In the case of Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No.

45459, March 13, 1937, the Supreme Court

ruled that in the Philippines, the scene of religious intolerance and persecution, care should
be taken that at the stage of political development nothing is done by the Government or its
officials that may lead to the belief that the Government is taking sides or favoring a
particular religious sect or institution.

In the case of Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014, the Supreme Court
ruled to set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at
bar. One cannot deny that the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive influence on
the social and moral well being of this nation, specially the youth, hence, their proper and
just determination is an imperative need. This is in accordance with the well-entrenched
principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to
facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice,
must always be eschewed. Considering the close intimacy between “reproductive health”
and “responsible parenthood” which bears to the attainment of the goal of achieving
“sustainable human development” as stated under its terms, the Court finds no reason to
believe that Congress intentionally sought to deceive the public as to the contents of the
assailed legislation.

In the case of Gerona v. Honorable Secretary of Education, G.R. No. L-13954, August
12, 1959, the Supreme Court ruled that compliance with the non-discriminatory and
reasonable rules and regulations and school discipline, including observance of the flag
ceremony is a prerequisite to attendance in public schools and that for failure and refusal
to participate in the flag ceremony, petitioners were properly excluded and dismissed from
the public school they were attending. Filipino flag is not an image that requires religious
veneration, rather it is a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, of sovereignty, an
emblem of freedom, liberty and national unity, that the flag salute is not a religious
ceremony but an act and profession of love and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the
fatherland which the flag stands for.

In the case of Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R. No.
95770, March 1, 1993, the Supreme Court ruled that forcing a small religious group,
through the iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious
beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted
authorities. Petitioners have the right under our Constitution to refuse to salute the
Philippine flag on account of their religious beliefs.

In the case of Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006, the Supreme
Court ruled that the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred
position in the hierarchy of rights. The state’s broad interest in protecting the institutions
of marriage and the family is not a compelling interest enforcing the concubinage charges.
The Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause.
 In the case of Garces v. Estenzo,G.R. No. L-53487, May 25, 1981, the Supreme Court
ruled that the momentous issues of separation of church and state, freedom of religion and
the use of public money to favor any sector church are not involved at all in this case even
remotely or indirectly. If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and
having a patron saint for the barrio, then any activity intended to facilitate the worship of
the patron saint cannot be branded as illegal.

In the case of Pamil v. Teleron, G.R. No. L-34854, November 20, 1978, the Supreme
Court ruled that the issue proved to have divided them because it failed to obtain the
majority vote of eight which is needed in order to declare Section 2175 of the RAC to be
unconstitutional. For this, the petition filed must be granted and the decision of the lower
court must be reversed and set aside. Under the 1935 Constitution, “No religious test shall
be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.” If the doctrine of constitutional
supremacy is to be maintained, then Section 2175 shall not prevail, thus, an ecclesiastic
may run for elective office.

In the case of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, G.R. No. L-25246,
September 12, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that Religious freedom, although not
unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty and has a preferred position in the
hierarchy of values. Contractual rights, therefore, must yield to freedom of religion. It is
only where unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the
security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be
justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.

In the case of Santiago Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-5917, January 28,
1955, the Supreme Court, ruled that Supreme Bishop, could act alone pursuant to the
constitution of the church wherein it is provided that the Supreme Bishop is the supreme
head of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente and as such shall have full powers to impose the
penalties of dismissal, confinement in the seminary, suspension, fine, transfer, etc. which,
without contravening the penal laws of the constituted government, can be imposed upon
the bishops, and that said power can be exercised even without the intervention of the
Supreme Council, cannot be entertained in the light of the very provisions of the
constitution of the church, it appearing that the alleged power of the Supreme Bishop
under the constitution is not all-embracing but limited and, in any event, the final action
shall be taken by the Supreme Council.

From the above cases, the Supreme Court held that Religion is a profession of faith to an active
power that binds and elevates man to his Creator (Aglipay case), issues raised above have
potentially pervasive influence on the social and moral well being of nation, specially the
youth, hence, their proper and just determination is an imperative need (Imbong Case).
Religious freedom (Gerona Case), respect from small religious group (Ebralinag case), free
exercise of religion (Estrada case), separation of church and state (Garces case) as
characterized as no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights
(Pamil case)

fundamental personal right and liberty and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of
values (Fonacier Case).