When can civil courts

intervene on
ecclesiastical matters
• While the civil courts will ordinarily leave ecclesiastical matters to church
authorities, they may however intervene when it is shown that they have
acted outside the scope of their authority or in a manner contrary to their
organic law and rules. Civil courts have jurisdiction to revise decisions on
ecclesiastical matters where it is necessary for settling the question of civil
and property rights, or when property rights are affected.
• Civil courts can intervene if a member is expelled without due process and a
property right is involved. (Fonacier v. CA and de los Reyes, G.R. No. L-
5917, January 28, 1955)
Ecclesiastical matters outside the province of
civil courts
• The amendments of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion, and
abandonment of faith or abjuration alleged by appellant, having to do with
faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule
of a church having reference to the power of excluding from the church
those allegedly unworthy of membership, are unquestionably ecclesiastical
matters which are outside the province of the civil courts.” (45 Am. Jur., 748-
752, 755.)
Where civil courts cannot interfere
• The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious
institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials,
and the laws and canons, of said institution/organization. It is not for the
courts to exercise control over church authorities in the performance of their
discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious
institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations.
• In the words of Justice Samuel F. Miller: … all who unite themselves to an
ecclesiastical body do so with an implied consent to submit to the Church
government and they are bound to submit to it. (Taruc, et al. v. De la Cruz, et
al., G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005)
No appeal from Church courts to Civil courts
• Church tribunals are better judges of the ecclesiastical law than civil courts
can ever be. When it appears that the whole controversy has once been
submitted by the parties to the ecclesiastical tribunals which the church itself
has organized for that purpose, the civil courts are justified in refusing to
proceed any further.
• The decision of the Church judicature is treated as a bar to the action, and as
good defense in law. To permit an appeal from Church courts to the civil
courts would “allow an appeal from the more learned tribunal in the law
which is less so.” (Watson vs. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1871) cited by Jorge
Coquia in Church and State Law and Relation p. 221)
Doctrine of Church Autonomy
• The doctrine provides the exceptions when secular courts cannot interfere in
church disputes. This landmark decision, promulgated nearly 150 years ago,
has been cited by numerous decisions of US courts. Even the Philippine
Supreme Court has cited the “Watson v. Jones” doctrine in the following
cases: Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil 417 (1955) and Taruc vs. Dela
Cruz, GR No. 144801, March 10, 2005.
• Briefly stated, the “Doctrine of Church Autonomy” says that secular courts
should not interfere when the church dispute touches upon matters of faith,
polity, discipline, canon law, or ecclesiastical relationships.
• This doctrine has caused courts to decline jurisdiction over six subject
matters related to religious institutions, including: 1) Church splits and the
resulting disputes over church property and ministry assignments. 2)Disputes
concerning the discipline of church members. 3) Disputes between ministers
and churches, 4) Claims arising from or related to church communications, 5)
Claims against clergy for malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty, and; 6)
Claims against churches or church officials for negligent hiring, assignment,
and supervision.
• The decisions of the US Supreme Court cited above are applicable here in
the Philippines because the freedom of religion clause of the US
Constitution is the basis of the same clause in our 1935, 1973 and 1987
Constitutions. (ibid.)
• While the civil courts will ordinarily leave ecclesiastical matters to church
authorities, they may however intervene when it is shown that they have
acted outside the scope of their authority or in a manner contrary to their
organic law and rules. Civil courts have jurisdiction to revise decisions on
ecclesiastical matters where it is necessary for settling the question of civil
and property rights, or when property rights are affected.
• Civil courts can intervene if a member is expelled without due process and a
property right is involved. (Fonacier v. CA and de los Reyes, G.R. No. L-
5917, January 28, 1955)
Ecclesiastical matters outside the province of
civil courts
• The amendments of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion, and
abandonment of faith or abjuration alleged by appellant, having to do with
faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule
of a church having reference to the power of excluding from the church
those allegedly unworthy of membership, are unquestionably ecclesiastical
matters which are outside the province of the civil courts.” (45 Am. Jur., 748-
752, 755.)
Where civil courts cannot interfere
• The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious
institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials,
and the laws and canons, of said institution/organization. It is not for the
courts to exercise control over church authorities in the performance of their
discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious
institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations.
• In the words of Justice Samuel F. Miller: … all who unite themselves to an
ecclesiastical body do so with an implied consent to submit to the Church
government and they are bound to submit to it. (Taruc, et al. v. De la Cruz, et
al., G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005)
No appeal from Church courts to Civil courts
• Church tribunals are better judges of the ecclesiastical law than civil courts
can ever be. When it appears that the whole controversy has once been
submitted by the parties to the ecclesiastical tribunals which the church itself
has organized for that purpose, the civil courts are justified in refusing to
proceed any further.
• The decision of the Church judicature is treated as a bar to the action, and as
good defense in law. To permit an appeal from Church courts to the civil
courts would “allow an appeal from the more learned tribunal in the law
which is less so.” (Watson vs. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1871) cited by Jorge
Coquia in Church and State Law and Relation p. 221)
Doctrine of Church Autonomy
• The doctrine provides the exceptions when secular courts cannot interfere in
church disputes. This landmark decision, promulgated nearly 150 years ago,
has been cited by numerous decisions of US courts. Even the Philippine
Supreme Court has cited the “Watson v. Jones” doctrine in the following
cases: Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil 417 (1955) and Taruc vs. Dela
Cruz, GR No. 144801, March 10, 2005.
• Briefly stated, the “Doctrine of Church Autonomy” says that secular courts
should not interfere when the church dispute touches upon matters of faith,
polity, discipline, canon law, or ecclesiastical relationships.
• This doctrine has caused courts to decline jurisdiction over six subject
matters related to religious institutions, including: 1) Church splits and the
resulting disputes over church property and ministry assignments. 2)Disputes
concerning the discipline of church members. 3) Disputes between ministers
and churches, 4) Claims arising from or related to church communications, 5)
Claims against clergy for malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty, and; 6)
Claims against churches or church officials for negligent hiring, assignment,
and supervision.
• The decisions of the US Supreme Court cited above are applicable here in
the Philippines because the freedom of religion clause of the US
Constitution is the basis of the same clause in our 1935, 1973 and 1987
Constitutions. (ibid.)