Benjamin Vidoriano Vs Elizalde

Rope Workers union GR No. L25246 September 12 1974

FACTS:
Benjamin victoriano a member of
iglesia ni cristo had been in the
employ of the Elizalde Rope factory Inc
since 1958. Her was a member of
elizalde rope workers union which had
with the company a CBA containing a
closed shop provision which reads as
follow Membership union shall be
required as a condition of employment
for all permanent employees worker
covered by this agreement. RA 3350
was enacted introducing an
amendment to paragraph (4)
subsection (a) of section 4 of RA 875
as follows but such agreement shall
not cover members of any religious
sect which prohibit affiliation of their
member in any such 0labor
organization Benjamin victoriano
presents his resignation to appellant
union thereupon the union wrote a
formal letter to separate the appellee
from the service in view of the fact
that he was resigning from the union
as member of the company notified
the apellee and his counsel that unless
the appellee could achieve a
satisfactory arrangement with the
union the company would be
constrained to dismiss him from the
service . this prompted appellee to file
an action for injunction to enjoin the
company and the union from
dismissing apallee.
ISSUE: WON RA 3350 is
unconstitutional

HELD: the constitution provision only

prohibits legislation for the support of
any religious tenets or the modes of
worship of any sect, thus forestalling
compulsion by law of the acceptance
of any creed or the chosen form of
religion within limits of utmost
amplitude. RA 3350 does not require
as a qualification on condition in
joining any lawful association
membership in any particular religion
on in any religious sect neither does
the act requires affiliation with a
religious sect that prohibits its
member from joining a labor union as
a condition on qualification for
withdrawing from labor union RA 3350
only exempts member with such
religious affililiation from the required
to do a positive act to exercise the
right to join or to resign from the
union. He is exempted from form the
coverage of any closed shop
agreement that a labor union may
have entered into. Therefore RA 3350
is never an illegal evasion of
constitutional provision or prohibition
to accomplish a desired result which is
lawful in itself by vering or following a
legal way to do it.

Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos
G.R. No. 113092 September 1,
1994
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos
G.R. No. 113092
September 1, 1994
KTA: Solicitation for religious purposes may be
subject to proper regulation by the State in the
exercise of police power. The State has authority
under the exercise of its police power to
determine whether or not there shall be
restrictions on soliciting by unscrupulous
persons or for unworthy causes or for fraudulent

purposes.
Certainly
the
solicitation
of
contributions in good faith for worthy purposes
should not be denied, but somewhere should be
lodged the power to determine within reasonable
limits the worthy from the unworthy.

Facts:
This petition is an appeal on the decision of the
Trial Court convicting Centeno and Yco for
violating P.D. 1564 known as the Solicitation
Permit Law when they both solicited money for
the renovation of their chapel without a permit
from the DSWD.
In 1985, the petitioners, officers of Samahang
Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay, launched a fund
drive for the renovation of their chapel in
Bulacan.
The petitioners approached and solicited from
Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, a resident of Tikay,
a contribution of P1,500.00. The solicitation was
made without a permit from the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Hon.
Angeles filed a complaint against the petitioners
for violation of P.D. 1564 known as the
Soliciation Permit Law.
P.D. 1564 provides as follows:
Sec. 2. Any person, corporation, organization, or
association desiring to solicit or receive
contributions for charitable or public welfare
purposes shall first secure a permit from the
Regional Offices of the Department of Social
Services and Development as provided in the
Integrated Reorganization Plan.

In 1992, the trial court found the petitioners

guilty of violating the Solicitation Permit Law.
In this instant case, the petitioners assert among
others that the term religious purpose is not
expressly included in the provisions of the
statute, hence what the law does not include, it
excludes.

Issue: Whether or not the phrase charitable

purposes should be construed in the broadest
sense so as to include a religious purpose.

Held/Ratio:
The 1987 Constitution and other statutes treat
the words charitable and religious separately
and independently of each other.
In P.D. 1564, it merely stated charitable or
public welfare purposes which means that it
was not the intention of the framers of the law to
include solicitations for religious purposes. The
world religious purpose is not interchangeable
with the expression charitable purpose.
The acts of the petitioners cannot be punished
under the said law because the law does not
contemplate solicitation for religious purposes.
The solicitation for religious purposes may be
subject to proper regulation by the State in the
exercise of police power. However, in the case
at bar, considering that solicitations intended for
a religious purpose are not within the coverage
of Presidential Decree No. 1564, as earlier
demonstrated, petitioner cannot be held
criminally liable therefor.
The decision appealed from is reversed
and set aside, and petitioner Martin
Centeno is acquitted of the offense
charged.

Fortunato Pamil vs Victorino Teleron

86 SCRA 413 Political Law

Inviolability of the Separation of Church
and State
In 1971, Fr. Margarito Gonzaga, a priest,
won the election for mayoralty in
Alburquerque,
Bohol.
He
was
later proclaimed
as mayor
therein.
Fortunato Pamil, a rival candidate filed
a quo warranto case against Gonzaga
questioning the eligibility of Gonzaga. He
argued that as provided for in Section
2175 of the 1917 Revised Administrative
Code:
in no case shall there be elected or
appointed
to
a
municipal
office
ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service,
persons
receiving
salaries
or
compensation from provincial or national
funds, or contractors for public works of
the municipality.

HELD: The Supreme Court decision was

indecisive. Under the 1935 Constitution,
No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights. If the
the doctrine of constitutional supremacy is
to be maintained, then Section 2175 shall
not prevail, thus, an ecclesiastic may run
for elective office. However, this issue
proved to have divided the Supreme Court
because it failed to obtain the majority
vote of eight (8) which is needed in order
to declare Section 2175 of the RAC to be
unconstitutional. For this, the petition filed
by Pamil must be granted and the
decision of the lower court reversed and
set aside. Fr. Gonzaga is hereby ordered
to vacate the mayoralty position.
It was also pointed out (in the dissenting
opinions) that how can one who swore to
serve the Churchs interest above all be in
duty to enforce state policies which at
times may conflict with church tenets. This
is in violation of the separation of the
church
and
state.
The
Revised
Administrative Code still stands because
there is no implied repeal.
Dissenting Opinion

In this case, the elected mayor is a priest.

However, Judge Victorino Teleron ruled
that the Administrative Code is repealed
by the Election Code of 1971 which now
allows ecclesiastics to run.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 2175 of
the Revised Administrative Code of 1917
is no longer operative?

J. Teehankee The Comelec ruled that

soldiers in active service and persons
receiving salaries or compensation from
provincial or national funds are obviously
now allowed to run for a public elective
office because under Sec. 23 of the
Election Code of 1971 every person
holding a public appointive office or
position, including active members of the

Armed Forces shall ipso facto cease in

their office or position on the date they file
their certificates of candidacy. This implies
that they are no longer disqualified from
running for an elective office. The
Comelec further ruled that as to the two
remaining categories formerly banned
under the Revised Administrative Code,
ecclesiastics and contractors for public
works of the municipality are allowed to

run for municipal elective offices under the

maxim, Inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius, they being not included in the
enumeration of persons ineligible under
the New Election Code. The rule is that all
persons possessing the necessary
qualifications, except those expressly
disqualified by the election code, are
eligible to run for public office.