CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY.

ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

2017
Section 3 (1) THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE EXCEPT
UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT, OR WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE AS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

(2) ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR THE PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING.

General rule. THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE

Exception. 1.) EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT (first instance)
2.) WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW (second
instance)

The paragraph 2 of section 3 will be the exclusionary rule this is the half of the issue in the case of RP versus
Dimaano and Ramas. The majority opinion says that the evidence that has been confiscated must be return to
Dimaano. In the concurring separate opinion of justice puno says that the evidence seize in the house of Dimaano
must be returned. So in both instances tells that it should be return however the basis or the reasoning is different .
in the same manner that the way of majority opinion and the concurring opinion of justice puno to consider that the
search as invalid and to return the seized property is different from the concurring separate opinion of justice puno.
They arrived at the same result to return it is illegal and it must be return. I hope you saw that. The basis for the
majority opinion saying that Dimaano have the right against the illegal searches and seizure because of united nation
of human rights while Puno the basis for saying his opinion that Dimaano has the right against unreasonable searches
and Seizure because of natural law and in the majority opinion it said that the property seized from dimaano must be
returned because the police officer acted beyond the search warrant. The search warrant only mention that the thing
to be seized is only fire arms but they got 1 million cash, dollars and etc. they are not included in the search warrant
and therefore the majority opinion said that you must returned that. However in the separate opinion of justice puno
he also mentioned that Dimaano is also entitled to the exclusionary rule which is now the second paragraph of Section
3 , puno said that dimaano is entitled to the exclusion of the evidence against him, exclusion of the property seized at
evidence against him because when he filed his answer there is already the freedom constitution, and therefore the
constitution provide for the bill of rights.

(2) ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR THE PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING.

Exclusionary rule is applicable to Section 2 and 3 of the bill of rights. Whatever evidence maybe confiscated or seized
unreasonably must be excluded as evidence and shall be inadmissible for any purpose and any proceeding.
Question. True or False
According to section 3, the privacy of communication and correspondence is absolutely inviolable?
No it is not. It has exception
Exception. 1.) EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT
2.) WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW
Invasion of communication and correspondence is one kind of search. So whatever applicable provision of section 2 is
also applicable to section 3.
What kind of communication and correspondence is cover of this section. It covers letters, messages it also covers
wire taps and other method of electronic tracking .

What is republic act 10175?

- R.A 10175 CYBER CRIME PREVENTION ACT section 12 gives or provide no enforcement of authority shall be
authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means of tracking data in real time associated in the

1 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
specific communications transmitted by means of computer system without court order but not contain nor
identities.

Does section 3 of the Bill of rights allow the intrusion to the privacy of communication and correspondence? YES
It allows under two circumstances or exceptions. What are the conditions for such allowable intrusion? Indi nnaman
pwede lang na by court order, alright by court order, so you are going to file a petition to the court for intrusion into
correspondence and communication.
- Intrusion is allowed upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires it as prescribe by
law . there must be a law that prescribes the exception.
-
But what will be the basis of court in allowing the intrusion of correspondence and communication.
- The court may order intrusion base on the requirement of probable cause. The court may also examine the
application for an intrusion or wire taping. Section 3 is similar to provision on prescribing illegal searches and
seizure that is why you need a probable cause. Wire taps and prohibition on wire taps are similar on searches
and seizure. Intrusion on communication and correspondence is one kind of search.

What is the meaning of exclusionary rule under paragraph 2 of section 3.

- The exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally obtained evidence for any purpose and in any proceeding, the
inadmissibility of the evidence does not mean that it must be returned where it came from, it must be
disposed. If it is a contra band by itself or by its nature then it must be confiscated.
-
In People vs. Marti.
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed
only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass
the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private
establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government.

May evidence unlawfully obtained by private individual come under the exclusionary rule? No.
- That the bill of rights is in effect only if what is involve is against government not to private individuals.

SEC. 4. No LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE
PRESS, OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

TWIN MANDATES OF SECTION 4.

1. No LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE PRESS,
2. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES AND SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGE

WHAT ARE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE PRESS INCLUDES?

2 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
- Includes every form of expression whether oral or written, taped or disc recorded. It also includes movies as
well as what is referred to as symbolic speech such as wearing of arm band as a symbol of protest. Peaceful
picketing has also in the meaning of speech.
- Pantomime ther is no speech but there can be expressions, acts that would be expressions of the pantomime.
Action of your body that can be understand by the audience is also speech.

What are the two conditions in the abridgement of freedom of speech, of expressions, and of the press.
- prior restraint
- Subsequent punishment

What is prior restraint mean?

Prior restraint means official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination.(indi pa naiipapublish, in advance-prior) Its most blatant form is a system
of licensing administered by an executive officer. Movie censorship, although not placed on the same level as
press censorship, also belongs to this type of prior restraint. Also similar to the licensing system is judicial
prior restraint which takes the form of an injunction against publication. Equally objectionable as prior
restraint are license taxes measured by gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in the business of
advertising in any newspaper or flat license fees for the privilege of selling religious books.

Is the warning against media against airing of the conversation between the president and other personalities
constitute prior restraint?
- YES. Discuss by the case Chavez vs Gonzales
Chavez vs Gonzales- In the aftermath of the 2004 elections when there was wide talk about election cheating,
one of the topics that hugged the headlines was the alleged telephone conversation between President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo and Election Commissioner Garcillano. The government warning addressed to media against
airing the alleged wiretapped conversation was deemed by the Court to constitute unconstitutional prior restraint
on the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press.

What is subsequent punishment?

The mere prohibition of government interference before words are spoken or published would be an
inadequate protection of the freedom of expression if the government could punish without restraint after
publication. The unrestrained threat of subsequent punishment itself would operate as a very effective prior
restraint. The guarantee of freedom of expression also means a limitation in the power of the state to impose
subsequent punishment .

When is the right of free speech and press collides with the right of the accused to a fair trial. How will the court
dispose of the conflict.?

A.M. secretary of justice vs. sandiganbayan

- trial of joseph Estrada before sandiganbayan where the media file a petition for a live coverage to
allow live television coverage of the case and the court said that it is the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees
of the freedom of the press and the right of the people to public information on the other hand the fundamental rights
of the accused . when these rights are raised against one another, jurisprudence tell us that the right of accused must
be preferred to win, in denying the petition, the court said the television coverage of judicial proceeding involves an
inherent denial of due process in the rights of a criminal defendant.

A.M 10-11-5-sc MAGUINDANAO MASACRE CASE.

3 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
-a petition for radio and tv coverage was requested in this case . the supreme court said that the
indication of serious risk posed by the live coverage to the accused rights to due process left unexplained to the
Estrada case has left a blow to the exercise to press freedom and the right to public information. While apparent
circumstance that makes the maguindanao massacre different from Estrada case is the impossibility of
accommodating all the interested parties inside the court room because the accused alone are more than 150 people.
Initially the supreme court said, YES, live coverage maybe done in Maguindanao Cases however on reconsideration
the Supreme court did not allow the live coverage as reiterated by Chief Justice Serrano, the members of the press is
allowed inside the courtroom but no live coverage. While the court recognizes the freedom of the press and the right
to public information these rights belongs to the non direct parties of the case, the right of the direct parties should
not be forgotten. In a clash, amongst these competing interest , jurisprudence makes it clear that the balance should
always be weighed in favor of the accused.

AYER PRODUCTIONS V. CAPULONG

- The case involved the production of "The Four Day Revolution," a movie account of the bloodless coup that
toppled the Marcos regime. Juan Ponce Enrile, a principal actor in the historic event, sought to enjoin the use
of his name or of any member of his family. Against Enrile's claim was the producer's assertion of freedom of
expression. The Court had to balance Enrile's claim to the right of privacy against the producer's freedom of
expression. The Court began its disquisition with the assertion that freedom of expression as applicable to
motion pictures.
- The Court said: "A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as permissible where that
person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him
constitute matters of a public character. In this case there is no doubt that the event of the 4-day revolution is
a public character. Enrile is a public figure which meant that he had no right to prevent the publication of the
story of his participation in the event.

Is the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press absolute? NO. there are exceptions
May these right be lawfully restraint? YES. There must be standard for restraint.
If so what are the requirements for the lawful restraint.?
Dangerous Tendency Rule
Clear and present danger rule
Balancing interest rule

DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE

speech may be curtailed or punished when it "creates a dangerous tendency which the State has the
right to prevent." The tendency alone for the evil to come about will justify the restraint. All it
requires, for speech to be punishable, is that there be a rational connection between the speech and
the evil apprehended
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE
On Whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature
as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
In dangerous tendency rule if the speech is uttered in such a way that there is a tendency to bring
about the evil sought to be prevented then speech may be curtailed. Under the clear and present
danger rule there must be a clear and present danger of the evil before the right to speech, of
expression, or of the press to be curtailed.
BALANCING INTEREST RULE
Courts have the duty to balance the evil sought to be prevented as against the rights. If general
welfare is the reason for the curtailment of speech then speech maybe prevented.

4 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
- It gives the court the duty to balance the conflicting interest sasabihin ng court kung papayagan ba
natin to ano ang mangyayari. it will allow the demonstration . if we curtail the demonstration the right
to free speech will suffer . in that case who loses. All of this thing the court must consider that is why
it is balancing of interest of demonstration. All interests will be scrutinized by the court.

Gr 205728 Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC

issue whether the comelec has the competence to limit the expression by the citizen who are not candidates
during elections.
Facts eto yung sa diocese of Bacolod naglagay ng tarpaulin dalawang tarpaulin yung team patay at team
buhay. Team patay are those who voted for RH Bill and team buhay for those who did not vote for RH Bill.
Apparently they are catholic church through the diocese of Bacolod. Regulation of speech in the context of
electronic campaign made by person who are not candidate or who do not speak as a member of a political
party which are taken as a whole principally advocacy as social issue the public as considered during election
are unconstitutional.

Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to support their position that they had the power
to regulate the tarpaulin. However, the Court held that all of these provisions pertain to candidates and
political parties. Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party. COMELEC does
not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by
a non-candidate in this case.

Under this rule, the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, extremely serious and
the degree of imminence extremely high. Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present
danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having the burden of overcoming the
presumed unconstitutionality.

Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents failed to justify the regulation. There is no
compelling and substantial state interest endangered by the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment
of the right of freedom of expression. There is no reason for the state to minimize the right of non-candidate
petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private property. The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone
elses constitutional rights.

Freedom of speech has never been understood to be an absolute right. Some forms of speech are not protected by
constitution.

What are the forms of speech not protected by the constitution?

Libel
Obscenity

LIBEL- is defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code. A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or
of a vice or a defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
ELEMENTS
The allegation of discreditable act or condition concerning another.
Publication of the charge
Identity of the person defamed
Existence of malice

5 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
When is speech libelous?
When the imputation is public
When it is malicious
When is imputation is on considered public?
The imputation is public when the defamatory statement is made known to someone other
than the person to whom is written. When third person is concern it is already publish.
When is speech/statement considered malicious?
It is malicious when the author of the imputation is prompted by evil or spite or speech not in
response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been
defamed.
OBSCENITY something offensive to chastity decency or delicacy.

If the speech is not malicious even if defamatory it is privileged. The rule on privileged communication is that a
communication made in good faith on any subject matter in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning
which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest, although it contains
incriminatory matter which, without the privilege, would be libelous and actionable.

Alonzo vs. CA
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true if no good intention and justifiable motive
for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social
duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise
of their function.

Are Pleadings filed in court privileged?

The prevailing rule is that parties, counsels and witnesses are exempted from liability in libel
or slander, for words otherwise defamatory published in the course of judicial proceeding,
provided, the statement are relevant to the case.( armovit vs. judge Purisima)
Pleading are privileged but to be so, they must be relevant to the matter under
investigation.(Gutierrez vs. Abila) There was also reiteration of the rule that privileged
communication yields to proof of malice and that pleadings in court, to be privileged, must be
relevant to the case.
Borjal vs. CA. The concept of privileged communications is implicit in the freedom of the
press. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid
defense in an action for libel or slander. The rule on privileged commentaries on matters of
public interest applies to it. The privilege applies not only to criticism of public officials but
extends to the criticism of a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of public concern,
public men, and candidates for office
People vs. del Rosario define who is injured in cases of libel. In criminal law, in the
commission of the crime, it is the state who is injured, in libel it is not the disturbance of
public order coxed by defamatory language but its tendency to injure the person defamed.
And it has been held that the evil which the law on libel seeks to punish is not the disturbance
of public order caused by defamatory language but "its tendency ... to injure the person
defamed, regardless of its effect upon the public."

6 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
Three object of criticism in life of public figure.
His public and official acts.
His mental, moral and physical fitness for office.
His strictly private life.

When the object of criticism is his strictly private life, defamatory imputations are not constitutionally
protected expression. True criticism, therefore, of a person's fitness for office is always fair and, therefore, privileged;
false criticism is not privileged if malicious, that is, when used as a cloak for assaults on a person's private life. Hence,
good faith is always a valid defense in a suit for defamatory imputations against a person's moral, mental or physical
fitness for office.

Policarpio v. Manila Times Publishing Co.- It goes without saying that newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of
discretion in determining the manner in which a given event should be presented to the public, and the importance to
be attached thereto as a news item, and that its presentation in a sensational manner is not per se illegal.
Newspapers may publish news items relative to judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings, which are not of a
confidential nature, because the public is entitled to know the truth with respect to such proceedings, which, being
official and non-confidential, are open to public consumption. But to enjoy immunity, a publication containing
derogatory information must be not only true but, also, fair, and it must be made in good faith and without comments
or remarks.

Feremin vs. People. public figures are not unprotected. Although a wide latitude is given to critical utterances made
against public officials in the performance of their official duties, or against public figures on matters of public interest,
such criticism does not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. If the utterances are
false, malicious or unrelated to a public officer's performance of his duties or irrelevant to matters of public interest
involving public figures, the same may give rise to criminal and civil liability. While personalities in the entertainment
business, media people, including gossip and intrigue writers and commentators, do not have the unbridled license to
malign their honor and dignity by indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments.

SECOND PART OF SECTION 4, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. (it can be curtail)

STANDARDS FOR ALLOWING RESTRAINT OR REGULATION.

Dangerous Tendency Rule
Clear and present danger rule
Balancing interest rule

US. v. Apurado which involved a spontaneous gathering of some five hundred men to demand the ouster of certain
municipal officials. No permit was involved. But the significant point was that, in a
prosecution for sedition, the Court, invoking the right of assembly and petition, was willing to allow for a certain
amount of disorder. (page 311 of bernas book)

Evangelista v. Earnshaw - must be considered that the respondent mayor, whose sworn duty it is "to see that
nothing should occur which would tend to provoke or excite the people to disturb the peace of the community or the
safety or order of the Government," did only the right thing under the circumstances....
Instead of being condemned or criticized, the respondent mayor should be praised and commended for having taken a
prompt, courageous, and firm stand towards the said Communist Party of the Philippines before the latter could do
more damage by its revolutionary propaganda, and by the seditious speeches and utterances of its members.(page
312)

7 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
Primicias v. Fugoso - In rejecting the Mayor's contention, the Court said that the right of the
applicant to a permit was subject only to the Mayor's "reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or
public places to be used for the purpose, with a view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of
the streets and public places by others, and to provide
adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder." It rejected the notion that "comfort and convenience in
the use of streets or parks [was] the standard of official action."(page 313)

Which rule is more in keeping with the spirit of the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful
assembly, and petition?
o Not answered. WHY?

SECTION 5.No LAW SHALL BE MADE RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING

THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. THE FREE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND
WORSHIP, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE, SHALL FOREVER BE ALLOWED. No RELIGIOUS
TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL OR POLITICAL RIGHTS.

No LAW SHALL BE MADE RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE
THEREOF. is the meat of the section 5. The non-establishment clause and free exercise rule.

Under Spanish constitution the Catholicism is the official State religion one of the effect of American constitutionalism
in the Philippines was the denial to the catholic church of the privilege of the position it held under Spanish
Sovereignty. The free exercise of religion was first guaranteed under 1935 constitution.
How did this provision guaranteed 1935 Philippine Constitution?
o It was guaranteed under section 10 of the Treaty of Paris which guarantee that the territories ceded to
the US by Spain shall be secured of a free exercise of religion. Another effect of the new system was
the elimination of any institution which savored of union of church and state. It became necessary to
draw a proper line between what were civil property interests of the Crown of Spain and religious
trusts of the Catholic church, and between civil functions of government officers and church functions
of members of religious organizations.
o The non-establishment clause and free exercise clause relate this section to art 2 section 6 of the
constitution.
What is the Basis for the free exercise clause.?
o At the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.
State cannot regulate human conscience.
o Reynolds v. United States'* adopted the rule that the free exercise clause completely insulated the
realm of belief from state action, leaving, however, religiously motivated action, including expression,
subject to police power.
o Cantwell v. Connecticut: The constitutional inhibition on legislation on the subject of
religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsionby law of the acceptance of any
creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such
religious organization or form of worship as the individ ual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On
the other hand, it
safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two
concepts freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things,
the second cannot be.

The absoluteness of the freedom to believe carries with it the corollary that the government, while it
may look into the good faith of a person, cannot inquire into a person's religious pretensions. "Heresy
8 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to
the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs." The moment, however, belief flows over into action, it
becomes subject to government regulation.

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. CITY OF MANILA

The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship
carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right can only be
justified like other restraints of freedom
of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the
State has the right to prevent."(page 334)

Gerona v. Secretary of Education (page 339)

But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road to travel. If
the exercise of said religious
belief clashes with the established institutions of society and with the law, then the former must yield and give
way to the latter. The Government steps in and either restrains said exercise or even prosecutes the one
exercising it.
Ebralinag vs. division superintendent of schools of cebu (page 342)
reversed it, for reasons already stated in the criticism of Gerona, saying that freedom of religion requires that
protesting members be exempted from the operation of the law.
AGLIPAY vs. RUIZ (NON establishment clause)
In effect, therefore, what non-establishment calls for is government neutrality in religious matters. Such
government neutrality may be summarized in four general propositions: (1) Government must not prefer one
religion over another or religion over irreligion because such preference would violate voluntarism and breed
dissension; (2) Government funds must not be applied to religious purposes because this too would violate
voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension; (3) Government action must not aid religion because this too can
violate voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension; ( 4 ) Government action must not result in excessive
entanglement with religion because this too can violate voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension.
The first important non-establishment case under the 1935 Constitution was in fact an application of the
neutrality principle. It involved a challenge made by the Philippine Independent Church to the constitutionality
of the issuance and sale of postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty-Third International Eucharistic
Congress of the Catholic Church.
AUSTRIA VS. NLRC
Austria v. NLRO dealt with a pastor of 28 years experience who could not account for church tithes
and offerings collected by his wife. He was dismissed. When the dismissal was upheld by the NLRC, Austria
challenged the jurisdiction of the NLRC saying that the matter was an ecclesiastical affair outside the
jurisdiction of the NLRC. The Court disposed of the objection saying that an ecclesiastical affair is "one that
concerns doctrine, creed or form or worship of the church,
or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the
government of the membership, and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of
membership." The Court said that what was involved in the case was relationship of the church as an
employer and the minister as an employee, a purely secular matter." It is purely secular and has no relation
whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church. The Court saw the matter as a pure
labor case.

What are the conditions for the exemption for realty taxes for religious property should be used.
Actually
Directly
Exclusively for the purposes of religion, charity, and or education.

9 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017
Relate to paragraph 3 section 28 of article 6. Page 358.
Tax exemption of religious property is one of them. Article VI, Section 28(3) says: "Charitable institutions,
churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational
purposes
shall be exempt from taxation.

What is the purpose for prohibiting religious test ?

TORCASO VS. WATKINS
The third sentence of Section 5, Article III says: "No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights." The purpose of this provision, which is but a corollary of the freedom and non-establishment
clause, is to render the government powerless "to restore the historically and constitutionally discredited
policy of probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to persons who have, or perhaps more
properly, profess to have a belief in some particular kind of religious concept."
For, indeed, to allow religious tests would have the effect of "formal or practical 'establishment' of particular
religious faiths ... with consequent burdens imposed on the
free exercise of the faiths of non-favored believers."

CAN the STATE compel a person to bear arms in defense of the country when bearing arms is contrary to the persons
belief?
- Answer it must be resolve through section 4, article 2 That a citizen has the duty to defend the country is
clear from Article I I , Section 4 , and from the former Article V, Section 1 of the 1973 Constitution. Defense
of one's country, however, is not limited to the bearing of arms. "Total war in its modem form dramatizes as
never before the great cooperative effort necessary for victory. The nuclear physicists who developed the
atomic bomb, the worker at his lathe, the seaman on cargo vessels, construction battalions, nurses,
engineers, litter bearers, doctors, chaplains-these, too, made essential contributions.

MAY the state support church social actions or social centers?

- while some activities of basic Christian communities and church social action centers might not materially
differ from those of barangay action groups or of government welfare agencies, in motivation and initial
inspiration at least church related activities are arguably religious and therefore should be jealously protected
by the free exercise clause; and since these same activities are also arguably nonreligious but social and
humanitarian, they can be the subject of state support without violating the non-establishment clause.
-
What are the requirement for government aid for helping social centers.?
- Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose
- a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
- the prohibition against excessive state entanglement with religion

ESTRADA vs. ESCRIPTOR

- The case was about a clerk of court who was living with a man without benefit of marriage. Her situation was
thought to be incompatible with her office in court and her dismissal from the service was being sought. The
Supreme Court remanded the case to the Office of the Court Administrator, and the Solicitor General was
ordered to intervene in the case. He was
- instructed: (a) to examine the sincerity and centrality of respondent's claimed religious belief and practice; (b)
to present evidence on the state's "compelling interest" to override respondent's religious belief and practice;
and (c) to show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondent's
religious freedom. On reconsideration, the clerk of court's right of the woman was upheld on the basis of
"benevolent neutrality."

10 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS
2017

11 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM, GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL
SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN