accused appears to e sincere in #er religious elie! and practice and is not merely using t#e 1<eclaration o! )ledging Fait#!ulness1 to a,oid punis#ment !or immorality. -#e did not secure t#e <eclaration only a!ter entering t#e judiciary w#ere t#e moral standards are strict and de!ined, muc# less only a!ter an administrati,e case !or immorality was !iled against #er. '#e <eclaration was issued to #er y #er congregation a!ter .0 years o! li,ing toget#er wit# #er partner, 8uilapio, and .0 years e!ore s#e entered t#e judiciary. In any e,ent, e,en i! t#e Court deems su!!icient Escritor5s e,idence on t#e sincerity o! #er religious elie! and its centrality in #er !ait#, t#e case cannot still e decided using t#e 1compelling state interest1 test. '#e case is one o! !irst impression, t#us t#e parties were not aware o! t#e urdens o! proo! t#ey s#ould disc#arge in t#e Court5s use o! t#e 1compelling state interest1 test. 'o properly settle t#e issue, t#e go,ernment s#ould e gi,en t#e opportunity to demonstrate t#e compelling state interest it see9s to up#old in opposing Escritor5s stance t#at #er conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punis#a le as it comes wit#in t#e scope o! !ree e;ercise protection. -#ould t#e Court pro#i it and punis# #er conduct w#ere it is protected y t#e Free E;ercise Clause, t#e Court5s action would e an unconstitutional encroac#ment o! #er rig#t to religious !reedom. '#e Court cannot t#ere!ore simply ta9e a passing loo9 at Escritor5s claim o! religious !reedom, ut must instead apply t#e 1compelling state interest1 test. '#e go,ernment must e #eard on t#e issue as it #as not een gi,en an opportunity to disc#arge its urden o! demonstrating t#e state5s compelling interest w#ic# can o,erride respondent5s religious elie! and practice. '#us, t#e case was remanded to t#e 2!!ice o! t#e Court Administrator. 45$ s#a%ic &a'(a) *ou+ci# o, t)! P)i#i--i+!s vs. .,,ic! o, t)! E/!cutiv! 0!cr!tar1 [23 153$$$, 4 5u#1 2003] 1! concur, 2 on lea e, 1 concurs in separate opinion to which 1 joined Facts: '#e Islamic <a5wa# Council o! t#e )#ilippines, Inc. 3I<C)4, a corporation t#at operates under <epartment o! -ocial :el!are and <e,elopment (icense -"-0.-0/$, is a non-go,ernmental organi=ation t#at e;tends ,oluntary ser,ices to t#e Filipino people, especially to >uslim communities. It claims to e a !ederation o! national Islamic organi=ations and an acti,e mem er o! international organi=ations suc# as t#e
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 2 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

&egional Islamic <a5wa# Council o! -out#east Asia and t#e )aci!ic 3&I-EA)4 and t#e :orld Assem ly o! >uslim Eout#. '#e &I-EA) accredited petitioner to issue #alal2 certi!ications in t#e )#ilippines. '#us, among t#e !unctions I<C) carries out is to conduct seminars, orient manu!acturers on #alal !ood and issue #alal certi!ications to +uali!ied products and manu!acturers. I<C) !ormulated in .77$ internal rules and procedures ased on t#e 8ur5an and t#e -unna# !or t#e analysis o! !ood, inspection t#ereo! and issuance o! #alal certi!ications. In t#at same year, I<C) egan to issue, !or a !ee, certi!ications to +uali!ied products and !ood manu!acturers. I<C) e,en adopted !or use on its #alal certi!icates a distinct sign or logo registered in t#e )#ilippine )atent 2!!ice under )atent F-2000-0%BBF. 2n 2B 2cto er 200., t#e 2!!ice o! t#e E;ecuti,e -ecretary issued E;ecuti,e 2rder 3E24 FB$, series o! 200., creating t#e )#ilippine 6alal Certi!ication -c#eme and designating t#e 2!!ice on >uslim A!!airs 32>A4 to o,ersee its implementation. Gnder t#e E2, 2>A #as t#e e;clusi,e aut#ority to issue #alal certi!icates and per!orm ot#er related regulatory acti,ities. 2n / >ay 2002, a news article entitled 12>A :arns 0D2s Issuing Illegal 56alal5 Certi!ication1 was pu lis#ed in t#e >anila "ulletin, a newspaper o! general circulation. In said article, 2>A warned >uslim consumers to uy only products wit# its o!!icial #alal certi!ication since t#ose wit#out said certi!ication #ad not een su jected to care!ul analysis and t#ere!ore could contain por9 or its deri,ati,es. 2>A also sent letters to !ood manu!acturers as9ing t#em to secure t#e #alal certi!ication only !rom 2>A lest t#ey ,iolate E2 FB and &A F.07. As a result, I<C) lost re,enues a!ter !ood manu!acturers stopped securing certi!ications !rom it. I<C) !iled a petition !or pro#i ition, praying !or t#e declaration o! nullity o! E2 FB and t#e pro#i ition o! t#e 2!!ice o! t#e E;ecuti,e -ecretary and 2>A !rom implementing t#e su ject E2. ssu!: :#et#er t#e 2>A encroac#ed ipon t#e religious !reedom o! >uslim organi=atinos to interpret w#at !ood products are !it !or >uslim consumption. "!#d: 2>A was created in .7/. t#roug# E;ecuti,e 2rder B77 1to ensure t#e integration o! >uslim Filipinos into t#e mainstream o! Filipino society wit# due regard to t#eir elie!s, customs, traditions, and institutions.1 2>A deals wit# t#e societal, legal, political and economic concerns o! t#e >uslim community as a 1national cultural community1 and not as a religious group. '#us, earing in mind t#e constitutional arrier etween t#e C#urc# and -tate, t#e latter must ma9e sure t#at 2>A does not intrude into purely religious matters lest it ,iolate t#e non-esta lis#ment clause and t#e 1!ree e;ercise o! religion1 pro,ision !ound in Article III, -ection $ o! t#e .7/7 Constitution. :it#out dou t, classi!ying a !ood product as #alal is a religious !unction ecause t#e standards used are drawn !rom t#e 8ur5an and Islamic elie!s. "y gi,ing 2>A t#e e;clusi,e power to classi!y !ood products as #alal, E2 FB encroac#ed on t#e religious !reedom o! >uslim organi=ations li9e I<C) to interpret !or Filipino >uslims w#at !ood products are !it !or >uslim consumption. Also, y arrogating to itsel! t#e tas9 o! issuing #alal certi!ications, t#e -tate #as in e!!ect !orced >uslims to accept its own interpretation o! t#e 8ur5an and -unna# on #alal !ood. '#ere is no compelling justi!ication !or t#e go,ernment to depri,e muslim organi=ations o! t#eir religious rig#t to classi!y a product as #alal, e,en on t#e premise t#at t#e #ealt# o! muslim Filipinos can e e!!ecti,ely protected y assigning to 2>A t#e e;clusi,e power to issue #alal certi!ications. '#e protection and promotion o! t#e muslim Filipinos5 rig#t to #ealt# are already pro,ided !or in e;isting laws and ministered to y go,ernment agencies c#arged wit# ensuring t#at !ood products released in t#e mar9et are !it !or #uman consumption, properly la eled and sa!e. Gnli9e E2 FB, t#ese laws do not encroac# on t#e religious !reedom o! muslims. 454 E--!rso+ vs. Ar6a+sas [343 70 47, 12 8ov!%9!r 146$] "ortas (J) Facts: '#e Ar9ansas law ma9es it unlaw!ul !or a teac#er in any state-supported sc#ool or uni,ersity 1to teac# t#e t#eory or doctrine t#at man9ind ascended or descended !rom a lower order o! animals,1 or 1to adopt or use in any suc# institution a te;t oo9 t#at teac#es1 t#is t#eory. Aiolation is a misdemeanor and su jects t#e ,iolator to dismissal !rom #is position. 2n (ittle &oc9, t#e o!!icial te;t oo9 !urnis#ed !or t#e #ig# sc#ool iology course did not #a,e a section on t#e <arwinian '#eory. '#en, !or t#e academic year .7B$-.7BB, t#e sc#ool administration, on recommendation o! t#e teac#ers o! iology in t#e sc#ool system, adopted and
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 3 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

prescri ed a te;t oo9 w#ic# contained a c#apter setting !ort# 1t#e t#eory a out t#e origin o! man !rom a lower !orm o! animal.1 -usan Epperson, a young woman w#o graduated !rom Ar9ansas5 sc#ool system and t#en o tained #er master5s degree in =oology at t#e Gni,ersity o! Illinois, was employed y t#e (ittle &oc9 sc#ool system in t#e !all o! .7BF to teac# .0t# grade iology at Central 6ig# -c#ool. At t#e start o! t#e ne;t academic year, .7B$, s#e was con!ronted y t#e new te;t oo9 3w#ic# one surmises !rom t#e record was not unwelcome to #er4. -#e !aced at least a literal dilemma ecause s#e was supposed to use t#e new te;t oo9 !or classroom instruction and presuma ly to teac# t#e statutorily condemned c#apterC ut to do so would e a criminal o!!ense and su ject #er to dismissal. -#e instituted t#e action in t#e C#ancery Court o! t#e -tate, see9ing a declaration t#at t#e Ar9ansas statute is ,oid and enjoining t#e -tate and t#e o!!icials o! t#e (ittle &oc9 sc#ool system !rom dismissing #er !or ,iolation o! t#e statute5s pro,isions. 6. 6. "lanc#ard, a parent o! c#ildren attending t#e pu lic sc#ools, inter,ened in support o! t#e action. '#e C#ancery Court #eld t#at t#e statute ,iolated t#e Fourteent# Amendment to t#e Gnited -tates Constitution. '#e court noted t#at t#is Amendment encompasses t#e pro#i itions upon state inter!erence wit# !reedom o! speec# and t#oug#t w#ic# are contained in t#e First Amendment. Accordingly, it #eld t#at t#e c#allenged statute is unconstitutional ecause, in ,iolation o! t#e First Amendment, it 1tends to #inder t#e +uest !or 9nowledge, restrict t#e !reedom to learn, and restrain t#e !reedom to teac#.1 In t#is perspecti,e, it #eld t#at t#e Act was an unconstitutional and ,oid restraint upon t#e !reedom o! speec# guaranteed y t#e Constitution. 2n appeal, t#e -upreme Court o! Ar9ansas re,ersed. It sustained t#e statute as an e;ercise o! t#e -tate5s power to speci!y t#e curriculum in pu lic sc#ools. It did not address itsel! to t#e competing constitutional considerations. ssu!: :#et#er Ar9ansas law ,iolates t#e Constitution y pro#i iting t#e instruction t#at man, y e,olution, came !rom lower animals. "!#d: It is o! no moment w#et#er t#e law is deemed to pro#i it mention o! <arwin5s t#eory, or to !or id any or all o! t#e in!inite ,arieties o! communication em raced wit#in t#e term 1teac#ing.1 Gnder eit#er interpretation, t#e law must e stric9en ecause o! its con!lict wit# t#e constitutional pro#i ition o! state laws respecting an esta lis#ment o! religion or pro#i iting t#e !ree e;ercise t#ereo!. '#e o,erriding !act is t#at Ar9ansas5 law selects !rom t#e ody o! 9nowledge a particular segment w#ic# it proscri es !or t#e sole reason t#at it is deemed to con!lict wit# a particular religious doctrineC t#at is, wit# a particular interpretation o! t#e "oo9 o! Denesis y a particular religious group. '#e -tate5s undou ted rig#t to prescri e t#e curriculum !or its pu lic sc#ools does not carry wit# it t#e rig#t to pro#i it, on pain o! criminal penalty, t#e teac#ing o! a scienti!ic t#eory or doctrine w#ere t#at pro#i ition is ased upon reasons t#at ,iolate t#e First Amendment. It is muc# too late to argue t#at t#e -tate may impose upon t#e teac#ers in its sc#ools any conditions t#at it c#ooses, #owe,er restricti,e t#ey may e o! constitutional guarantees. 6erein, t#ere can e no dou t t#at Ar9ansas #as soug#t to pre,ent its teac#ers !rom discussing t#e t#eory o! e,olution ecause it is contrary to t#e elie! o! some t#at t#e "oo9 o! Denesis must e t#e e;clusi,e source o! doctrine as to t#e origin o! man. 0o suggestion #as een made t#at Ar9ansas5 law may e justi!ied y considerations o! state policy ot#er t#an t#e religious ,iews o! some o! its citi=ens. It is clear t#at !undamentalist sectarian con,iction was and is t#e law5s reason !or e;istence. Its antecedent, 'ennessee5s 1mon9ey law,1 candidly stated its purpose@ to ma9e it unlaw!ul 1to teac# any t#eory t#at denies t#e story o! t#e <i,ine Creation o! man as taug#t in t#e "i le, and to teac# instead t#at man #as descended !rom a lower order o! animals.1 )er#aps t#e sensational pu licity attendant upon t#e -copes trial induced Ar9ansas to adopt less e;plicit language. It eliminated 'ennessee5s re!erence to 1t#e story o! t#e <i,ine Creation o! man1 as taug#t in t#e "i le, ut t#ere is no dou t t#at t#e moti,ation !or t#e law was t#e same@ to suppress t#e teac#ing o! a t#eory w#ic#, it was t#oug#t, 1denied1 t#e di,ine creation o! man. Ar9ansas5 law cannot e de!ended as an act o! religious neutrality. Ar9ansas did not see9 to e;cise !rom t#e curricula o! its sc#ools and uni,ersities all discussion o! t#e origin o! man. '#e law5s e!!ort was con!ined to an attempt to lot out a particular t#eory ecause o! its supposed con!lict wit# t#e "i lical account, literally read. )lainly, t#e law is contrary to t#e mandate o! t#e First, and in ,iolation o! t#e Fourteent#, Amendment to t#e Constitution. 460 E+g!# vs. :ita#! [370 70 421, 25 5u+! 1462]
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 4 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Blac# (J) Facts: '#e "oard o! Education o! Gnion Free -c#ool <istrict 7, 0ew 6yde )ar9, 0ew Eor9, acting in its o!!icial capacity under state law, directed t#e -c#ool <istrict5s principal to cause t#e !ollowing prayer to e said aloud y eac# class in t#e presence o! a teac#er at t#e eginning o! eac# sc#ool day@ 1Almig#ty Dod, we ac9nowledge our dependence upon '#ee, and we eg '#y lessings upon us, our parents, our teac#ers and our Country.1 '#is daily procedure was adopted on t#e recommendation o! t#e -tate "oard o! &egents, a go,ernmental agency created y t#e -tate Constitution to w#ic# t#e 0ew Eor9 (egislature #as granted road super,isory, e;ecuti,e, and legislati,e powers o,er t#e -tate5s pu lic sc#ool system. '#ese state o!!icials composed t#e prayer w#ic# t#ey recommended and pu lis#ed as a part o! t#eir 1-tatement on >oral and -piritual 'raining in t#e -c#ools,1 saying@ 1:e elie,e t#at t#is -tatement will e su scri ed to y all men and women o! good will, and we call upon all o! t#em to aid in gi,ing li!e to our program.1 -#ortly a!ter t#e practice o! reciting t#e &egents5 prayer was adopted y t#e -c#ool <istrict, t#e parents o! .0 pupils roug#t t#e action in a 0ew Eor9 -tate Court insisting t#at use o! t#is o!!icial prayer in t#e pu lic sc#ools was contrary to t#e elie!s, religions, or religious practices o! ot# t#emsel,es and t#eir c#ildren. Among ot#er t#ings, t#ese parents c#allenged t#e constitutionality o! ot# t#e state law aut#ori=ing t#e -c#ool <istrict to direct t#e use o! prayer in pu lic sc#ools and t#e -c#ool <istrict5s regulation ordering t#e recitation o! t#is particular prayer on t#e ground t#at t#ese actions o! o!!icial go,ernmental agencies ,iolate t#at part o! t#e First Amendment o! t#e Federal Constitution w#ic# commands t#at 1Congress s#all ma9e no law respecting an esta lis#ment o! religion1 - a command w#ic# was 1made applica le to t#e -tate o! 0ew Eor9 y t#e Fourteent# Amendment o! t#e said Constitution.1 '#e 0ew Eor9 Court o! Appeals, o,er t#e dissents o! Judges <ye and Fuld, sustained an order o! t#e lower state courts w#ic# #ad up#eld t#e power o! 0ew Eor9 to use t#e &egents5 prayer as a part o! t#e daily procedures o! its pu lic sc#ools so long as t#e sc#ools did not compel any pupil to join in t#e prayer o,er #is or #is parents5 o jection. ssu!: :#et#er t#e 0ew Eor9 law adopting t#e practice o! reciting t#e &egentHs prayer in pu lic sc#ools ,iolate t#e 30on4Esta lis#ment Clause. "!#d: "y using its pu lic sc#ool system to encourage recitation o! t#e &egents5 prayer, t#e -tate o! 0ew Eor9 #as adopted a practice w#olly inconsistent wit# t#e Esta lis#ment Clause. '#ere can, o! course, e no dou t t#at 0ew Eor95s program o! daily classroom in,ocation o! Dod5s lessings as prescri ed in t#e &egents5 prayer is a religious acti,ity. It is a solemn a,owal o! di,ine !ait# and supplication !or t#e lessings o! t#e Almig#ty. '#e nature o! suc# a prayer #as always een religious. '#ere can e no dou t t#at 0ew Eor95s state prayer program o!!icially esta lis#es t#e religious elie!s em odied in t#e &egents5 prayer. '#e argument to t#e contrary, w#ic# is largely ased upon t#e contention t#at t#e &egents5 prayer is 1non-denominational1 and t#e !act t#at t#e program does not re+uire all pupils to recite t#e prayer ut permits t#ose w#o wis# to do so to remain silent or e e;cused !rom t#e room, ignores t#e essential nature o! t#e program5s constitutional de!ects. 0eit#er t#e !act t#at t#e prayer may e denominationally neutral nor t#e !act t#at its o ser,ance on t#e part o! t#e students is ,oluntary can ser,e to !ree it !rom t#e limitations o! t#e Esta lis#ment Clause, as it mig#t !rom t#e Free E;ercise Clause, o! t#e First Amendment, ot# o! w#ic# are operati,e against t#e -tates y ,irtue o! t#e Fourteent# Amendment. '#e 0ew Eor9 laws o!!icially prescri ing t#e &egents5 prayer are inconsistent ot# wit# t#e purposes o! t#e Esta lis#ment Clause and wit# t#e Esta lis#ment Clause itsel!. 461 0c)oo# &istrict o, A9i+gto+ ;o(+s)i-, P!++s1#va+ia vs. 0c)!%-- [374 70 203, 17 5u+! 1463] $lar# (J) Facts: %$ase 1&2' '#e Commonwealt# o! )ennsyl,ania y law re+uires t#at 1At least ten ,erses !rom t#e 6oly "i le s#all e read, wit#out comment, at t#e opening o! eac# pu lic sc#ool on eac# sc#ool day. Any c#ild s#all e e;cused !rom suc# "i le reading, or attending suc# "i le reading, upon t#e written re+uest o! #is parent or guardian.1 '#e -c#empp !amily, #us and and wi!e and two o! t#eir t#ree c#ildren 3w#o are o! t#e Gnitarian !ait# and are mem ers o! t#e Gnitarian c#urc# in Dermantown, )#iladelp#ia, )ennsyl,ania,
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 5 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

w#ere t#ey, as well as anot#er son, Ellory, regularly attend religious ser,ices4, roug#t suit to enjoin en!orcement o! t#e statute, contending t#at t#eir rig#ts under t#e Fourteent# Amendment to t#e Constitution o! t#e Gnited -tates are, #a,e een, and will continue to e ,iolated unless t#is statute e declared unconstitutional as ,iolati,e o! t#ese pro,isions o! t#e First Amendment. '#ey soug#t to enjoin t#e -c#ool <istrict o! A ington 'owns#ip 3)ennsyl,ania4, w#erein t#e -c#empp c#ildren attend sc#ool 3t#e A ington -enior 6ig# -c#ool4, and its o!!icers and t#e -uperintendent o! )u lic Instruction o! t#e Commonwealt# !rom continuing to conduct suc# readings and recitation o! t#e (ord5s )rayer in t#e pu lic sc#ools o! t#e district pursuant to t#e statute. A t#ree-judge statutory <istrict Court !or t#e Eastern <istrict o! )ennsyl,ania #eld t#at t#e statute is ,iolati,e o! t#e Esta lis#ment Clause o! t#e First Amendment as applied to t#e -tates y t#e <ue )rocess Clause o! t#e Fourteent# Amendment and directed t#at appropriate injuncti,e relie! issue. 6ence, t#e appeal y t#e <istrict, its o!!icials and t#e -uperintendent. %$ase 11(' In .70$ t#e "oard o! -c#ool Commissioners o! "altimore City adopted a rule pursuant to Art. 77, 202 o! t#e Annotated Code o! >aryland. '#e rule pro,ided !or t#e #olding o! opening e;ercises in t#e sc#ools o! t#e city, consisting primarily o! t#e 1reading, wit#out comment, o! a c#apter in t#e 6oly "i le andIor t#e use o! t#e (ord5s )rayer.1 >rs. >adalyn >urray and #er son, :illiam J. >urray III, are ot# pro!essed at#eists. Following unsuccess!ul attempts to #a,e t#e sc#ool oard rescind t#e rule, t#e suit was !iled !or mandamus to compel its rescission and cancellation. It was alleged t#at :illiam was a student in a pu lic sc#ool o! t#e city and >rs. >urray, #is mot#er, was a ta;payer t#ereinC t#at it was t#e practice under t#e rule to #a,e a reading on eac# sc#ool morning !rom t#e Jing James ,ersion o! t#e "i leC t#at at t#e >urrays5 insistence t#e rule was amended to permit c#ildren to e e;cused !rom t#e e;ercise on re+uest o! t#e parent and t#at :illiam #ad een e;cused pursuant t#eretoC t#at ne,ert#eless t#e rule as amended was in ,iolation o! t#e >urrays5 rig#ts 1to !reedom o! religion under t#e First and Fourteent# Amendments1 and in ,iolation o! 1t#e principle o! separation etween c#urc# and state, contained t#erein.1 '#e petition particulari=ed t#e >urrays5 at#eistic elie!s and stated t#at t#e rule, as practiced, ,iolated t#eir rig#ts 1in t#at it t#reatens t#eir religious li erty y placing a premium on elie! as against non- elie! and su jects t#eir !reedom o! conscience to t#e rule o! t#e majorityC it pronounces elie! in Dod as t#e source o! all moral and spiritual ,alues, e+uating t#ese ,alues wit# religious ,alues, and t#ere y renders sinister, alien and suspect t#e elie!s and ideals o! your )etitioners, promoting dou t and +uestion o! t#eir morality, good citi=ens#ip and good !ait#.1 '#e "oard demurred and t#e trial court, recogni=ing t#at t#e demurrer admitted all !acts well pleaded, sustained it wit#out lea,e to amend. '#e >aryland Court o! Appeals a!!irmed, t#e majority o! !our justices #olding t#e e;ercise not in ,iolation o! t#e First and Fourteent# Amendments, wit# t#ree justices dissenting. ssu!: :#et#er t#e reading o! t#e i le, e,en wit#out comments, at t#e start o! t#e sc#ool day y students ,iolate t#e 30on4 Esta lis#ment clause. "!#d: '#e First Amendment5s mandate t#at 1Congress s#all ma9e no law respecting an esta lis#ment o! religion, or pro#i iting t#e !ree e;ercise t#ereo!1 #as een made w#olly applica le to t#e -tates y t#e Fourteent# Amendment. In Cantwell ,. Connecticut (31! )* 2(+, 3!3 %1(&!'), it was #eld t#at 1'#e !undamental concept o! li erty em odied in t#at KFourteent#L Amendment em races t#e li erties guaranteed y t#e First Amendment. '#e First Amendment declares t#at Congress s#all ma9e no law respecting an esta lis#ment o! religion or pro#i iting t#e !ree e;ercise t#ereo!. '#e Fourteent# Amendment #as rendered t#e legislatures o! t#e states as incompetent as Congress to enact suc# laws.1 In a series o! cases since Cantwell t#e Court #as repeatedly rea!!irmed t#at doctrine, and it does so in t#e present case. Furt#er, t#e Esta lis#ment Clause !or ids not only go,ernmental pre!erence o! one religion o,er anot#er. As was #eld in E,erson ,. "oard o! Education (33! )* 1, 15 %1(&,'), 1neit#er a state nor t#e Federal Do,ernment can set up a c#urc#. 0eit#er can pass laws w#ic# aid one religion, aid all religions, or pre!er one religion o,er anot#er.1 '#e w#olesome 1neutrality1 stems !rom a recognition o! t#e teac#ings o! #istory t#at power!ul sects or groups mig#t ring a out a !usion o! go,ernmental and religious !unctions or a concert or dependency o! one upon t#e ot#er to t#e end t#at o!!icial support o! t#e -tate or Federal Do,ernment would e placed e#ind t#e tenets o! one or o! all ort#odo;ies. '#is t#e Esta lis#ment Clause pro#i its. And a !urt#er reason !or neutrality is
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 6 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

!ound in t#e Free E;ercise Clause, w#ic# recogni=es t#e ,alue o! religious training, teac#ing and o ser,ance and, more particularly, t#e rig#t o! e,ery person to !reely c#oose #is own course wit# re!erence t#ereto, !ree o! any compulsion !rom t#e state. '#is t#e Free E;ercise Clause guarantees. '#us, t#e two clauses may o,erlapC ut still, t#e distinction etween t#e two clauses is apparent - a ,iolation o! t#e Free E;ercise Clause is predicated on coercion w#ile t#e Esta lis#ment Clause ,iolation need not e so attended. Applying t#e Esta lis#ment Clause principles in Case .F2, t#e -tates are re+uiring t#e selection and reading at t#e opening o! t#e sc#ool day o! ,erses !rom t#e 6oly "i le and t#e recitation o! t#e (ord5s )rayer y t#e students in unison. '#ese e;ercises are prescri ed as part o! t#e curricular acti,ities o! students w#o are re+uired y law to attend sc#ool. '#ey are #eld in t#e sc#ool uildings under t#e super,ision and wit# t#e participation o! teac#ers employed in t#ose sc#ools. -uc# an opening e;ercise is a religious ceremony and was intended y t#e -tate to e so, and t#us t#e e;ercises and t#e law re+uiring t#em are in ,iolation o! t#e Esta lis#ment Clause. 2n t#e ot#er #and, in Case ..7, alt#oug# t#e -tate contends t#at t#e program is an e!!ort to e;tend its ene!its to all pu lic sc#ool c#ildren wit#out regard to t#eir religious elie!, and t#at its purpose is not strictly religious as it is soug#t to e accomplis#ed t#roug# readings, wit#out comment, !rom t#e "i leC t#e place o! t#e "i le as an instrument o! religion cannot e gainsaid, and t#e -tate5s recognition o! t#e per,ading religious c#aracter o! t#e ceremony is e,ident !rom t#e rule5s speci!ic permission o! t#e alternati,e use o! t#e Cat#olic <ouay ,ersion as well as t#e recent amendment permitting nonattendance at t#e e;ercises. 0one o! t#ese !actors is consistent wit# t#e contention t#at t#e "i le is #ere used eit#er as an instrument !or nonreligious moral inspiration or as a re!erence !or t#e teac#ing o! secular su jects. '#ere!ore, i ot# cases, t#e laws re+uire religious e;ercises and suc# e;ercises are eing conducted in direct ,iolation o! t#e rig#ts o! -c#empp, et. al. 0or are t#ese re+uired e;ercises mitigated y t#e !act t#at indi,idual students may a sent t#emsel,es upon parental re+uest, !or t#at !act !urnis#es no de!ense to a claim o! unconstitutionality under t#e Esta lis#ment Clause. Furt#er, it is no de!ense to urge t#at t#e religious practices #ere may e relati,ely minor encroac#ments on t#e First Amendment. '#e reac# o! neutrality t#at is today a tric9ling stream may all too soon ecome a raging torrent and, in t#e words o! >adison, 1it is proper to ta9e alarm at t#e !irst e;periment on our li erties.1 462 0to+! vs. 2ra)a% [444 70 34, 17 8ov!%9!r 14$0] Per $uriaFacts: A Jentuc9y statute re+uires t#e posting o! a copy o! t#e 'en Commandments, purc#ased wit# pri,ate contri utions, on t#e wall o! eac# pu lic classroom in t#e -tate. -tone, et. al. claiming t#at t#is statute ,iolates t#e Esta lis#ment and Free E;ercise Clauses o! t#e First Amendment, soug#t an injunction against its en!orcement. '#e state trial court up#eld t#e statute, !inding t#at its 1a,owed purpose1 was 1secular and not religious,1 and t#at t#e statute would 1neit#er ad,ance nor in#i it any religion or religious group1 nor in,ol,e t#e -tate e;cessi,ely in religious matters. '#e -upreme Court o! t#e Commonwealt# o! Jentuc9y a!!irmed y an e+ually di,ided court. ssu!: :#et#er t#e posting o! t#e 'en Commandments in pu lic sc#ool rooms, procured !rom pri,ate contri utions, ,iolate t#e non-esta lis#ment clause. "!#d: Jentuc9y5s statute re+uiring t#e posting o! t#e 'en Commandments in pu lic sc#ool rooms #as no secular legislati,e purpose, and is t#ere!ore unconstitutional. '#e pre-eminent purpose !or posting t#e 'en Commandments on sc#oolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. '#e 'en Commandments are undenia ly a sacred te;t in t#e Jewis# and C#ristian !ait#s, and no legislati,e recitation o! a supposed secular purpose can lind us to t#at !act. '#e Commandments do not con!ine t#emsel,es to argua ly secular matters, suc# as #onoring one5s parents, 9illing or murder, adultery, stealing, !alse witness, and co,etousness. &at#er, t#e !irst part o! t#e Commandments concerns t#e religious duties o! elie,ers@ wors#ipping t#e (ord Dod alone, a,oiding idolatry, not using t#e (ord5s name in ,ain, and o ser,ing t#e -a at# <ay. '#e case is not in w#ic# t#e 'en Commandments are integrated into t#e sc#ool curriculum, w#ere t#e "i le may constitutionally e used in an appropriate study o! #istory, ci,ili=ation, et#ics, comparati,e religion, or t#e li9e. )osting o!
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 7 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

religious te;ts on t#e wall ser,es no suc# educational !unction. I! t#e posted copies o! t#e 'en Commandments are to #a,e any e!!ect at all, it will e to induce t#e sc#oolc#ildren to read, meditate upon, per#aps to ,enerate and o ey, t#e Commandments. 6owe,er desira le t#is mig#t e as a matter o! pri,ate de,otion, it is not a permissi le state o jecti,e under t#e Esta lis#ment Clause. It does not matter t#at t#e posted copies o! t#e 'en Commandments are !inanced y ,oluntary pri,ate contri utions, !or t#e mere posting o! t#e copies under t#e auspices o! t#e legislature pro,ides t#e 1o!!icial support o! t#e -tate Do,ernment1 t#at t#e Esta lis#ment Clause pro#i its. 0or is it signi!icant t#at t#e "i le ,erses in,ol,ed in t#is case are merely posted on t#e wall, rat#er t#an read aloud, !or 1it is no de!ense to urge t#at t#e religious practices #ere may e relati,ely minor encroac#ments on t#e First Amendment.1 Jy. &e,. -tat. .$/..7/ 3.7/04 ,iolates t#e !irst part o! t#e (emon ,. Jurt=man test, and t#us t#e Esta lis#ment Clause o! t#e Constitution. 463 Ag#i-a1 v. 3ui< [23 45454, 13 Marc) 1437] "irst .i ision, /aurel (J): 5 concur Facts: In >ay .7%B, t#e <irector o! )osts announced in t#e dailies o! >anila t#at #e would order t#e issuance o! postage stamps commemorating t#e cele ration in t#e City o! >anila o! t#e %%rd International Euc#aristic Congress, organi=ed y t#e &oman Cat#olic C#urc#. >onsignor Dregorio Aglipay, -upreme 6ead o! t#e )#ilippine Independent C#urc#, in t#e !ul!illment o! w#at #e considers to e a ci,ic duty, re+uested Aicente -otto, Es+., mem er o! t#e )#ilippine "ar, to denounce t#e matter to t#e )resident o! t#e )#ilippines. In spite o! t#e protest o! -otto, t#e <irector o! )osts pu licly announced t#at t#e designs o! t#e postage !or printing #a,e een sent to t#e Gnited -tates. '#e said stamps were actually issued and sold t#oug# t#e greater part t#ereo! remained unsold. '#e !urt#er sale o! t#e stamps was soug#t to e pre,ented y Aglipay. ssu!: :#et#er t#e stamp 3containing a map o! t#e )#ilippines, t#e location o! t#e City o! >anila, and an inscription t#at reads 1-eat MMMIII International Euc#aristic Congress, Fe . %-7, .7%714 ,iolate t#e 0onesta lis#ment clause y allegedly promoting t#e Cat#olic religion. "!#d: -ection .%, Article AI, o! t#e .7%$ Constitution pro,ides t#at Nno pu lic money or property s#all e,er e appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, !or t#e use, ene!it, or support o! any sect, c#urc#, denomination, sectarian institution, or system o! religion, or !or t#e use, ene!it, or support o! any priest, preac#er, minister, or ot#er religious teac#er or dignitary as suc#, e;cept w#en suc# priest, preac#er, minister, or dignitary is assigned to t#e armed !orces or to any penal institution, orp#anage, or leprosarium.1 '#e pro#i ition is a direct corollary o! t#e principle o! separation o! c#urc# and state. Act F0$2 contemplates no religious purpose in ,iew. :#at it gi,es t#e <irector o! )osts is t#e discretionary power to determine w#en t#e issuance o! special postage stamps would e 1ad,antageous to t#e Do,ernment.1 2! course, t#e p#rase 1ad,antageous to t#e Do,ernment1 does not aut#ori=e t#e ,iolation o! t#e ConstitutionC i.e. to appropriate, use or apply o! pu lic money or property !or t#e use, ene!it or support o! a particular sect or c#urc#. 6erein, t#e issuance o! t#e postage stamps was not inspired y any sectarian !eeling to !a,or a particular c#urc# or religious denominations. '#e stamps were not issued and sold !or t#e ene!it o! t#e &oman Cat#olic C#urc#, nor were money deri,ed !rom t#e sale o! t#e stamps gi,en to t#at c#urc#. '#e purpose o! t#e issuing o! t#e stamps was to ta9e ad,antage o! an e,ent considered o! international importance to gi,e pu licity to t#e )#ilippines and its people and attract more tourists to t#e country. '#us, instead o! s#owing a Cat#olic c#alice, t#e stamp contained a map o! t#e )#ilippines, t#e location o! t#e City o! >anila, and an inscription t#at reads 1-eat MMMIII International Euc#aristic Congress, Fe . %-7, .7%7.1 '#us, w#ile t#e issuance and sale o! t#e stamps may e said to e insepara ly lin9ed wit# an e,ent o! a religious c#aracter, t#e resulting propaganda recei,ed y t#e &oman Cat#olic C#urc#, was not t#e aim and purpose o! t#e Do,ernment. '#e Do,ernment s#ould not e em arrassed in its acti,ities simply ecause o! incidental results, more or less religious in c#aracter, i! t#e purpose #ad in ,iew is one w#ic# could legitimately e underta9en y appropriate legislation. '#e main purpose s#ould not e !rustrated y its su ordination to mere incidental results not contemplated.

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 8 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

464 Mu!##!r vs. A##!+ [463 70 3$$, 24 5u+! 14$3] 0ehn1uist (J) Facts: >innesota, li9e e,ery ot#er -tate, pro,ides its citi=ens wit# !ree elementary and secondary sc#ooling. >innesota, y a law originally enacted in .7$$ and re,ised in .77B and again in .77/, permits state ta;payers to claim a deduction !rom gross income !or certain e;penses incurred in educating t#eir c#ildren. '#e deduction is limited to actual e;penses incurred !or t#e 1tuition, te;t oo9s and transportation1 o! dependents attending elementary or secondary sc#ools. A deduction may not e;ceed O$00 per dependent in grades J t#roug# B and O700 per dependent in grades 7 t#roug# .2. A out /20,000 students attended t#is sc#ool system in t#e most recent sc#ool year. <uring t#e same year, appro;imately 7.,000 elementary and secondary students attended some $00 pri,ately supported sc#ools located in >innesota, and a out 7$P o! t#ese students attended sc#ools considering t#emsel,es to e sectarian. Certain >innesota ta;payers 3>ueller, et. al.4 sued in t#e Gnited -tates <istrict Court !or t#e <istrict o! >innesota claiming t#at 270.07, su d. 22, ,iolated t#e Esta lis#ment Clause y pro,iding !inancial assistance to sectarian institutions. '#ey named as de!endants t#e Commissioner o! t#e <epartment o! &e,enue o! >innesota and se,eral parents w#o too9 ad,antage o! t#e ta; deduction !or e;penses incurred in sending t#eir c#ildren to paroc#ial sc#ools. '#e <istrict Court granted t#e Commissioner, et. al.5s motion !or summary judgment, #olding t#at t#e statute was 1neutral on its !ace and in its application and does not #a,e a primary e!!ect o! eit#er ad,ancing or in#i iting religion.1 2n appeal, t#e Court o! Appeals a!!irmed, concluding t#at t#e >innesota statute su stantially ene!ited a 1 road class o! >innesota citi=ens.1 '#e Gnited -tates Court o! Appeals !or t#e Eig#t# Circuit #eld t#at t#e Esta lis#ment Clause o! t#e First Amendment, as made applica le to t#e -tates y t#e Fourteent# Amendment, was not o!!ended y t#is arrangement. ssu!: :#et#er t#e >innesota law allowing ta; deductions !or e;penses incurred in c#ildrenHs education ,iolates t#e Esta lis#ment Clause inasmuc# as allegedly it will pro,ide !inancial assistance to sectarian institutions. "!#d: A -tate5s decision to de!ray t#e cost o! educational e;penses incurred y parents - regardless o! t#e type o! sc#ools t#eir c#ildren attend - e,idences a purpose t#at is ot# secular and understanda le. An educated populace is essential to t#e political and economic #ealt# o! any community, and a -tate5s e!!orts to assist parents in meeting t#e rising cost o! educational e;penses plainly ser,es t#is secular purpose o! ensuring t#at t#e -tate5s citi=enry is well educated. -imilarly, >innesota, li9e ot#er -tates, could conclude t#at t#ere is a strong pu lic interest in assuring t#e continued !inancial #ealt# o! pri,ate sc#ools, ot# sectarian and nonsectarian. "y educating a su stantial num er o! students suc# sc#ools relie,e pu lic sc#ools o! a correspondingly great urden - to t#e ene!it o! all ta;payers. In addition, pri,ate sc#ools may ser,e as a enc#mar9 !or pu lic sc#ools, in a manner analogous to t#e 1'AA yardstic91 !or pri,ate power companies. Furt#er, t#ere are se,eral !eatures o! t#e >innesota ta; deduction particularly signi!icant in determining t#at t#e >innesota statute does not #a,e 1t#e primary e!!ect o! ad,ancing t#e sectarian aims o! t#e nonpu lic sc#ools.1 First, an essential !eature o! >innesota5s arrangement is t#e !act t#at 270.07, su d. 22, is only one among many deductions - suc# as t#ose !or medical e;penses, 270.07, su d. .0, and c#arita le contri utions, 270.2., su d. % - a,aila le under t#e >innesota ta; laws. 'raditionally 1legislatures #a,e especially road latitude in creating classi!ications and distinctions in ta; statutes,1 in part ecause t#e 1!amiliarity wit# local conditions1 enjoyed y legislators especially ena les t#em to 1ac#ie,e an e+uita le distri ution o! t#e ta; urden.1 '#e >innesota (egislature5s judgment t#at a deduction !or educational e;penses !airly e+uali=es t#e ta; urden o! its citi=ens and encourages desira le e;penditures !or educational purposes is entitled to su stantial de!erence. 2t#er c#aracteristics o! 270.07, su d. 22, argue e+ually strongly !or t#e pro,ision5s constitutionality. >ost importantly, t#e deduction is a,aila le !or educational e;penses incurred y all parents, including t#ose w#ose c#ildren attend pu lic sc#ools and t#ose w#ose c#ildren attend nonsectarian pri,ate sc#ools or sectarian pri,ate sc#ools. '#e -tate5s pro,ision o! a !orum neutrally 1a,aila le to a road class o! nonreligious as well as religious spea9ers1 does not 1con!er any imprimatur o! state appro,al,1 so #ere@ 1t#e pro,ision o! ene!its to so road a spectrum o! groups is an important inde; o! secular e!!ect.1 Alt#oug# t#e
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Esta lis#ment Clause e;tends eyond pro#i ition o! a state c#urc# or payment o! state !unds to one or more c#urc#es, its pro#i ition does not e;tend to t#e type o! ta; deduction esta lis#ed y >innesota. '#e #istoric purposes o! t#e Clause simply do not encompass t#e sort o! attenuated !inancial ene!it, ultimately controlled y t#e pri,ate c#oices o! indi,idual parents, t#at e,entually !lows to paroc#ial sc#ools !rom t#e neutrally a,aila le ta; ene!it at issue. Furt#ermore, t#e >innesota statute does not 1e;cessi,ely entangle1 t#e -tate in religion. '#e only plausi le source o! t#e 1compre#ensi,e, discriminating, and continuing state sur,eillance,1 necessary to run a!oul o! t#is standard would lie in t#e !act t#at state o!!icials must determine w#et#er particular te;t oo9s +uali!y !or a deduction. -tate o!!icials must disallow deductions ta9en !or 1instructional oo9s and materials used in t#e teac#ing o! religious tenets, doctrines or wors#ip, t#e purpose o! w#ic# is to inculcate suc# tenets, doctrines or wors#ip.1 465 =!%o+ vs. >urt<%a+ [403 70 602, 2$ 5u+! 1471] Burger ($J) Facts: %2he 0hode 3sland *tatute' '#e &#ode Island -alary -upplement Act was enacted in .7B7. It rests on t#e legislati,e !inding t#at t#e +uality o! education a,aila le in nonpu lic elementary sc#ools #as een jeopardi=ed y t#e rapidly rising salaries needed to attract competent and dedicated teac#ers. '#e Act aut#ori=es state o!!icials to supplement t#e salaries o! teac#ers o! secular su jects in nonpu lic elementary sc#ools y paying directly to a teac#er an amount not in e;cess o! .$P o! #is current annual salary. As supplemented, #owe,er, a nonpu lic sc#ool teac#er5s salary cannot e;ceed t#e ma;imum paid to teac#ers in t#e -tate5s pu lic sc#ools, and t#e recipient must e certi!ied y t#e state oard o! education in su stantially t#e same manner as pu lic sc#ool teac#ers. In order to e eligi le !or t#e &#ode Island salary supplement, t#e recipient must teac# in a nonpu lic sc#ool at w#ic# t#e a,erage per-pupil e;penditure on secular education is less t#an t#e a,erage in t#e -tate5s pu lic sc#ools during a speci!ied period. '#e -tate Commissioner o! Education also re+uires eligi le sc#ools to su mit !inancial data. I! t#is in!ormation indicates a per-pupil e;penditure in e;cess o! t#e statutory limitation, t#e records o! t#e sc#ool in +uestion must e e;amined in order to assess #ow muc# o! t#e e;penditure is attri uta le to secular education and #ow muc# to religious acti,ity. '#e Act also re+uires t#at teac#ers eligi le !or salary supplements must teac# only t#ose su jects t#at are o!!ered in t#e -tate5s pu lic sc#ools. '#ey must use 1only teac#ing materials w#ic# are used in t#e pu lic sc#ools.1 Finally, any teac#er applying !or a salary supplement must !irst agree in writing 1not to teac# a course in religion !or so long as or during suc# time as #e or s#e recei,es any salary supplements1 under t#e Act. Certain citi=ens and ta;payers o! &#ode Island roug#t t#e suit to #a,e t#e &#ode Island -alary -upplement Act declared unconstitutional and its operation enjoined on t#e ground t#at it ,iolates t#e Esta lis#ment and Free E;ercise Clauses o! t#e First Amendment. '#e <istrict Court concluded t#at t#e Act ,iolated t#e Esta lis#ment Clause, #olding t#at it !ostered 1e;cessi,e entanglement1 etween go,ernment and religion. In addition two judges t#oug#t t#at t#e Act #ad t#e impermissi le e!!ect o! gi,ing 1signi!icant aid to a religious enterprise.1 %2he Penns4l ania *tatute' )ennsyl,ania #as adopted a program t#at #as some ut not all o! t#e !eatures o! t#e &#ode Island program. '#e )ennsyl,ania 0onpu lic Elementary and -econdary Education Act was passed in .7B/ in response to a crisis t#at t#e )ennsyl,ania (egislature !ound e;isted in t#e -tate5s nonpu lic sc#ools due to rapidly rising costs. '#e statute a!!irmati,ely re!lects t#e legislati,e conclusion t#at t#e -tate5s educational goals could appropriately e !ul!illed y go,ernment support o! 1t#ose purely secular educational o jecti,es ac#ie,ed t#roug# nonpu lic education.1 '#e statute aut#ori=es t#e state -uperintendent o! )u lic Instruction to 1purc#ase1 speci!ied 1secular educational ser,ices1 !rom nonpu lic sc#ools. Gnder t#e 1contracts1 aut#ori=ed y t#e statute, t#e -tate directly reim urses nonpu lic sc#ools solely !or t#eir actual e;penditures !or teac#ers5 salaries, te;t oo9s, and instructional materials. A sc#ool see9ing reim ursement must maintain prescri ed accounting procedures t#at identi!y t#e 1separate1 cost o! t#e 1secular educational ser,ice.1 '#ese accounts are su ject to state audit. '#e !unds !or t#is program were originally deri,ed !rom a new ta; on #orse and #arness racing, ut t#e Act is now !inanced y a portion o! t#e state ta; on cigarettes. '#ere are se,eral signi!icant statutory restrictions on state aid. &eim ursement is limited to courses
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 10 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

1presented in t#e curricula o! t#e pu lic sc#ools.1 It is !urt#er limited 1solely1 to courses in t#e !ollowing 1secular1 su jects@ mat#ematics, modern !oreign languages, p#ysical science, and p#ysical education. 'e;t oo9s and instructional materials included in t#e program must e appro,ed y t#e state -uperintendent o! )u lic Instruction. Finally, t#e statute pro#i its reim ursement !or any course t#at contains 1any su ject matter e;pressing religious teac#ing, or t#e morals or !orms o! wors#ip o! any sect.1 '#e Act went into e!!ect on . July .7B/, and t#e !irst reim ursement payments to sc#ools were made on 2 -eptem er .7B7. -ome O$ million #as een e;pended annually under t#e Act. '#e -tate #as now entered into contracts wit# some .,./. nonpu lic elementary and secondary sc#ools wit# a student population o! some $%$,2.$ pupils - more t#an 20P o! t#e total num er o! students in t#e -tate. >ore t#an 7BP o! t#ese pupils attend c#urc#-related sc#ools, and most o! t#ese sc#ools are a!!iliated wit# t#e &oman Cat#olic c#urc#. Associations o! persons resident in )ennsyl,ania declaring elie! in t#e separation o! c#urc# and stateC and ot#er citi=ens and ta;payers o! )ennsyl,ania, including (emon 3a parent o! a c#ild attending pu lic sc#ool in )ennsyl,ania4 roug#t an action in t#e <istrict Court to c#allenge t#e constitutionality o! t#e )ennsyl,ania statute. '#e <istrict Court #eld t#at t#e Act ,iolated neit#er t#e Esta lis#ment nor t#e Free E;ercise Clause. Issue@ :#et#er t#e &#ode Island and )ennsyl,ania statutes ,iolate t#e Esta lis#ment clause "!#d: In t#e a sence o! precisely stated constitutional pro#i itions, t#e Court must draw lines wit# re!erence to t#e t#ree main e,ils against w#ic# t#e Esta lis#ment Clause was intended to a!!ord protection@ 1sponsors#ip, !inancial support, and acti,e in,ol,ement o! t#e so,ereign in religious acti,ity.1 E,ery analysis in t#is area must egin wit# consideration o! t#e cumulati,e criteria de,eloped y t#e Court o,er many years. '#ree suc# tests may e gleaned !rom cases. First, t#e statute must #a,e a secular legislati,e purposeC second, its principal or primary e!!ect must e one t#at neit#er ad,ances nor in#i its religion, !inally, t#e statute must not !oster 1an e;cessi,e go,ernment entanglement wit# religion.1 In+uiry into t#e legislati,e purposes o! t#e )ennsyl,ania and &#ode Island statutes a!!ords no asis !or a conclusion t#at t#e legislati,e intent was to ad,ance religion. 2n t#e contrary, t#e statutes t#emsel,es clearly state t#at t#ey are intended to en#ance t#e +uality o! t#e secular education in all sc#ools co,ered y t#e compulsory attendance laws. '#ere is no reason to elie,e t#e legislatures meant anyt#ing else. A -tate always #as a legitimate concern !or maintaining minimum standards in all sc#ools it allows to operate. As t#ere is not#ing #ere t#at undermines t#e stated legislati,e intentC it must t#ere!ore e accorded appropriate de!erence. -till, its #ould e determined w#et#er t#e go,ernment entanglement wit# religion is e;cessi,e. '#e Court t#us must e;amine t#e c#aracter and purposes o! t#e institutions t#at are ene!ited, t#e nature o! t#e aid t#at t#e -tate pro,ides, and t#e resulting relations#ip etween t#e go,ernment and t#e religious aut#ority. 6erein, ot# statutes !oster an impermissi le degree o! entanglement. '#e c#urc# sc#ools in,ol,ed in t#e &#ode Island program are located close to paris# c#urc#es. '#is understanda ly permits con,enient access !or religious e;ercises since instruction in !ait# and morals is part o! t#e total educational process. '#e sc#ool uildings contain identi!ying religious sym ols suc# as crosses on t#e e;terior and cruci!i;es, and religious paintings and statues eit#er in t#e classrooms or #allways. Alt#oug# only appro;imately %0 minutes a day are de,oted to direct religious instruction, t#ere are religiously oriented e;tracurricular acti,ities. Appro;imately two-t#irds o! t#e teac#ers in t#ese sc#ools are nuns o! ,arious religious orders. '#eir dedicated e!!orts pro,ide an atmosp#ere in w#ic# religious instruction and religious ,ocations are natural and proper parts o! li!e in suc# sc#ools. '#e paroc#ial sc#ools constituted 1an integral part o! t#e religious mission o! t#e Cat#olic C#urc#.1 '#e ,arious c#aracteristics o! t#e sc#ools ma9e t#em 1a power!ul ,e#icle !or transmitting t#e Cat#olic !ait# to t#e ne;t generation.1 '#is process o! inculcating religious doctrine is, o! course, en#anced y t#e impressiona le age o! t#e pupils, in primary sc#ools particularly. In s#ort, paroc#ial sc#ools in,ol,e su stantial religious acti,ity and purpose. '#e su stantial religious c#aracter o! t#ese c#urc#-related sc#ools gi,es rise to entangling c#urc#-state relations#ips o! t#e 9ind t#e &eligion Clauses soug#t to a,oid. Alt#oug# t#e <istrict Court !ound t#at concern !or religious ,alues did not ine,ita ly or necessarily intrude into t#e content o! secular su jects, t#e
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 11 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

considera le religious acti,ities o! t#ese sc#ools led t#e legislature to pro,ide !or care!ul go,ernmental controls and sur,eillance y state aut#orities in order to ensure t#at state aid supports only secular education. '#e dangers and corresponding entanglements are en#anced y t#e particular !orm o! aid t#at t#e &#ode Island Act pro,ides. 'eac#ers #a,e a su stantially di!!erent ideological c#aracter !rom oo9s. In terms o! potential !or in,ol,ing some aspect o! !ait# or morals in secular su jects, a te;t oo95s content is ascertaina le, ut a teac#er5s #andling o! a su ject is not. '#e Court cannot ignore t#e danger t#at a teac#er under religious control and discipline poses to t#e separation o! t#e religious !rom t#e purely secular aspects o! pre-college education. '#e con!lict o! !unctions in#eres in t#e situation. A compre#ensi,e, discriminating, and continuing state sur,eillance will ine,ita ly e re+uired to ensure t#at t#ese restrictions are o eyed and t#e First Amendment ot#erwise respected. Gnli9e a oo9, a teac#er cannot e inspected once so as to determine t#e e;tent and intent o! #is or #er personal elie!s and su jecti,e acceptance o! t#e limitations imposed y t#e First Amendment. '#ese prop#ylactic contacts will in,ol,e e;cessi,e and enduring entanglement etween state and c#urc#. '#ere is anot#er area o! entanglement in t#e &#ode Island program t#at gi,es concern. '#e statute e;cludes teac#ers employed y nonpu lic sc#ools w#ose a,erage per-pupil e;penditures on secular education e+ual or e;ceed t#e compara le !igures !or pu lic sc#ools. In t#e e,ent t#at t#e total e;penditures o! an ot#erwise eligi le sc#ool e;ceed t#is norm, t#e program re+uires t#e go,ernment to e;amine t#e sc#ool5s records in order to determine #ow muc# o! t#e total e;penditures is attri uta le to secular education and #ow muc# to religious acti,ity. '#is 9ind o! state inspection and e,aluation o! t#e religious content o! a religious organi=ation is !raug#t wit# t#e sort o! entanglement t#at t#e Constitution !or ids. It is a relations#ip pregnant wit# dangers o! e;cessi,e go,ernment direction o! c#urc# sc#ools and #ence o! c#urc#es. '#ere is danger t#at per,asi,e modern go,ernmental power will ultimately intrude on religion and t#us con!lict wit# t#e &eligion Clauses. '#e )ennsyl,ania statute also pro,ides state aid to c#urc#-related sc#ools !or teac#ers5 salaries. '#e complaint descri es an educational system t#at is ,ery similar to t#e one e;isting in &#ode Island. &eim ursement is not only limited to courses o!!ered in t#e pu lic sc#ools and materials appro,ed y state o!!icials, ut t#e statute e;cludes 1any su ject matter e;pressing religious teac#ing, or t#e morals or !orms o! wors#ip o! any sect.1 In addition, sc#ools see9ing reim ursement must maintain accounting procedures t#at re+uire t#e -tate to esta lis# t#e cost o! t#e secular as distinguis#ed !rom t#e religious instruction. '#e )ennsyl,ania statute, moreo,er, #as t#e !urt#er de!ect o! pro,iding state !inancial aid directly to t#e c#urc#-related sc#ool. '#e #istory o! go,ernment grants o! a continuing cas# su sidy indicates t#at suc# programs #a,e almost always een accompanied y ,arying measures o! control and sur,eillance. '#e go,ernment cas# grants pro,ide no asis !or predicting t#at compre#ensi,e measures o! sur,eillance and controls will not !ollow. In particular t#e go,ernment5s post-audit power to inspect and e,aluate a c#urc#-related sc#ool5s !inancial records and to determine w#ic# e;penditures are religious and w#ic# are secular creates an intimate and continuing relations#ip etween c#urc# and state. '#e potential !or political di,isi,eness related to religious elie! and practice is aggra,ated in t#ese two statutory programs y t#e need !or continuing annual appropriations and t#e li9eli#ood o! larger and larger demands as costs and populations grow. '#e &#ode Island <istrict Court !ound t#at t#e paroc#ial sc#ool system5s 1monumental and deepening !inancial crisis1 would 1inescapa ly1 re+uire larger annual appropriations su sidi=ing greater percentages o! t#e salaries o! lay teac#ers. Alt#oug# no !acts #a,e een de,eloped in t#is respect in t#e )ennsyl,ania case, it appears t#at suc# pressures !or e;panding aid #a,e already re+uired t#e state legislature to include a portion o! t#e state re,enues !rom cigarette ta;es in t#e program. 466 0to+! vs. 2ra)a% [444 70 34, 17 8ov!%9!r 14$0] Per $uria-

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 12 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Facts: A Jentuc9y statute re+uires t#e posting o! a copy o! t#e 'en Commandments, purc#ased wit# pri,ate contri utions, on t#e wall o! eac# pu lic classroom in t#e -tate. -tone, et. al. claiming t#at t#is statute ,iolates t#e Esta lis#ment and Free E;ercise Clauses o! t#e First Amendment, soug#t an injunction against its en!orcement. '#e state trial court up#eld t#e statute, !inding t#at its 1a,owed purpose1 was 1secular and not religious,1 and t#at t#e statute would 1neit#er ad,ance nor in#i it any religion or religious group1 nor in,ol,e t#e -tate e;cessi,ely in religious matters. '#e -upreme Court o! t#e Commonwealt# o! Jentuc9y a!!irmed y an e+ually di,ided court. ssu!: :#et#er t#e posting o! t#e 'en Commandments in pu lic sc#ool rooms, procured !rom pri,ate contri utions, ,iolate t#e non-esta lis#ment clause. "!#d: Jentuc9y5s statute re+uiring t#e posting o! t#e 'en Commandments in pu lic sc#ool rooms #as no secular legislati,e purpose, and is t#ere!ore unconstitutional. '#e pre-eminent purpose !or posting t#e 'en Commandments on sc#oolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. '#e 'en Commandments are undenia ly a sacred te;t in t#e Jewis# and C#ristian !ait#s, and no legislati,e recitation o! a supposed secular purpose can lind us to t#at !act. '#e Commandments do not con!ine t#emsel,es to argua ly secular matters, suc# as #onoring one5s parents, 9illing or murder, adultery, stealing, !alse witness, and co,etousness. &at#er, t#e !irst part o! t#e Commandments concerns t#e religious duties o! elie,ers@ wors#ipping t#e (ord Dod alone, a,oiding idolatry, not using t#e (ord5s name in ,ain, and o ser,ing t#e -a at# <ay. '#e case is not in w#ic# t#e 'en Commandments are integrated into t#e sc#ool curriculum, w#ere t#e "i le may constitutionally e used in an appropriate study o! #istory, ci,ili=ation, et#ics, comparati,e religion, or t#e li9e. )osting o! religious te;ts on t#e wall ser,es no suc# educational !unction. I! t#e posted copies o! t#e 'en Commandments are to #a,e any e!!ect at all, it will e to induce t#e sc#oolc#ildren to read, meditate upon, per#aps to ,enerate and o ey, t#e Commandments. 6owe,er desira le t#is mig#t e as a matter o! pri,ate de,otion, it is not a permissi le state o jecti,e under t#e Esta lis#ment Clause. It does not matter t#at t#e posted copies o! t#e 'en Commandments are !inanced y ,oluntary pri,ate contri utions, !or t#e mere posting o! t#e copies under t#e auspices o! t#e legislature pro,ides t#e 1o!!icial support o! t#e -tate Do,ernment1 t#at t#e Esta lis#ment Clause pro#i its. 0or is it signi!icant t#at t#e "i le ,erses in,ol,ed in t#is case are merely posted on t#e wall, rat#er t#an read aloud, !or 1it is no de!ense to urge t#at t#e religious practices #ere may e relati,ely minor encroac#ments on t#e First Amendment.1 Jy. &e,. -tat. .$/..7/ 3.7/04 ,iolates t#e !irst part o! t#e (emon ,. Jurt=man test, and t#us t#e Esta lis#ment Clause o! t#e Constitution. 467 ?a##ac! vs. 5a,,r!! [472 70 3$, 4 5u+! 14$5] *te ens (J) Facts: Is#mael Ja!!ree is a resident o! >o ile County, Ala ama. 2n 2/ >ay .7/2, #e !iled a complaint on e#al! o! t#ree o! #is minor c#ildrenC two o! t#em were second-grade students and t#e t#ird was t#en in 9indergartenC w#ic# named mem ers o! t#e >o ile County -c#ool "oard, ,arious sc#ool o!!icials, and t#e minors5 t#ree teac#ers as de!endantsC alleging t#at 3.4 t#ey roug#t t#e action 1see9ing principally a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining t#e oard, etc. and eac# o! t#em !rom maintaining or allowing t#e maintenance o! regular religious prayer ser,ices or ot#er !orms o! religious o ser,ances in t#e >o ile County )u lic -c#ools in ,iolation o! t#e First Amendment as made applica le to states y t#e Fourteent# Amendment to t#e Gnited -tates Constitution,1 324 t#at two o! t#e c#ildren #ad een su jected to ,arious acts o! religious indoctrination 1!rom t#e eginning o! t#e sc#ool year in -eptem er, .7/.1C 3%4 t#at t#e teac#ers #ad 1on a daily asis1 led t#eir classes in saying certain prayers in unisonC 3F4 t#at t#e minor c#ildren were e;posed to ostracism !rom t#eir peer group class mem ers i! t#ey did not participateC and 3$4 t#at Is#mael Ja!!ree #ad repeatedly ut unsuccess!ully re+uested t#at t#e de,otional ser,ices e stopped. '#e original complaint made no re!erence to any Ala ama statute. 2n F June .7/2, t#e Ja!!rees !iled an amended complaint see9ing class certi!ication, and on %0 June .7/2, t#ey !iled a second amended complaint naming t#e Do,ernor o! Ala ama and ,arious state o!!icials as additional de!endants. In t#at amendment t#e Ja!!rees c#allenged t#e constitutionality o! t#ree Ala ama statutes@ .B-.-20 3enacted in .77/, w#ic# aut#ori=ed a .Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 13 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

minute period o! silence in all pu lic sc#ools 1!or meditation14, .B-.-20.. 3enacted in .7/., w#ic# aut#ori=ed a period o! silence 1!or meditation or ,oluntary prayer14, and .B-.-20.2 3enacted in .7/2, w#ic# aut#ori=ed teac#ers to lead 1willing students1 in a prescri ed prayer to 1Almig#ty Dod, t#e Creator and -upreme Judge o! t#e world14. 2n 2 August .7/2, t#e <istrict Court #eld an e,identiary #earing on Ja!!ree5s motion !or a preliminary injunction. A wee9 a!ter t#e #earing, t#e <istrict Court entered a preliminary injunction. At t#e preliminary-injunction stage o! t#e case, t#e <istrict Court distinguis#ed .B-.-20 !rom t#e ot#er two statutes. It t#en #eld t#at t#ere was 1not#ing wrong1 wit# .B-.-20, ut t#at .B-.-20.. and .B-.-20.2 were ot# in,alid ecause t#e sole purpose o! ot# was 1an e!!ort on t#e part o! t#e -tate o! Ala ama to encourage a religious acti,ity.1 A!ter t#e trial on t#e merits, t#e <istrict Court did not c#ange its interpretation o! t#ese two statutes, ut #eld t#at t#ey were constitutional ecause, in its opinion, Ala ama #as t#e power to esta lis# a state religion i! it c#ooses to do so. '#e Court o! Appeals agreed wit# t#e <istrict Court5s initial interpretation o! t#e purpose o! ot# .B-.-20.. and .B-.-20.2, and #eld t#em ot# unconstitutional. '#e G- -upreme Court #as already a!!irmed t#e Court o! Appeals5 #olding wit# respect to .B-.-20.2 (5allace 6 Jaffree, &++ )* (2& %1(7&'). 2n t#e ot#er #and, t#e Ja!!reys #a,e not +uestioned t#e #olding t#at .B-.-20 is ,alid. 6ence, t#e constitutionality o! .B-.-20.. was le!t !or t#e resolution y t#e -upreme Court. ssu!: :#et#er .B-.-20.., w#ic# aut#ori=es a period o! silence !or 1meditation or ,oluntary prayer,1 is a law respecting t#e esta lis#ment o! religion wit#in t#e meaning o! t#e First Amendment. "!#d: '#e First Amendment was adopted to curtail t#e power o! Congress to inter!ere wit# t#e indi,idual5s !reedom to elie,e, to wors#ip, and to e;press #imsel! in accordance wit# t#e dictates o! #is own conscience. Gntil t#e Fourteent# Amendment was added to t#e Constitution, t#e First Amendment5s restraints on t#e e;ercise o! !ederal power simply did not apply to t#e -tates. "ut w#en t#e Constitution was amended to pro#i it any -tate !rom depri,ing any person o! li erty wit#out due process o! law, t#at Amendment imposed t#e same su stanti,e limitations on t#e -tates5 power to legislate t#at t#e First Amendment #ad always imposed on t#e Congress5 power. '#is Court #as con!irmed and endorsed t#is elementary proposition o! law time and time again. :#en t#e Court #as een called upon to construe t#e readt# o! t#e Esta lis#ment Clause, it #as e;amined t#e criteria de,eloped o,er a period o! many years. '#us, in (emon ,. Jurt=man, F0% G.-. B02, B.2 -B.% 3.77.4, it was #eld t#at 1E,ery analysis in t#is area must egin wit# consideration o! t#e cumulati,e criteria de,eloped y t#e Court o,er many years. '#ree suc# tests may e gleaned !rom our cases. First, t#e statute must #a,e a secular legislati,e purposeC second, its principal or primary e!!ect must e one t#at neit#er ad,ances nor in#i its religionC !inally, t#e statute must not !oster Qan e;cessi,e go,ernment entanglement wit# religion.51 It is t#e !irst o! t#ese t#ree criteria t#at is most plainly implicated y t#is case. 0o consideration o! t#e second or t#ird criteria is necessary i! a statute does not #a,e a clearly secular purpose. For e,en t#oug# a statute t#at is moti,ated in part y a religious purpose may satis!y t#e !irst criterion, t#e First Amendment re+uires t#at a statute must e in,alidated i! it is entirely moti,ated y a purpose to ad,ance religion. In applying t#e purpose test, it is appropriate to as9 1w#et#er go,ernment5s actual purpose is to endorse or disappro,e o! religion.1 6erein, t#e answer to t#at +uestion is dispositi,e. For t#e record not only pro,ides us wit# an unam iguous a!!irmati,e answer, ut it also re,eals t#at t#e enactment o! .B-.-20.. was not moti,ated y any clearly secular purpose - indeed, t#e statute #ad no secular purpose. '#e legislati,e intent to return prayer to t#e pu lic sc#ools is, o! course, +uite di!!erent !rom merely protecting e,ery student5s rig#t to engage in ,oluntary prayer during an appropriate moment o! silence during t#e sc#oolday. '#e .77/ statute already protected t#at rig#t, containing not#ing t#at pre,ented any student !rom engaging in ,oluntary prayer during a silent minute o! meditation. 2nly two conclusions are consistent wit# t#e te;t o! .B-.-20..@ 3.4 t#e statute was enacted to con,ey a message o! state endorsement and promotion o! prayerC or 324 t#e statute was enacted !or no purpose. 0o one suggests t#at t#e statute was not#ing ut a meaningless or irrational act. '#e Ala ama legislature enacted .B-.-20.., despite t#e e;istence o! .B-.-20 !or t#e sole purpose o! e;pressing t#e -tate5s endorsement o! prayer acti,ities !or one minute at t#e eginning o! eac# sc#oolday. '#e addition o! 1or ,oluntary prayer1 indicates t#at t#e -tate intended to c#aracteri=e prayer as a !a,ored practice. -uc# an endorsement is not consistent wit# t#e esta lis#ed principle t#at t#e go,ernment must pursue a course o! complete neutrality toward religion.
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 14 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

46$ Fo+aci!r vs. *ourt o, A--!a#s [23 =-5417, 2$ 5a+uar1 1455] En Banc, Bautista 8ngelo (J): 5 concur Facts: Gpon t#e deat# o! >ons. Aglipay, t#e -upreme 6ead o! t#e Iglesia Filipina Independiente 3IFI4 since .702, >ons. -antiago A. Fonacier was elected 2 ispo >a;imo, on .F 2cto er .7F0, in accordance wit# t#e constitution o! t#e c#urc#. '#e latter5s successor s#ould #a,e een elected y t#e Asam lea >agna o! t#e C#urc# on . -eptem er .7F%. 6owe,er, due to t#e circumstances roug#t a out y t#e )aci!ic :ar, it was agreed, on .B <ecem er .7F., y t#e "is#ops stationed in >anila and neig# oring pro,inces t#at >ons. Fonacier s#ould #old o,er as 2 ispo >a;imo o! t#e IFI, !or t#e duration o! t#e emergency created y t#e year. A!ter t#e li eration o! t#e )#ilippines, and on . -eptem er .7F$, an attempt was made to con,ene t#e Asam lea >agna !or t#e purpose o! electing t#e 2 ispo >a;imo, ut owing to lac9 o! +uorum, t#e "is#ops present agreed t#at >ons. Fonacier would continue !or anot#er year, or until . -eptem er .7FB. 2n 2 -eptem er .7F$, t#e Consejo -upremo de 2 ispos 3-upreme Council o! "is#ops4 o! t#e IFI con,ened and appro,ed t#e designation o! is#ops to t#eir respecti,e is#oprics. In t#at meeting >ons. Alejandro &emollino was assigned as is#op o! t#e diocese o! Ca,ite. Gpon learning t#at t#e latter noti!ied t#e priests o! #is is#opric regarding #is assignment, >ons. Fonacier wrote #im a letter dated ./ -eptem er .7F$ enjoining #im !rom assuming t#e duties o! #is o!!ice and !rom ta9ing possession o! t#e diocese o! Ca,ite until #e 3Fonacier4 #ad appro,ed t#e appointment made y t#e -upreme Council as pro,ided !or in t#e constitution. 'o t#is letter "is#op &emollino replied e;plaining #is side and adding t#at #e was ready to de!end #is stand on t#e matter e!ore t#e courts o! justice. In ,iew o! t#is attitude, >ons. Fonacier ordered t#e e;pulsion o! "is#op &emollino !rom t#e c#urc# and also o! "is#op >anuel Aguilar w#om >ons. Fonacier suspected to e t#e instigator o! certain acts o! insu ordination and de!amation against #im. 2n . <ecem er .7F$, "is#op >anuel Aguilar !iled c#arges against >ons. Fonacier as -upreme "is#op w#ic# were su mitted to a meeting o! t#e -upreme Council o! "is#ops, #eld on 2. January .7FB, w#ic# decreed t#e !orced resignation o! >ons. Fonacier, and to t#e Asam lea >agna or Asam lea Deneral o! t#e c#urc#, #eld on 22 January .7FB. '#is ody appro,ed t#e !orced resignation o! >ons. Fonacier and elected "is#op Derardo >. "ayaca as -upreme "is#op to succeed >ons. Fonacier. :#en noti!ied o! #is remo,al as 2 ispo >a;imo and re+uired to turn o,er all t#e !unds, documents and ot#er properties o! t#e c#urc# to #is successor, >ons. Fonacier re!used. '#e case was instituted in t#e Court o! First Instance o! >anila y t#e IFI, represented y its -upreme "is#op Derardo >. "ayaca, against >ons.Fonacier see9ing to re+uire t#e latter to render an accounting o! #is administration o! all t#e temporal properties #e #as #is possession elonging to said c#urc# and to reco,er t#e same !rom #im on t#e ground t#at #e #ad ceased e t#e -upreme "is#op o! said religious organi=ation. 2n . -eptem er .7FB t#e Asam lea >agna con,ened and elected >ons. Isa elo de los &eyes, Jr. as 2 ispo >a;imo. 2n t#e same date >ons. Fonacier and some o! #is !ollowers met at t#e >anila 6otel and elected >ons Juan Jamias as t#eir -upreme "is#op. '#us two !actions o! t#e IFI were created. '#us, "is#op Isa elo de los &eyes, Jr., was made a co-plainti!! in a supplementary complaint. '#e !action under >ons. Isa elo de los &eyes, Jr. according to t#e statement o! t#e <irector o! 0ational (i rary, issued on 22 >ay .7F7, #ad .7 is#ops and 2$2 priests w#ile t#e !action under >ons. Juan Jamias #ad .0 is#ops and only F0 priests. '#us on 2% June .7F7, t#e -ecretary o! )u lic Instruction promulgated an order to t#e e!!ect t#at !or administrati,e purposes, >ons. Isa elo de los &eyes, Jr., was recogni=ed as sole #ead o! t#e IFI and t#e applications o! priests o! said c#urc# !or permits to solemni=e marriages would e granted i! it were s#own t#ereon t#at t#ey recogni=ed Isa elo de los &eyes, Jr., as t#e 2 ispo >a;imo o! said c#urc#. '#e -upreme Court, #owe,er, denied t#e power o! t#e -ecretary to stop t#e Fonacier group !rom o taining licenses to solemni=e marriages. 2n 22 January .7F/, t#e is#op and priests under >ons. <e los &eyes, Jr., #ad increased !rom 2$2 to 27% w#ile t#ose under >ons. Jamias were only BF and >ons. <e los &eyes, Jr. was duly registered as 1corporation sole !or t#e administration o! t#e temporalities o! t#e Iglesia Filipina Independiente, pursuant to t#e pro,isions o! Articles .$F-.BF o! t#e Corporation (aw.1 2n .7 >ay .7$0, t#e trial court rendered judgment declaring >ons. Isa elo de los &eyes, Jr. as t#e sole and legitimate -upreme "is#op o! t#e IFI, and ordering >ons. Fonacier to render an accounting o! #is administration o! t#e properties and !unds o! t#e c#urc# 1!rom t#e time #e egan occupying t#e position o! -ecretario de Economia 'emporal t#ereo! until t#e present time.1
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 15 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

:#en t#e case was ta9en to t#e Court o! Appeals, t#e latter !ound t#e decision o! t#e Court o! origin in accordance wit# law and t#e e,idence and a!!irmed t#e same in toto. '#e case was ele,ated to t#e -uperme Court y ,irtue o! a petition !or re,iew interposed y >ons. Fonacier. ssu!: :#et#er t#e ci,il courts #a,e jurisdiction to determine t#e legality o! t#e ouster o! certain is#ops o! t#e I)I, to determine t#e proper !action to #old t#e c#urc#Hs property, andIor pass upon matters in,ol,ing t#e c#urc#Hs amendment o! its constitution, etc. "!#d: :#ere a decision o! an ecclesiastical court plainly ,iolates t#e law it pro!esses to administer, or is in con!lict wit# t#e laws o! t#e land, it will not e !ollowed y t#e ci,il courts. In some instances, not only #a,e t#e ci,il courts assumed t#e rig#t to in+uire into t#e jurisdiction o! religious tri unals and t#e regularity o! t#eir procedure, ut t#ey #a,e su jected t#eir decisions to t#e test o! !airness or to t#e test !urnis#ed y t#e constitution and laws o! t#e c#urc#. '#us, it #as een #eld t#at e;pulsion o! a mem er wit#out notice or an opportunity to e #eard is not conclusi,e upon t#e ci,il courts w#en a property rig#t is in,ol,ed. :#ere t#ere is a sc#ism w#ic# leads to a separation into distinct and con!licting odies, t#e rig#ts o! suc# odies to t#e use o! t#e property must e determined y ordinary principles w#ic# go,ern ,oluntary associations. I! t#e principle o! go,ernment in suc# cases is t#at t#e majority rules, t#en t#e numerical majority o! mem ers must control t#e rig#t to t#e use o! t#e property. I! t#ere e wit#in t#e congregation o!!icers in w#om are ,ested t#e powers o! suc# control, t#en t#ose w#o ad#ere in t#e ac9nowledged organism y w#ic# t#e ody is go,erned are entitled to t#e use o! t#e property. '#e minority in c#oosing to separate t#emsel,es into a distinct ody, and re!using to recogni=e t#e aut#ority o! t#e go,ernment ody, can claim no rig#ts in t#e property !rom t#e !act t#at t#ey #ad once een mem ers o! t#e c#urc# or congregation. 6erein, t#e properties o! t#e IFI are #eld y a religious congregation, and t#at t#e numerical majority is on t#e side o! t#e !action o! >ons. de los &eyes, et. al. w#ere t#e num er o! its is#ops and priests, as o! 22 January .7F/, were 27% as against BF o! >ons. Fonacier5s group. 2n t#e ot#er #and, t#e amendments o! t#e constitution, restatement o! articles o! religion and a andonment o! !ait# or a juration alleged y >ons. Fonacier, #a,ing to do wit# !ait#, practice, doctrine, !orm o! wors#ip, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule o! a c#urc# and #a,ing re!erence to t#e power o! e;cluding !rom t#e c#urc# t#ose allegedly unwort#y o! mem ers#ip, are un+uestiona ly ecclesiastical matters w#ic# are outside t#e pro,ince o! t#e ci,il courts. 464 ?!st :irgi+ia 0tat! @oard o, Educatio+ vs. @ar+!tt! [314 70 624, 14 5u+! 1443] Jac#son (J) Facts: Following t#e decision y t#e G- -upreme Court on % June .7F0 in >iners,ille -c#ool <istrict ,. Do itis 3%.0 G.-. $/B , B0 -.Ct. .0.0, .27 A.(.&. .F7%4, t#e :est Airginia legislature amended its statutes to re+uire all sc#ools t#erein to conduct courses o! instruction in #istory, ci,ics, and in t#e Constitutions o! t#e Gnited -tates and o! t#e -tate 1!or t#e purpose o! teac#ing, !ostering and perpetuating t#e ideals, principles and spirit o! Americanism, and increasing t#e 9nowledge o! t#e organi=ation and mac#inery o! t#e go,ernment.1 '#e "oard o! Education was directed, wit# ad,ice o! t#e -tate -uperintendent o! -c#ools, to 1prescri e t#e courses o! study co,ering t#ese su jects1 !or pu lic sc#ools. '#e Act made it t#e duty o! pri,ate, paroc#ial and denominational sc#ools to prescri e courses o! study 1similar to t#ose re+uired !or t#e pu lic sc#ools.1 '#e "oard o! Education on 7 January .7F2, adopted a resolution containing recitals ta9en largely !rom t#e Court5s Do itis opinion and ordering t#at t#e salute to t#e !lag ecome 1a regular part o! t#e program o! acti,ities in t#e pu lic sc#ools,1 t#at all teac#ers and pupils 1s#all e re+uired to participate in t#e salute #onoring t#e 0ation represented y t#e FlagC pro,ided, #owe,er, t#at re!usal to salute t#e Flag e regarded as an Act o! insu ordination, and s#all e dealt wit# accordingly.1 '#e resolution originally re+uired t#e 1commonly accepted salute to t#e Flag1 w#ic# it de!ined. 2 jections to t#e salute as 1 eing too muc# li9e 6itler5s1 were raised y t#e )arent and 'eac#ers Association, t#e "oy and Dirl -couts, t#e &ed Cross, and t#e Federation o! :omen5s Clu s. -ome modi!ication appears to #a,e een made in de!erence to t#ese o jections, ut no concession was made to Je#o,a#5s :itnesses. :#at is now re+uired is t#e 1sti!!-arm1 salute, t#e saluter to 9eep t#e rig#t #and raised wit# palm turned up w#ile t#e !ollowing is repeated@ 1I pledge allegiance to t#e
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 16 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Flag o! t#e Gnited -tates o! America and to t#e &epu lic !or w#ic# it standsC one 0ation, indi,isi le, wit# li erty and justice !or all.1 Failure to con!orm is 1insu ordination1 dealt wit# y e;pulsion. &eadmission is denied y statute until compliance. >eanw#ile t#e e;pelled c#ild is 1unlaw!ully a sent1 and may e proceeded against as a delin+uent. 6is parents or guardians are lia le to prosecution, and i! con,icted are su ject to !ine not e;ceeding O$0 and jail term not e;ceeding t#irty days. Certain citi=ens o! t#e Gnited -tates and o! :est Airginia, including "arnette, et. al., roug#t suit in t#e Gnited -tates <istrict Court !or t#emsel,es and ot#ers similarly situated as9ing its injunction to restrain en!orcement o! t#ese laws and regulations against Je#o,a#5s :itnesses. '#e :itnesses are an unincorporated ody teac#ing t#at t#e o ligation imposed y law o! Dod is superiod to t#at o! laws enacted y temporal go,ernment. '#eir religious elie!s include a literal ,ersion o! E;odus, C#apter 20, ,erses F and $, w#ic# says@ 1'#ou s#alt not ma9e unto t#ee any gra,en image, or any li9eness o! anyt#ing t#at is in #ea,en a o,e, or t#at is in t#e eart# eneat#, or t#at is in t#e water under t#e eart#C t#ou s#alt not ow down t#ysel! to t#em nor ser,e t#em.1 '#ey consider t#at t#e !lag is an 1image1 wit#in t#is command. For t#is reason t#ey re!use to salute it. C#ildren o! t#is !ait# #a,e een e;pelled !rom sc#ool and are t#reatened wit# e;clusion !or no ot#er cause. 2!!icials t#reaten to send t#em to re!ormatories maintained !or criminally inclined ju,eniles. )arents o! suc# c#ildren #a,e een prosecuted and are t#reatened wit# prosecutions !or causing delin+uency. '#e <istrict Court restrained en!orcement as to t#e :itnesses and t#ose o! t#at class. '#e "oard o! Education roug#t t#e case to t#e G- -upreme Court y direct appeal. ssu!: :#et#er compulsion in saluting t#e !lag, as employed #erein, is a permissi le means !or its ac#ie,ement. "!#d: In connection wit# t#e pledges, t#e !lag salute is a !orm o! utterance. -ym olism is a primiti,e ut e!!ecti,e way o! communicating ideas. '#e use o! an em lem or !lag to sym oli=e some system, idea, institution, or personality, is a s#ort cut !rom mind to mind. Causes and nations, political parties, lodges and ecclesiastical groups see9 to 9nit t#e loyalty o! t#eir !ollowings to a !lag or anner, a color or design. '#e -tate announces ran9, !unction, and aut#ority t#roug# crowns and maces, uni!orms and lac9 ro esC t#e c#urc# spea9s t#roug# t#e Cross, t#e Cruci!i;, t#e altar and s#rine, and clerical reiment. -ym ols o! -tate o!ten con,ey political ideas just as religious sym ols come to con,ey t#eological ones. Associated wit# many o! t#ese sym ols are appropriate gestures o! acceptance or respect@ a salute, a owed or ared #ead, a ended 9nee. A person gets !rom a sym ol t#e meaning #e puts into it, and w#at is one man5s com!ort and inspiration is anot#er5s jest and scorn. '#e compulsory !lag salute and pledge re+uires a!!irmation o! a elie! and an attitude o! mind. It is not clear w#et#er t#e regulation contemplates t#at pupils !orego any contrary con,ictions o! t#eir own and ecome unwilling con,erts to t#e prescri ed ceremony or w#et#er it will e accepta le i! t#ey simulate assent y words wit#out elie! and y a gesture arren o! meaning. It is now a commonplace t#at censors#ip or suppression o! e;pression o! opinion is tolerated y t#e Constitution only w#en t#e e;pression presents a clear and present danger o! action o! a 9ind t#e -tate is empowered to pre,ent and punis#. It would seem t#at in,oluntary a!!irmation could e commanded only on e,en more immediate and urgent grounds t#an silence. "ut #ere t#e power o! compulsion is in,o9ed wit#out any allegation t#at remaining passi,e during a !lag salute ritual creates a clear and present danger t#at would justi!y an e!!ort e,en to mu!!le e;pression. 'o sustain t#e compulsory !lag salute, t#e Court is re+uired to say t#at a "ill o! &ig#ts w#ic# guards t#e indi,idual5s rig#t to spea9 #is own mind, le!t it open to pu lic aut#orities to compel #im to utter w#at is not in #is mind. -truggles to coerce uni!ormity o! sentiment in support o! some end t#oug#t essential to t#eir time and country #a,e een waged y many good as well as y e,il men. 0ationalism is a relati,ely recent p#enomenon ut at ot#er times and places t#e ends #a,e een racial or territorial security, support o! a dynasty or regime, and particular plans !or sa,ing souls. As !irst and moderate met#ods to attain unity #a,e !ailed, t#ose ent on its accomplis#ment must resort to an e,er-increasing se,erity. As go,ernmental pressure toward unity ecomes greater, so stri!e ecomes more itter as to w#ose unity it s#all e. )ro a ly no deeper di,ision o! our people could proceed !rom any pro,ocation t#an !rom !inding it necessary to c#oose w#at doctrine and w#ose program pu lic educational o!!icials s#all compel yout# to unite in em racing. Compulsory uni!ication o! opinion ac#ie,es only t#e unanimity o! t#e gra,eyard. It seems trite ut necessary to say t#at t#e First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to a,oid t#ese
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 17 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

ends y a,oiding t#ese eginnings. '#ere is no mysticism in t#e American concept o! t#e -tate or o! t#e nature or origin o! its aut#ority. :e set up go,ernment y consent o! t#e go,erned, and t#e "ill o! &ig#ts denies t#ose in power any legal opportunity to coerce t#at consent. Aut#ority #ere is to e controlled y pu lic opinion, not pu lic opinion y aut#ority. '#us, t#e limitations o! t#e Constitution are applied wit# no !ear t#at !reedom to e intellectually and spiritually di,erse or e,en contrary will disintegrate t#e social organi=ation. 'o elie,e t#at patriotism will not !louris# i! patriotic ceremonies are ,oluntary and spontaneous instead o! a compulsory routine is to ma9e an un!lattering estimate o! t#e appeal o! our institutions to !ree minds. :e can #a,e intellectual indi,idualism and t#e ric# cultural di,ersities t#at we owe to e;ceptional minds only at t#e price o! occasional eccentricity and a normal attitudes. :#en t#ey are so #armless to ot#ers or to t#e -tate as t#ose we deal wit# #ere, t#e price is not too great. "ut !reedom to di!!er is not limited to t#ings t#at do not matter muc#. '#at would e a mere s#adow o! !reedom. '#e test o! its su stance is t#e rig#t to di!!er as to t#ings t#at touc# t#e #eart o! t#e e;isting order. I! t#ere is any !i;ed star in our constitutional constellation, it is t#at no o!!icial, #ig# or petty, can prescri e w#at s#all e ort#odo; in politics, nationalism, religion, or ot#er matters o! opinion or !orce citi=ens to con!ess y word or act t#eir !ait# t#erein. I! t#ere are any circumstances w#ic# permit an e;ception, t#ey do not now occur to t#e Court. '#e action o! t#e local aut#orities in compelling t#e !lag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on t#eir power and in,ades t#e sp#ere o! intellect and spirit w#ic# it is t#e purpose o! t#e First Amendment to our Constitution to reser,e !rom all o!!icial control. 470 E9ra#i+ag vs. &ivisio+ 0u-!ri+t!+d!+t o, 0c)oo#s o, *!9u [23 45770, 1 Marc) 1443]A a#so A%o#o vs. &ivisio+ 0u-!ri+t!+d!+t o, 0c)oo#s o, *!9u [23 $5$$7] En Banc, 9rino:81uino (J): 1! concur, 2 concur is separate opinions, 1 on lea e, 1 too# no part Facts: F% students o! t#e <aan antayan 0ational 6ig# -c#ool, Agujo Elementary -c#ool, Calape "arangay 0ational 6ig# -c#ool, )inamungajan )ro,incial 6ig# -c#ool, 'a uelan Central -c#ool, Canasojan Elementary -c#ool, (i oron Elementary -c#ool, 'agaytay )rimary -c#ool, -an Juan )rimary -c#ool and 0ort#ern Central Elementary -c#ool o! -an Fernando, Ce u, were e;pelled 32% 2cto er .7704 upon order o! t#en Acting <i,ision -uperintendent >arcelo "acalso. -aid students in t#e towns o! <aan "antayan, )inamungajan, Carcar, and 'a uran, Ce u pro,ince 3D& 7$770, E ralinag ,s. <i,ision -uperintendent4 were e;pelled !or re!using to salute t#e !lag, sing t#e national ant#em and recite t#e patriotic pledge as re+uired y &epu lic Act .2B$ 3.. July .7$$4, and y <epartment 2rder / dated 2. July .7$$ o! t#e <epartment o! Education, Culture and -ports 3<EC-4 ma9ing t#e !lag ceremony compulsory in all educational institutions. '#is prompted some Je#o,a#5s :itnesses in Ce u to appeal to t#e -ecretary o! Education Isidro Cari*o ut t#e latter did not answer t#eir letter. 2$ students w#o were similarly e;pelled 3#ig# sc#ool and grade sc#ool students enrolled in pu lic sc#ools in Asturias, Ce u KD& 7$//7, Amolo ,s. <irector -uperintendentL4 ecause <r. )a lo Antopina, w#o succeeded -usana Ca a#ug as <i,ision -uperintendent o! -c#ools, would not recall t#e e;pulsion orders o! #is predecessor. Instead, #e ,er ally caused t#e e;pulsion o! some more c#ildren o! Je#o,a#5s :itnesses. 2n %. 2cto er .770, t#e students and t#eir parents !iled t#e -pecial ci,il actions !or >andamus, Certiorari and )ro#i ition alleging t#at t#e <i,ision -uperintendent o! -c#ools o! Ce u, et. al. acted wit#out or in e;cess o! t#eir jurisdiction and wit# gra,e a use o! discretion in ordering t#eir e;pulsion wit#out prior notice and #earing, #ence, in ,iolation o! t#eir rig#t to due process, t#eir rig#t to !ree pu lic education, and t#eir rig#t to !reedom o! speec#, religion and wors#ip. Je#o,a#5s :itnesses admittedly teac# t#eir c#ildren not to salute t#e !lag, sing t#e national ant#em, and recite t#e patriotic pledge !or t#ey elie,e t#at t#ose are 1acts o! wors#ip1 or 1religious de,otion1 w#ic# t#ey 1cannot conscientiously gi,e to anyone or anyt#ing e;cept Dod.1 '#ey !eel ound y t#e "i le5s command to 1guard oursel,es !rom idols R . Jo#n $@2..1 '#ey consider t#e !lag as an image or idol representing t#e -tate. '#ey t#in9 t#e action o! t#e local aut#orities in compelling t#e !lag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on t#e -tate5s power and in,ades t#e sp#ere o! t#e intellect and spirit w#ic# t#e Constitution protects against o!!icial control. '#ey stress, #owe,er, t#at w#ile t#ey do not ta9e part in t#e compulsory !lag ceremony, t#ey do not engage in 1e;ternal acts1 or e#a,ior t#at would o!!end t#eir countrymen w#o elie,e in e;pressing t#eir lo,e o! country t#roug# t#e o ser,ance o! t#e !lag ceremony. '#ey +uietly stand at attention during t#e !lag ceremony
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 18 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

to s#ow t#eir respect !or t#e rig#t o! t#ose w#o c#oose to participate in t#e solemn proceedings. -ince t#ey do not engage in disrupti,e e#a,ior, t#ere is no warrant !or t#eir e;pulsion. 2n 27 0o,em er .770, t#e Court issued a temporary restraining order and a writ o! preliminary mandatory injunction commanding t#e <i,ision -uperintendent to immediately readmit t#e students to t#eir respecti,e classes until !urt#er orders !rom t#e Court. '#e Court also ordered t#e -ecretary o! Education and Ce u <istrict -uper,isor >anuel F. "iongcog to e impleaded as respondents in t#e cases. ssu!: :#et#er t#e students, w#o elong to t#e Je#o,a#Hs :itness sect, s#ould e e;pelled 3!ollowing t#e #olding in t#e case o! Derona4 !or not saluting t#e !lag in accordance wit# &A .2B$. "!#d: &eligious !reedom is a !undamental rig#t w#ic# is entitled to t#e #ig#est priority and t#e amplest protection among #uman rig#ts, !or it in,ol,es t#e relations#ip o! man to #is Creator. '#e rig#t to religious pro!ession and wors#ip #as a two-!old aspect, ,is., !reedom to elie,e and !reedom to act on one5s elie!. '#e !irst is a solute as long as t#e elie! is con!ined wit#in t#e realm o! t#oug#t. '#e second is su ject to regulation w#ere t#e elie! is translated into e;ternal acts t#at a!!ect t#e pu lic wel!are. '#e sole justi!ication !or a prior restraint or limitation on t#e e;ercise o! religious !reedom is t#e e;istence o! a gra,e and present danger o! a c#aracter ot# gra,e and imminent, o! a serious e,il to pu lic sa!ety, pu lic morals, pu lic #ealt# or any ot#er legitimate pu lic interest, t#at t#e -tate #as a rig#t 3and duty4 to pre,ent. A sent suc# a t#reat to pu lic sa!ety, t#e e;pulsion o! t#e students !rom t#e sc#ools is not justi!ied. "y e;empting t#e Je#o,a#5s :itnesses !rom saluting t#e !lag, singing t#e national ant#em and reciting t#e patriotic pledge, t#is religious w#ic# admittedly comprises a 1small portion o! t#e sc#ool population1 will not s#a9e up our part o! t#e glo e and suddenly produce a nation 1untaug#t and uninculcated in and unim ued wit# re,erence !or t#e !lag, patriotism, lo,e o! country and admiration !or national #eroes.1 A!ter all, w#at t#e students see9 only is e;emption !rom t#e !lag ceremony, not e;clusion !rom t#e pu lic sc#ools w#ere t#ey may study t#e Constitution, t#e democratic way o! li!e and !orm o! go,ernment, and learn not only t#e arts, science, )#ilippine #istory and culture ut also recei,e training !or a ,ocation or pro!ession and e taug#t t#e ,irtues o! 1patriotism, respect !or #uman rig#ts, appreciation !or national #eroes, t#e rig#ts and duties o! citi=ens#ip, and moral and spiritual ,alues as part o! t#e curricula. E;pelling or anning t#e students !rom )#ilippine sc#ools will ring a out t#e ,ery situation t#at t#is Court #ad !eared in Derona. Forcing a small religious group, t#roug# t#e iron #and o! t#e law, to participate in a ceremony t#at ,iolates t#eir religious elie!s, will #ardly e conduci,e to lo,e o! country or respect !or duly constituted aut#orities. >oreo,er, t#e e;pulsion o! mem ers o! Je#o,a#5s :itnesses !rom t#e sc#ools w#ere t#ey are enrolled will ,iolate t#eir rig#t as )#ilippine citi=ens, under t#e .7/7 Constitution, to recei,e !ree education, !or it is t#e duty o! t#e -tate to 1protect and promote t#e rig#t o! all citi=ens to +uality education and to ma9e suc# education accessi le to all.1 :#ile it is certain t#at not e,ery conscience can e accommodated y all t#e laws o! t#e landC w#en general laws con!lict wit# scruples o! conscience, e;emptions oug#t to e granted unless some 1compelling state interests1 inter,enes. E;emptions may e accorded to t#e Je#o,a#5s :itnesses wit# regard to t#e o ser,ance o! t#e !lag ceremony out o! respect !or t#eir religious elie!s, #owe,er 1 i=arre1 t#ose elie!s may seem to ot#ers. 0e,ert#eless, t#eir rig#t not to participate in t#e !lag ceremony does not gi,e t#em a rig#t to disrupt suc# patriotic e;ercises. :#ile t#e #ig#est regard must e a!!orded t#eir rig#t to t#e e;ercise o! t#eir religion, 1t#is s#ould not e ta9en to mean t#at sc#ool aut#orities are powerless to discipline t#em1 i! t#ey s#ould commit reac#es o! t#e peace y actions t#at o!!end t#e sensi ilities, ot# religious and patriotic, o! ot#er persons. I! t#ey +uietly stand at attention during t#e !lag ceremony w#ile t#eir classmates and teac#ers salute t#e !lag, sing t#e national ant#em and recite t#e patriotic pledge, suc# conduct cannot possi ly distur t#e peace, or pose 1a gra,e and present danger o! a serious e,il to pu lic sa!ety, pu lic morals, pu lic #ealt# or any ot#er legitimate pu lic interest t#at t#e -tate #as a rig#t 3and duty4 to pre,ent.1 '#us, alt#oug# t#e Court up#olds t#e students5 rig#t under our Constitution to re!use to salute t#e )#ilippine !lag on account o! t#eir religious elie!s, it #opes, ne,ert#eless, t#at anot#er !oreign in,asion o! our country will not e necessary in order !or our countrymen to appreciate and c#eris# t#e )#ilippine !lag. 471 A%!rica+ @i9#! 0oci!t1 v. *it1 o, Ma+i#a [23 =-4637, 30 A-ri# 1457]
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

*econd .i ision, "eli; (J): , concur, 1 concur in result Facts: '#e American "i le -ociety, is a !oreign, non-stoc9, non-pro!it, religious, missionary corporation duly registered and doing usiness in t#e )#ilippines t#roug# its )#ilippine agency esta lis#ed in >anila in 0o,em er ./7/. '#e City o! >anila, is a municipal corporation wit# powers t#at are to e e;ercised in con!ormity wit# t#e pro,isions o! &epu lic Act F07, 3&e,ised C#arter o! t#e City o! >anila4. In t#e course o! its ministry, t#e -ociety5s )#ilippine agency #as een distri uting and selling i les andIor gospel portions t#ereo! 3e;cept during t#e Japanese occupation4 t#roug#out t#e )#ilippines and translating t#e same into se,eral )#ilippine dialects. 2n 27 >ay .7$%, t#e acting City 'reasurer o! t#e City o! >anila in!ormed t#e -ociety t#at it was conducting t#e usiness o! general merc#andise since 0o,em er .7F$, wit#out pro,iding itsel! wit# t#e necessary >ayor5s permit and municipal license, in ,iolation o! 2rdinance %000, as amended, and 2rdinances 2$27, %02/ and %%BF, and re+uired t#e -ociety to secure, wit#in % days, t#e corresponding permit and license !ees, toget#er wit# compromise co,ering t#e period !rom t#e Ft# +uarter o! .7F$ to t#e 2nd +uarter o! .7$%, in t#e total sum o! )$,/2..F$. 2n 2F 2cto er .7$%, t#e -ociety paid to t#e City under protest t#e said permit and license !ees, gi,ing at t#e same time notice to t#e City 'reasurer t#at suit would e ta9en in court to +uestion t#e legality o! t#e ordinances under w#ic# t#e said !ees were eing collected, w#ic# was done on t#e same date y !iling t#e complaint t#at ga,e rise to t#e present action. A!ter #earing, t#e lower court dismissed t#e complaint !or lac9 o! merit. '#e -ociety appealed to t#e Court o! Appeals, w#ic# in turn certi!ied t#e case to t#e -upreme Court !or t#e reason t#at t#e errors assigned in,ol,ed only +uestions o! law. ssu!: :#et#er t#e City 'reasurer may impose permit !ee upon t#e religious organi=ation e!ore t#e latter may distri ute and sell i les wit# t#e City o! >anila. "!#d: Article III, section ., clause 374 o! t#e Constitution guarantees t#e !reedom o! religious pro!ession and wors#ip. &eligion #as een spo9en o! as 5a pro!ession o! !ait# to an acti,e power t#at inds and ele,ates man to its Creator. It #as re!erence to one5s ,iews o! #is relations to 6is Creator and to t#e o ligations t#ey impose o! re,erence to 6is eing and c#aracter, and o edience to 6is :ill. '#e constitutional guaranty o! t#e !ree e;ercise and enjoyment o! religious pro!ession and wors#ip carries wit# it t#e rig#t to disseminate religious in!ormation. Any restraint o! suc# rig#t can only e justi!ied li9e ot#er restraints o! !reedom o! e;pression on t#e grounds t#at t#ere is a clear and present danger o! any su stanti,e e,il w#ic# t#e -tate #as t#e rig#t to pre,ent. A ta; on t#e income o! one w#o engages in religious acti,ities is di!!erent !rom a ta; on property used or employed in connection wit# t#ose acti,ities. It is one t#ing to impose a ta; on t#e income or property o! a preac#er. It is +uite anot#er t#ing to e;act a ta; !rom #im !or t#e pri,ilege o! deli,ering a sermon. '#e power to ta; t#e e;ercise o! a pri,ilege is t#e power to control or suppress its enjoyment. '#e power to impose a license ta; on t#e e;ercise o! t#ese !reedoms is indeed as potent as t#e power o! censors#ip w#ic# t#is Court #as repeatedly struc9 down. It is not a nominal !ee imposed as a regulatory measure to de!ray t#e e;penses o! policing t#e acti,ities in +uestion. It is in no way apportioned. It is !lat license ta; le,ied and collected as a condition to t#e pursuit o! acti,ities w#ose enjoyment is guaranteed y t#e constitutional li erties o! press and religion and ine,ita ly tends to suppress t#eir e;ercise. -uc# is t#e in#erent ,ice and e,il o! a !lat license ta;. <issemination o! religious in!ormation cannot e conditioned upon t#e appro,al o! an o!!icial or manager. '#e rig#t to enjoy !reedom o! t#e press and religion occupies a pre!erred position as against t#e constitutional rig#t o! property owners. 6erein, -ection 27 3e4 o! Commonwealt# Act FBB 30I&C4 -- w#ic# e;empts corporations or associations organi=ed and operated e;clusi,ely !or religious, c#arita le, or educational purposes, )ro,ided #owe,er, '#at t#e income o! w#ate,er 9ind and c#aracter !rom any o! its properties, real or personal, or !rom any acti,ity conducted !or pro!it, regardless o! t#e disposition made o! suc# income, s#all e lia le to t#e ta; imposed under t#e Code -- does not apply to t#e -ociety as its act o! distri uting and selling i les, etc. is purely religious in nature. 2rdinance 2$27, as amended, cannot as well e applied to t#e -ociety, !or in doing so it would impair its !ree e;ercise and enjoyment o! its religious pro!ession and wors#ip as well as its rig#ts o! dissemination o! religious elie!s. '#e !act t#at t#e price o! t#e i les and ot#er religious pamp#lets are little #ig#er t#an t#e actual cost o! t#e same does not necessarily mean t#at it is already engaged in t#e usiness or occupation o! selling said Nmerc#andiseS !or pro!it. (astly,
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 20 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

2rdinance %000 o! t#e City o! >anila, w#ic# re+uires t#e o tention o! t#e >ayor5s permit e!ore any person can engage in any o! t#e usinesses, trades or occupations enumerated t#erein, is not applica le to t#e -ociety, as its usiness, trade or occupation is not particularly mentioned in -ection % o! t#e 2rdinance, and t#e record does not s#ow t#at a permit is re+uired t#ere!or under e;isting laws and ordinances !or t#e proper super,ision and en!orcement o! t#eir pro,isions go,erning t#e sanitation, security and wel!are o! t#e pu lic and t#e #ealt# o! t#e employees engaged in t#e usiness o! t#e -ociety. 472 5i%%1 0(aggart Mi+istri!s vs. @oard o, EBua#i<atio+ o, *a#i,or+ia [443 70 37$, 17 5a+uar1 1440] <=$onnor (J) Facts: Cali!ornia5s -ales and Gse 'a; (aw re+uires retailers to pay a sales ta; 1!or t#e pri,ilege o! selling tangi le personal property at retail.1 '#e use ta;, as a complement to t#e sales ta;, reac#es out-o!-state purc#ases y residents o! t#e -tate. It is 1imposed on t#e storage, use, or ot#er consumption in t#is state o! tangi le personal property purc#ased !rom any retailer,1 at t#e same rate as t#e sales ta; 3B percent4. Alt#oug# t#e use ta; is imposed on t#e purc#aser, it is generally collected y t#e retailer at t#e time t#e sale is made. 0eit#er t#e -tate Constitution nor t#e -tate -ales and Gse 'a; (aw e;empts religious organi=ations !rom t#e sales and use ta;, apart !rom a limited e;emption !or t#e ser,ing o! meals y religious organi=ations. <uring t#e ta; period !rom .77F to .7/., Jimmy -waggart >inistries was a religious organi=ation incorporated as a (ouisiana nonpro!it corporation and recogni=ed as suc# y t#e Internal &e,enue -er,ice pursuant to $0.3c43%4 o! t#e Internal &e,enue Code o! .7$F, as amended, and y t#e Cali!ornia -tate Controller pursuant to t#e In#eritance 'a; and Di!t 'a; (aws o! t#e -tate o! Cali!ornia. '#e >inistry5s constitution and ylaws pro,ide t#at it 1is called !or t#e purpose o! esta lis#ing and maintaining an e,angelistic outreac# !or t#e wors#ip o! Almig#ty Dod.1 '#is outreac# is to e per!ormed 1 y all a,aila le means, ot# at #ome and in !oreign lands,1 and 1s#all speci!ically include e,angelistic crusadesC missionary endea,orsC radio roadcasting 3as owner, roadcaster, and placement agency4C tele,ision roadcasting 3 ot# as owner and roadcaster4C and audio production and reproduction o! musicC audio production and reproduction o! preac#ingC audio production and reproduction o! teac#ingC writing, printing and pu lis#ingC and, any and all ot#er indi,idual or mass media met#ods t#at presently e;ist or may e de,ised in t#e !uture to proclaim t#e good news o! Jesus C#rist.1 From .77F to .7/., t#e >inistry conducted numerous 1e,angelistic crusades1 in auditoriums and arenas across t#e country in cooperation wit# local c#urc#es. <uring t#is period, it #eld 2% crusades in Cali!ornia - eac# lasting . to % days, wit# one crusade lasting B days - !or a total o! $2 days. At t#e crusades, t#e >inistry conducted religious ser,ices t#at included preac#ing and singing. -ome o! t#ese ser,ices were recorded !or later sale or roadcast. It also sold religious oo9s, tapes, records, and ot#er religious and nonreligious merc#andise at t#e crusades. '#e >inistry also pu lis#ed a mont#ly maga=ine, 1'#e E,angelist,1 w#ic# was sold nationwide y su scription. '#e maga=ine contained articles o! a religious nature as well as ad,ertisements !or t#e >inistry5s religious oo9s, tapes, and records. '#e maga=ine included an order !orm listing t#e ,arious items !or sale in t#e particular issue and t#eir unit price, wit# spaces !or purc#asers to !ill in t#e +uantity desired and t#e total price. Appellant also o!!ered its items !or sale t#roug# radio, tele,ision, and ca le tele,ision roadcasts, including roadcasts t#roug# local Cali!ornia stations. In .7/0, t#e "oard o! E+uali=ation o! t#e -tate o! Cali!ornia in!ormed t#e >inistry t#at religious materials were not e;empt !rom t#e sales ta; and re+uested t#at t#e latter to register as a seller to !acilitate reporting and payment o! t#e ta;. '#e >inistry responded t#at it was e;empt !rom suc# ta;es under t#e First Amendment. In .7/., t#e "oard audited t#e >inistry and ad,ised t#e latter t#at it s#ould register as a seller and report and pay sales ta; on all sales made at its Cali!ornia crusades. '#e "oard also opined t#at t#e >inistry #ad a su!!icient ne;us wit# t#e -tate o! Cali!ornia to re+uire t#e latter to collect and report use ta; on its mail-order sales to Cali!ornia purc#asers. "ased on t#e sales !igures !or t#e >inistry5s religious materials, t#e "oard noti!ied t#e >inistry t#at it owed sales and use ta;es o! O../,27F.$F, plus interest o! O%B,02...., and a penalty o! O..,/27.F$, !or a total amount due o! O.BB,.F$..0. '#e >inistry did not contest t#e "oard5s assessment o! ta; lia ility !or t#e sale and use o! certain nonreligious merc#andise, including suc# items as 1'-s#irts wit# J-> logo, mugs, owls, plates, replicas o! crown o! t#orns, ar9 o! t#e co,enant, &oman coin, candlestic9s, "i le stand, pen and pencil
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 21 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

sets, prints o! religious scenes, ud ,ase, and communion cups.1 '#e >inistry !iled a petition !or redetermination wit# t#e "oard, reiterating its ,iew t#at t#e ta; on religious materials ,iolated t#e First Amendment. Following a #earing and an appeal to t#e "oard, t#e "oard deleted t#e penalty ut ot#erwise redetermined t#e matter wit#out adjustment in t#e amount o! O../,27F.$F in ta;es owing, plus OB$,0F%.$$ in interest. )ursuant to state procedural law, t#e >inistry paid t#e amount and !iled a petition !or redetermination and re!und wit# t#e "oard. . '#e "oard denied t#e >inistry5s petition, and t#e latter roug#t suit in state court, see9ing a re!und o! t#e ta; paid. '#e trial court entered judgment !or t#e "oard, ruling t#at t#e >inistry was not entitled to a re!und o! any ta;. '#e Cali!ornia Court o! Appeal a!!irmed, and t#e Cali!ornia -upreme Court denied discretionary re,iew. ssu!: :#et#er t#e -tate5s imposition o! sales and use ta; lia ility on its sale o! religious materials contra,enes t#e First Amendment5s command, made applica le to t#e -tates y t#e Fourteent# Amendment, to 1ma9e no law respecting an esta lis#ment o! religion, or pro#i iting t#e !ree e;ercise t#ereo!.1 "!#d: '#e Free E;ercise Clause 1wit#draws !rom legislati,e power, state and !ederal, t#e e;ertion o! any restraint on t#e !ree e;ercise o! religion. Its purpose is to secure religious li erty in t#e indi,idual y pro#i iting any in,asions t#ereo! y ci,il aut#ority.1 Indeed, 1a regulation neutral on its !ace may, in its application, nonet#eless o!!end t#e constitutional re+uirement !or go,ernmental neutrality i! it unduly urdens t#e !ree e;ercise o! religion.1 '#e !ree e;ercise in+uiry as9s w#et#er go,ernment #as placed a su stantial urden on t#e o ser,ation o! a central religious elie! or practice and, i! so, w#et#er a compelling go,ernmental interest justi!ies t#e urden. ssu!: :#et#er t#e ta; imposed on t#e >inistry acts as prior restraint to t#e !ree e;ercise o! religious elie!s. "!#d: Gnli9e !lat license ta;es, w#ic# operate as a precondition to t#e e;ercise o! e,angelistic acti,ity, t#e registration re+uirement #erein and t#e ta; itsel! do not act as prior restraints - no !ee is c#arged !or registering, t#e ta; is due regardless o! preregistration, and t#e ta; is not imposed as a precondition o! disseminating t#e message. '#us, t#e ta; at issue in t#e present case is a9in to a generally applica le income or property ta;, w#ic# may constitutionally e imposed on religious acti,ity. Collection and payment o! t#e ta; does not ,iolate t#e >inistry5s sincere religious elie!s. Cali!ornia5s nondiscriminatory -ales and Gse 'a; (aw re+uires only t#at t#e >inistry collect t#e ta; !rom its Cali!ornia purc#asers and remit t#e ta; money to t#e -tate. '#e only urden on t#e >inistry is t#e claimed reduction in income resulting !rom t#e presuma ly lower demand !or t#e >inistry5s wares 3caused y t#e marginally #ig#er price4 and !rom t#e costs associated wit# administering t#e ta;. 'o t#e e;tent t#at imposition o! a generally applica le ta; merely decreases t#e amount o! money t#e >inistry #as to spend on its religious acti,ities, any suc# urden is not constitutionally signi!icant. '#oug# t#e Court does not dou t t#e economic cost to t#e >inistry o! complying wit# a generally applica le sales and use ta;, suc# a ta; is no di!!erent !rom ot#er generally applica le laws and regulations suc# as #ealt# and sa!ety regulations - to w#ic# t#e >inistry must ad#ere. Finally, in no sense #as t#e -tate 1conditioned receipt o! an important ene!it upon conduct proscri ed y a religious !ait#, or denied suc# a ene!it ecause o! conduct mandated y religious elie!, t#ere y putting su stantial pressure on an ad#erent to modi!y #is e#a,ior and to ,iolate #is elie!s. '#e >inistry #as ne,er alleged t#at t#e mere act o! paying t#e ta;, y itsel!, ,iolates its sincere religious elie!s. In !ine, t#e collection and payment o! t#e generally applica le ta; in t#e present case imposes no constitutionally signi!icant urden on t#e >inistry5s religious practices or elie!s. '#e Free E;ercise Clause accordingly does not re+uire t#e -tate to grant t#e >inistry an e;emption !rom its generally applica le sales and use ta;. Alt#oug# it is o! course possi le to imagine t#at a more onerous ta; rate, e,en i! generally applica le, mig#t e!!ecti,ely c#o9e o!! an ad#erent5s religious practices 3t#e urden o! a !lat ta; could render itinerant e,angelism 1crus#ed and closed out y t#e s#eer weig#t o! t#e toll or tri ute w#ic# is e;acted town y town14, no suc# situation appears in t#e present case. 473 :ictoria+o vs. E#i<a#d! 3o-! ?or6!rs' 7+io+ [23 =-25246, 12 0!-t!%9!r 1474] En Banc, >aldi ar (J): ( concur, 1 too# no part
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 22 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Facts: Gnder -ection F3a4, paragrap# F, o! &epu lic Act /7$, prior to its amendment y &epu lic Act %%$0, t#e employer was not precluded 1!rom ma9ing an agreement wit# a la or organi=ation to re+uire as a condition o! employment mem ers#ip t#erein, i! suc# la or organi=ation is t#e representati,e o! t#e employees.1 2n ./ June .7B., #owe,er, &A %%$0 was enacted, introducing an amendment to paragrap# 3F4 su section 3a4 o! section F o! &A /7$, as !ollows@ 1 ut suc# agreement s#all not co,er mem ers o! any religious sects w#ic# pro#i it a!!iliation o! t#eir mem ers in any suc# la or organi=ation.1 "enjamin Aictoriano, a mem er o! t#e religious sect 9nown as t#e 1Iglesia ni Cristo1, #ad een in t#e employ o! t#e Eli=alde &ope Factory, Inc. since .7$/. As suc# employee, #e was a mem er o! t#e Eli=alde &ope :or9ers5 Gnion w#ic# #ad wit# t#e Company a collecti,e argaining agreement containing a closed s#op pro,ision w#ic# reads 1>em ers#ip in t#e Gnion s#all #e re+uired as a condition o! employment !or all permanent employees wor9ers co,ered y t#is Agreement.1 '#e collecti,e argaining agreement e;pired on % >arc# .7BF ut was renewed t#e !ollowing day. "eing a mem er o! a religious sect t#at pro#i its t#e a!!iliation o! its mem ers wit# any la or organi=ation, Aictoriano presented #is resignation to t#e Gnion in .7B2, and w#en no action was ta9en t#ereon, #e reiterated #is resignation on % -eptem er .77F. '#ereupon, t#e Gnion wrote a !ormal letter to t#e Company as9ing t#e latter to separate Aictoriano !rom t#e ser,ice in ,iew o! t#e !act t#at #e was resigning !rom t#e Gnion as a mem er. '#e management o! t#e Company in turn noti!ied Aictoriano and #is counsel t#at unless Aictoriano could ac#ie,e a satis!actory arrangement wit# t#e Gnion, t#e Company would e constrained to dismiss #im !rom t#e ser,ice. '#is prompted Aictoriano to !ile an action !or injunction 3Ci,il Case $//7F4 in t#e Court o! First Instance o! >anila to enjoin t#e Company and t#e Gnion !rom dismissing Aictoriano. In its answer, t#e Gnion in,o9ed t#e 1union security clause1 o! t#e collecti,e argaining agreementC assailed t#e constitutionality o! &A %%$0C and contended t#at t#e Court #ad no jurisdiction o,er t#e case, pursuant to &A /7$, -ections 2F and 7 3d4 and 3e4. Gpon t#e !acts agreed upon y t#e parties during t#e pre-trial con!erence, t#e trial Court rendered its decision on 2B August .7B$, enjoining Eli=alde &ope Factory, Inc. !rom dismissing Aictoriano !rom #is present employment and sentencing t#e Eli=alde &ope :or9ers5 Gnion to pay Aictoriano )$00 !or attorney5s !ees and t#e costs. From t#is decision, t#e Gnion appealed directly to t#e -upreme Court on purely +uestions o! law. ssu!: :#et#er a 1closed s#op pro,ision1 in a collecti,e argaining agreement is to e considered ,iolati,e o! religious !reedom. "!#d: "ot# t#e Constitution and &epu lic Act /7$ recogni=e !reedom o! association. -ection . 3B4 o! Article III o! t#e Constitution o! .7%$, as well as -ection 7 o! Article IA o! t#e Constitution o! .77%, pro,ide t#at t#e rig#t to !orm associations or societies !or purposes not contrary to law s#all not e a ridged. -ection % o! &epu lic Act /7$ pro,ides t#at employees s#all #a,e t#e rig#t to sel!-organi=ation and to !orm, join or assist la or organi=ations o! t#eir own c#oosing !or t#e purpose o! collecti,e argaining and to engage in concerted acti,ities !or t#e purpose o! collecti,e argaining and ot#er mutual aid or protection. :#at t#e Constitution and t#e Industrial )eace Act recogni=e and guarantee is t#e 1rig#t1 to !orm or join associations. 0otwit#standing t#e di!!erent t#eories propounded y t#e di!!erent sc#ools o! jurisprudence regarding t#e nature and contents o! a 1rig#t1, it can e sa!ely said t#at w#ate,er t#eory one su scri es to, a rig#t compre#ends at least two road notions, namely@ !irst, li erty or !reedom, i e., t#e a sence o! legal restraint, w#ere y an employee may act !or #imsel! wit#out eing pre,ented y lawC and second, power, w#ere y an employee may, as #e pleases, join or re!rain !rom joining an association. It is, t#ere!ore, t#e employee w#o s#ould decide !or #imsel! w#et#er #e s#ould join or not an associationC and s#ould #e c#oose to join, #e #imsel! ma9es up #is mind as to w#ic# association #e would joinC and e,en a!ter #e #as joined, #e still retains t#e li erty and t#e power to lea,e and cancel #is mem ers#ip wit# said organi=ation at any time. It is clear, t#ere!ore, t#at t#e rig#t to join a union includes t#e rig#t to a stain !rom joining any union. Inasmuc# as w#at ot# t#e Constitution and t#e Industrial )eace Act #a,e recogni=ed, and guaranteed to t#e employee, is t#e 1rig#t1 to join associations o! #is c#oice, it would e a surd to say t#at t#e law also imposes, in t#e same reat#, upon t#e employee t#e duty to join associations. '#e law does not enjoin an employee to sign up wit# any association. '#e rig#t to re!rain !rom joining la or organi=ations recogni=ed y -ection % o! t#e Industrial
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 23 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

)eace Act is, #owe,er, limited. '#e legal protection granted to suc# rig#t to re!rain !rom joining is wit#drawn y operation o! law, w#ere a la or union and an employer #a,e agreed on a closed s#op, y ,irtue o! w#ic# t#e employer may employ only mem ers o! t#e collecti,e argaining union, and t#e employees must continue to e mem ers o! t#e union !or t#e duration o! t#e contract in order to 9eep t#eir jo s. 'o t#at all em racing co,erage o! t#e closed s#op arrangement, &epu lic Act %%$0 introduced an e;ception, w#en it added to -ection F 3a4 3F4 o! t#e Industrial )eace Act t#e !ollowing pro,iso@ 1 ut suc# agreement s#all not co,er mem ers o! any religious sects w#ic# pro#i it a!!iliation o! t#eir mem ers in any suc# la or organi=ation1. &A %%$0 merely e;cludes ipso jure !rom t#e application and co,erage o! t#e closed s#op agreement t#e employees elonging to any religious sects w#ic# pro#i it a!!iliation o! t#eir mem ers wit# any la or organi=ation. :#at t#e e;ception pro,ides, t#ere!ore, is t#at mem ers o! said religious sects cannot e compelled or coerced to join la or unions e,en w#en said unions #a,e closed s#op agreements wit# t#e employersC t#at in spite o! any closed s#op agreement, mem ers o! said religious sects cannot e re!used employment or dismissed !rom t#eir jo s on t#e sole ground t#at t#ey are not mem ers o! t#e collecti,e argaining union. It is clear, t#ere!ore, t#at t#e assailed Act, !ar !rom in!ringing t#e constitutional pro,ision on !reedom o! association, up#olds and rein!orces it. It does not pro#i it t#e mem ers o! said religious sects !rom a!!iliating wit# la or unions. It still lea,es to said mem ers t#e li erty and t#e power to a!!iliate, or not to a!!iliate, wit# la or unions. I!, notwit#standing t#eir religious elie!s, t#e mem ers o! said religious sects pre!er to sign up wit# t#e la or union, t#ey can do so. I! in de!erence and !ealty to t#eir religious !ait#, t#ey re!use to sign up, t#ey can do soC t#e law does not coerce t#em to joinC neit#er does t#e law pro#i it t#em !rom joiningC and neit#er may t#e employer or la or union compel t#em to join. &A %%$0, t#ere!ore, does not ,iolate t#e constitutional pro,ision on !reedom o! association. 474 Pa%i# vs. ;!#!ro+ [23 =-34$54, 20 8ov!%9!r 147$] En Banc, "ernando (J): & concur, & concur in separate opinions, 3 dissent in separate opinions Facts: Fat#er >argarito &. Don=aga, was, in .77., elected to t#e position o! municipal mayor o! Al ur+uer+ue, "o#ol. '#erea!ter, #e was duly proclaimed. A suit !or +uo warranto was t#en !iled y Fortunato &. )amil, #imsel! an aspirant !or t#e o!!ice, !or #is dis+uali!ication ased on t#e Administrati,e Code pro,ision, w#ic# pro,idest t#at 1In no case s#all t#ere e elected or appointed to a municipal o!!ice ecclesiastics, soldiers in acti,e ser,ice, persons recei,ing salaries or compensation !rom pro,incial or national !unds, or contractors !or pu lic wor9s o! t#e municipality.1 '#e suit did not prosper as Judge Aictorino C. 'eleron, as Judge o! t#e Court o! First Instance o! "o#ol 3"ranc# III4 sustained t#e rig#t o! Fat#er Don=aga to t#e o!!ice o! municipal mayor. 6e ruled t#at suc# statutory ineligi ility was impliedly repealed y t#e Election Code o! .77.. '#e matter was t#en ele,ated to t#e -upreme Court 'ri unal y )amil. ssu!: :#et#er an ecclesiastic or a priest may e elected as a pu lic o!!icial. "!#d: '#e c#allenged Administrati,e Code pro,ision, certainly inso!ar as it declares ineligi le ecclesiastics to any electi,e or appointi,e o!!ice, is, on its !ace, inconsistent wit# t#e religious !reedom guaranteed y t#e Constitution. 'o so e;clude t#em is to impose a religious test. 'orcaso ,. :at9ins, an American -upreme Court decision, #as persuasi,e weig#t. :#at was t#ere in,ol,ed was t#e ,alidity o! a pro,ision in t#e >aryland Constitution prescri ing t#at 1no religious test oug#t e,er to e re+uired as a dis+uali!ication !or any o!!ice or pro!it or trust in t#is -tate, ot#er t#an a declaration o! elie! in t#e e;istence o! Dod.1 -uc# a constitutional re+uirement was assailed as contrary to t#e First Amendment o! t#e Gnited -tates Constitution y an appointee to t#e o!!ice o! notary pu lic in >aryland, w#o was re!used a commission as #e would not declare a elie! in Dod. 6e !ailed in t#e >aryland Court o! Appeals ut pre,ailed in t#e Gnited -tates -upreme Court, w#ic# re,ersed t#e state court decision. It could not #a,e een ot#erwise. As emp#atically declared y Justice "lac9@ 1t#is >aryland religious test !or pu lic o!!ice unconstitutionally in,ades t#e appellant5s !reedom o! elie! and religion and t#ere!ore cannot e en!orced against #im. '#e analogy appears to e o ,ious. In t#at case, it was lac9 o! elie! in Dod t#at was a dis+uali!ication. 6ere eing an ecclesiastic and t#ere!ore pro!essing a religious !ait# su!!ices to dis+uali!y !or a pu lic o!!ice. '#ere is t#us an
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 24 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

incompati ility etween t#e Administrati,e Code pro,ision relied upon y )amil and an e;press constitutional mandate. It is not a ,alid argument against t#is conclusion to assert t#at under t#e )#ilippine Autonomy Act o! .7.B, t#ere was suc# a pro#i ition against a religious test, and yet suc# a an on #olding a municipal position #ad not een nulli!ied. It su!!ices to answer t#at no +uestion was raised as to its ,alidity. '#us, t#e ,iew t#at t#e Administrati,e Code pro,ision is inoperati,e y ,irtue o! t#e mandate o! t#e .7%$ Constitution, similarly !ound in t#e present C#arter, !ailed to o tain t#e necessary eig#t ,otes needed to gi,e it inding !orce. '#e attac9 on t#e continuing e!!ecti,ity o! -ection 2.7$ #a,ing !ailed, it must e gi,en !ull !orce and application. 475 ;orcaso vs. ?at6i+s [367 70 4$$, 14 5u+! 1461] Blac# (J) Facts: Article %7 o! t#e <eclaration o! &ig#ts o! t#e >aryland Constitution pro,ides t#at 1no religious test oug#t e,er to e re+uired as a +uali!ication !or any o!!ice o! pro!it or trust in t#is -tate, ot#er t#an a declaration o! elie! in t#e e;istence o! Dod.1 'orcaso was appointed to t#e o!!ice o! 0otary )u lic y t#e Do,ernor o! >aryland ut was re!used a commission to ser,e ecause #e would not declare #is elie! in Dod. 6e t#en roug#t t#e action in a >aryland Circuit Court to compel issuance o! #is commission, c#arging t#at t#e -tate5s re+uirement t#at #e declare t#is elie! ,iolated 1t#e First and Fourteent# Amendments to t#e Constitution o! t#e Gnited -tates.1 '#e Circuit Court rejected t#ese !ederal constitutional contentions, and t#e #ig#est court o! t#e -tate, t#e Court o! Appeals, a!!irmed, #olding t#at t#e state constitutional pro,ision is sel!-e;ecuting and re+uires declaration o! elie! in Dod as a +uali!ication !or o!!ice wit#out need !or implementing legislation. 6ence, t#e appeal. ssu!: :#et#er 'orcaso may e denied #is o!!ice unless #e declares #is religious elie!s. "!#d: :#en our Constitution was adopted, t#e desire to put t#e people 1securely eyond t#e reac#1 o! religious test oat#s roug#t a out t#e inclusion in Article AI o! t#at document o! a pro,ision t#at 1no religious 'est s#all e,er e re+uired as a 8uali!ication to any 2!!ice or pu lic 'rust under t#e Gnited -tates.1 0ot satis!ied, #owe,er, wit# Article AI and ot#er guarantees in t#e original Constitution, t#e First Congress proposed and t#e -tates ,ery s#ortly t#erea!ter adopted our "ill o! &ig#ts, including t#e First Amendment. '#at Amendment ro9e new constitutional ground in t#e protection it soug#t to a!!ord to !reedom o! religion, speec#, press, petition and assem ly. :it# t#ese, neit#er a -tate nor t#e Federal Do,ernment can constitutionally !orce a person 1to pro!ess a elie! or dis elie! in any religion.1 0eit#er can constitutionally pass laws or impose re+uirements w#ic# aid all religions as against non- elie,ers, and neit#er can aid t#ose religions ased on a elie! in t#e e;istence o! Dod as against t#ose religions !ounded on di!!erent elie!s. '#e !act t#at a person is not compelled to #old pu lic o!!ice cannot possi ly e an e;cuse !or arring #im !rom o!!ice y state-imposed criteria !or idden y t#e Constitution. '#is >aryland religious test !or pu lic o!!ice unconstitutionally in,ades 'orcaso5s !reedom o! elie! and religion and t#ere!ore cannot e en!orced against #im.

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 25 )