2/19/2017 G.R.No.

L68828

TodayisSunday,February19,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L68828March27,1985

RELIGERMAN,RAMONPEDROSA,TIRSOSANTILLAN,JR.,MA.LUISAANDAL,NIEVAMALINIS,RICARDO
LAVIA,CESARCORTES,DANILOREYES,JOSEREYES,JOSEFINAMATE,LOURDESCALMA,MILDRED
JUAN,OLIVEGUANZON,FERNANDOCOCHICO,SHERMANCID,NAZARENOBENTULAN,ROSLINA
DONAIRE,MARIOMARTINEZ,BEATRIZTEYLAN,ANGELINALAPID,ROSEMARIEFLORES,DANIELVAN
SOTO,EDGARDOMERCADER,NELLYAGUSTIN,MARILYMAGCALAS,DAVIDCHAN,ARSENIO
SALANSANG,NELSONDEGUZMAN,MARCIANOARANETA,CESARMENESES,DIONISIORELLOSA,
MARIOSANTIAGO,SEVERINOSANTOS,LEONORASANTOS,NIMFADORONILLA,FLORENCEGUINTO,
ROSALINAMANANSALA,PERCIVALOSTONAL,TOMMYMACARANAS,ROGERNICANDRO,petitioners,
vs.
GEN.SANTIAGOBARANGANandMA.JORISABELOLARIOSA,respondents.

ESCOLIN,*J.:

Invoking their constitutional freedom to religious worship and locomotion, petitioners seek the issuance of [1] a
writofmandamustocompelrespondentstoallowthemtoenterandprayinsideSt.JudeChapellocatedatJ.P.
LaurelStreet,Manilaand[2]awritofinjunctiontoenjoinrespondentsfrompreventingthemfromgettingintoand
prayinginsaidchurch.

Thefactstobeconsideredarethefollowing:

Atabout5:00intheafternoonofOctober2,1984,petitioners,composedofabout50businessmen,studentsand
office employees converged at J.P. Laurel Street, Manila, for the ostensible purpose of hearing Mass at the St.
Jude Chapel which adjoins the Malacaang grounds located in the same street. Wearing the now familiar
inscribed yellow Tshirts, they started to march down said street with raised clenched fists 1 and shouts of anti
governmentinvectives.Alongtheway,however,theywerebarredbyrespondentMajorlsabeloLariosa,uponordersofhis
superiorandcorespondentGen.SantiagoBarangan,fromproceedinganyfurther,onthegroundthatSt.JudeChapelwas
located within the Malacaang security area. When petitioners' protestations and pleas to allow them to get inside the
churchprovedunavailing,theydecidedtoleave.However,becauseoftheallegedwarninggiventhembyrespondentMajor
Lariosathatanysimilarattemptbypetitionerstoenterthechurchinthefuturewouldlikewisebeprevented,petitionerstook
thispresentrecourse.

Petitioners'allegedpurposeinconvergingatJ.P.LaurelStreetwastoprayandhearmassatSt.Judechurch.At
thehearingofthispetition,respondentsassuredpetitionersandtheCourtthattheyhaveneverrestricted,andwill
neverrestrict,anypersonorpersonsfromenteringandworshippingatsaidchurch.Theymaintain,however,that
petitioners' intention was not really to perform an act of religious worship, but to conduct an antigovernment
demonstrationataplaceclosetotheveryresidenceandofficesofthePresidentoftheRepublic.Respondents
further lament petitioners' attempt to disguise their true motive with a ritual as sacred and solemn as the Holy
SacrificeoftheMass.Undoubtedly,theyellowTshirtswornbysomeofthemarchers,theirraisedclenchedfists,
and chants of antigovernment slogans strongly tend to substantiate respondents allegation. Thus, J.P. Fenix,
commentingonthemotiveofpetitioners'massactionofOctober2,1984,wrotethefollowinginhisarticleentitled
"MissionImpossible",publishedintheOctober1218,1984issueofthe"Mr.&Mrs."magazine:

Theycouldn'tgothroughMendiolaBridge,andsotheydaredtogetevenclosertotheheartofthe
matter.ButasinMendiola,thebarbedwirebarricadesandthearrayofsheetmetalshieldsgotin
thewayofthemembersoftheAugustTwentyOneMovement(ATOM)astheytriedlastOctober2to
get to the pearly gates of power via the St. Jude Chapel on Laurel St. St. Jude happens to be a
neighborofPresidentMarcos,his(sic)chapelbeingadjacenttoMalacaang....

The foregoing cannot but cast serious doubts on the sincerity and good faith of petitioners in invoking the
constitutionalguaranteeoffreedomofreligiousworshipandoflocomotion.Whileitisbeyonddebatethatevery
citizenhastheundeniableandinviolablerighttoreligiousfreedom,theexercisethereof,andofallfundamental
rightsforthatmatter,mustbedoneingoodfaith.AsArticle19oftheCivilCodeadmonishes:"Everypersonmust
intheexerciseofhisrightsandintheperformanceofhisduties...observehonestyandgoodfaith."

Even assuming that petitioners' claim to the free exercise of religion is genuine and valid, still respondents
reaction to the October 2, 1984 mass action may not be characterized as violative of the freedom of religious
worship. Since 1972, when mobs of demonstrators crashed through the Malacaang gates and scaled its
perimeterfence,theusebythepublicofJ.P.LaurelStreetandthestreetsapproachingithavebeenrestricted.
While travel to and from the affected thoroughfares has not been absolutely prohibited, passersby have been
subjected to courteous, unobtrusive security checks. The reasonableness of this restriction is readily perceived
andappreciatedifitisconsideredthatthesameisdesignedtoprotectthelivesofthePresidentandhisfamily,as
wellasothergovernmentofficials,diplomatsandforeigngueststransactingbusinesswithMalacaang.Theneed

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 1/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

to secure the safety of heads of state and other government officials cannot be overemphasized. The threat to
their lives and safety is constant, real and felt throughout the world. Vivid illustrations of this grave and serious
problemarethegruesomeassassinations,kidnappingsandotheractsofviolenceandterrorismthathavebeen
perpetratedagainstheadsofstateandotherpublicofficersofforeignnations.

SaidrestrictionismoreoverintendedtosecuretheseveralexecutiveofficeswithintheMalacaanggroundsfrom
possible external attacks and disturbances. These offices include communications facilities that link the central
governmenttoallplacesintheland.Unquestionably,therestrictionimposedisnecessarytomaintainthesmooth
functioningoftheexecutivebranchofthegovernment,whichpetitioners'massactionwouldcertainlydisrupt.

FreedomofreligiousworshipisguaranteedunderSection8,ArticleIVofthe1973Constitution,thus:

Nolawshallbemaderespectinganestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.
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
politicalrights.

Elucidatingonthemeaningandscopeoffreedomofreligion,theU.S.SupremeCourtinCantwellv.Connecticut 2
said:

Theconstitutionalinhibitiononlegislationonthesubjectofreligionhasadoubleaspect.Ontheone
hand, it forestalls compulsion by 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
worshipastheindividualmaychoosecannotberestrictedbylaw.Ontheotherhand,itsafeguards
the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the amendment embraces two concepts
freedomtobelieveandfreedomtoact.Thefirstisabsolute,butinthenatureofthings,thesecond
cannotbe.

Inthecaseatbar,petitionersarenotdeniedorrestrainedoftheirfreedomofbelieforchoiceoftheirreligion,but
onlyinthemannerbywhichtheyhadattemptedtotranslatethesameintoaction.Thiscurtailmentisinaccord
withthepronouncementofthisCourtinGeronav.SecretaryofEducation,3thus:

Therealmofbeliefandcreedisinfiniteandlimitlessboundedonlybyone'simaginationandthought.
Soisthefreedomofbelief,includingreligiousbelief,limitlessandwithoutbounds.Onemaybelieve
inmostanything,howeverstrange,bizarreandunreasonablethesamemayappeartoothers,even
hereticalwhenweighedinthescalesoforthodoxyordoctrinalstandards.Butbetweenthefreedom
ofbeliefandtheexerciseofsaidbelief,thereisquiteastretchofroadtotravel.Iftheexerciseofsaid
religious belief clashes with the established institutions of society and with the law, then the former
mustyieldandgivewaytothelatter.Thegovernmentstepsinandeitherrestrainssaidexerciseor
evenprosecutestheoneexercisingit.(Emphasissupplied)

Petitioners likewise invoke their freedom of locomotion under Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution, which
provides:

The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or
whennecessaryintheinterestofnationalsecurity,publicsafety,orpublichealth.

SufficeittosaythattherestrictionimposedontheuseofJ.P.LaurelStreet,thewisdomandreasonablenessof
whichhavealreadybeendiscussed,isallowedunderthefundamentallaw,thesamehavingbeenestablishedin
theinterestofnationalsecurity.

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebydismissed.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

Fernando,C.J.,Concepcion,Jr.,Plana,DelaFuenteandCuevas,JJ.,concur.

Aquino,J.,concurintheresult.

Alampay,J.,tooknopart.

SeparateOpinions

FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring:

Concurring in the result and dissenting insofar as the opinion fails to declare that the freedom of exercise of
religious profession and worship can only be limited by the existence of a clear and present danger of a
substantiveevil.Thereis,forhim,aneedforsuchastatementfortheguidanceofthepartiesaswellasofthe
generalpublic.

1. The prayer of this petition reads as follows: "After hearing, a writ of mandamus/injunction issue against
respondentscommanding,them(i)toallowhereinpetitionerstoenterandprayattheSt.JudechurchonFriday,
October 12, 1984 at or about 6:00 P.M. or on any date and time thereafter and (ii) to refrain from preventing
hereinpetitionersfrom[so]enteringandprayinginsidetheSt.JudeChurch." 1Clearly,thepleatoenterandprayat

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 2/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828
suchchurchonFriday,October12,1984ismootandacademic.Thereisinaddition,however,apleafortheinjunctiverelief
topreventrespondentsfrominterferingwithpetitionersexercisingtheirconstitutionalrighttoattendmassatsuchchurchin
thefuture.Thatistoinvokefreedomofreligionasapreferredrightofundoubtedprimacy. 2Specificallypriorrestraintisrule
outexceptunderaclearshowingthatitsexercisewouldbeattendedbyaclearandpresentdangerofsubstantiveevil.That
issettledlawforrightsembracedinfreedomofexpressionandbelief,whethersecularandreligiousandmuchmoresoin
thecaseofthelatter.OurunanimousrulinginJ.B.L.Reyesv.Bagatsing3standsforsuchaproposition.

2. Why a concurrence in the result then? I am led to do so in view of the clear manifestation by the Solicitor
General that such a right would be accorded the fullest respect with due regard to the countervailing
considerationofavoidingdangertothelivesofthePresidentandhisfamily.Itislikewiseinkeepingwiththeletter
andspiritoftheConstitutionwhen,asnotedintheseparateopinionofJusticeTeehankee,"petitionershavegiven
fullassuranceoftheirpeacefulintentions.Theywerewalkingandwouldwalkalongthesidewalks.Theydidnot
andwillnotholdanydemonstrations.Theywereandareunarmed,andwereandarewillingtobesearchedand
havepledgedpeacefulandorderlybehaviour." 4Therebeingsuchassurances,amorecategoricalpronouncementon
thefullscopeoftherighttofreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionandworshipwillhavetowaitanotherday.

3. It may not be amiss to state that at the hearing of this petition, while counsel for petitioners, admittedly with
fluency and even with eloquence, was discoursing with denunciatory fervor on the flagrant disregard of this
constitutional right, the suggestion was made that the Court will welcome an analysis of pertinent constitutional
lawdecisionsbothfromthePhilippinesandtheUnitedStates.Ithardlyelicited,however,aresponsethatcouldbe
consideredasadequate.Attheveryleast,therecouldhavebeenreferencetothewellknowndistinctionbetween
religious belief, which is absolute, and its expression which, while subject to restriction, does not lose its
fundamentalcharacter. 5 It is worth recalling that in one of the latest of such American cases, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 6 a
1972 decision, the opinion of Chief Justice Burger referred to the nonestablishment clause of the First Amendment of the
American Constitutionthe source of our constitutional provisionas "buttressing this fundamental right" 7 to the free
exercise of religious profession and worship. It is precisely to avoid any discrimination or preference in favor of any other
religion that there is such a prohibition. Parenthetically, it may be observed that the nonestablishment clause in the
Philippines which in the United States is the basis for the concept of separation of church and state is made much more
explicit by this constitutional command: "The separation of church and state shall be inviolable." 8 The point, I wish to
make, however, is that had there been no clear manifestation by both petitioners and respondents that the right to attend
massatSt.Jude'sChurchwouldberespected,evenifitislocatedinasecurityareabutwithdueprecautionarymeasures
taken to avoid infiltration by subversive elements, this Court would have been called upon to rule and, if possible, to
delineatewithsomedegreeofprecisionthescopeofsucharighttofreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionand
worship.

4.Sufficeitthenforthepresenttorelyonthestandardoftheclearandpresentdangerprincipleasthecontrolling
doctrine to justify any restriction on the freedom of the exercise of religious profession and worship without
discriminationorpreference.IamfreedfromthenecessityofreferringtospecificparagraphsoftheJ.B.L.Reyes
decision, where I was singularly fortunate in obtaining the unanimous approval of my brethren in my ponencia.
The dissent of Justice Teehankee in this case quotes its relevant portions. May I just add that there is an
impermissiblerestrictionunlesstheevilapprehended,accordingtoJusticeBrandeis,outsideofitsbeingserious
itissointhiscasemustlikewisebeimminent.9Fromtheverywordingoftheclearandpresentdangerprinciple,the
question, to follow Holmes, who was the author of this concept, is "one of proximity and degree." 10 Necessarily in each
andeveryinstancewhereitisinvoked,theremustbethemostcarefulscrutinyoftheenvironmentalfactsandconditions.
Absentthatelement,thisCourtcannotgivetheimprimatur,ofitsapproval.

5.ItwouldbeanunwarranteddeparturethenfromwhathasbeenunanimouslyheldintheJ.B.L.Reyesdecision
ifonsuchabasicrightasreligiousfreedomclearlythemostfundamentalandthusentitledtothehighestpriority
amonghumanrights,involvingasitdoestherelationshipofmantohisCreatorthisCourtwillbelessvigilantin
upholding any rightful claim. More than ever, in times of stressand much more so in times of crisisit is that
deeplyheldfaiththataffordssolaceandcomfortifnotforeveryoneatleastforthemajorityofmankind.Without
thatfaith,man'sveryexistenceisdevoidofmeaning,bereftofsignificance.

6.Myvote,therefore,inconcurringintheresultistobeviewedinthatlight.IfeelIcoulddosobecauseofthis
excerptfromtheopinionofJusticeEscolin:"Petitioners'allegedpurposeinconvergingatJ.P.LaurelStreetwas
toprayandhearmassatSt.JudeChurch.Atthehearingofthispetition,respondentsassuredpetitionersandthe
Courtthattheyhaveneverrestricted,andwillneverrestrictanypersonorpersonsfromenteringandworshipping
atsaidchurch."11Independentlyofanyjudgmentofthepastconductof,itbearsrepeatingthatthepromisemadebythe
respondents of not restricting petitioners from entering and worshipping at St. Jude Church is a guarantee that no such
impermissiblerestraintofreligiousfreedomwouldthereafterbeattempted.Iampreparedtoaccordgoodfaithtobothparties
even if on the occasion that presented itself on October 2, 1984 there could be a mistake of judgment on the part of
respondents.

7.ItismyreadingthenofthemainopinionaswellasoftheseparateopinionsinthiscasethattheCourtisunited
intheviewthatthefreeexerciseofreligiousprofessionandworshipistobeaccordedtheamplestprotection.The
dismissal of the petition, to my mind, is not a bar to the application hereafter of the clear and present danger
principle.IfnomentionwasmadeintheopinionoftheCourtofsuchcontrollingdoctrineitismyperceptionthatit
is due, as has been pointed out, to the assurances made by the parties to the controversy that the right to the
freeexerciseofreligiousprofessionandworshipwillbeaccordedthefullestrespect.Hencethefailuretomake
suchexplicitaffirmation.

8.Noristhedismissalofthepetitionabartosuchaconclusion.Itisnolongerunorthodoxinthisjurisdictionfor
this Court to make a pronouncement of controlling force even if a case were dismissed for being moot and
academic.ItcantraceitsorigintothelandmarkopinionofJusticeMalcolminAlejandrinov.Quezon.12 The latest
manifestationofsuchwellacceptedpracticeistheFebruary,1985decisionofSalongav.Pao.13Moreover,intheopinion
of Justice Gutierrez, Jr., 14 reference was made to the three other cases of Camara v. Enage, 15 Aquino Jr. v. Enrile, 16
and Gonzales v. Marcos, 17 where the Court enunciated doctrines that could govern future controversies. It is for me, a
causeforregretthattheCourthasnotdonesointhiscase.Nonetheless,implicitinthepluralityopinionofJusticeEscolin

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 3/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828
andtoagreaterdegreeintheseparateopinionsofJusticesRelovaandGutierrezisthedeepconcernforsafeguardingthe
constitutional right to free exercise of religious profession and worship. As for the other separate opinions, its being a
preferredrighttoberestrictedonlyiftherebesatisfactoryproofofaclearandpresentdangerofasubstantiveevilisquite
manifest.

TEEHANKEE,J.,dissenting:

I vote to grant the petition on the ground that the right of free worship and movement is a preferred right that
enjoys precedence and primacy and is not subject to prior restraint except where there exists the clear and
presentdangerofasubstantiveevilsoughttobeprevented.Therewasandismanifestlynosuchdangerinthis
case.

The majority judgment dismisses the petition of the forty (40) hereinabovenamed petitioners (composed of
"businessmen,bankers,professionals,studentsandofficeemployees" 1),who,invokingtheirconstitutionalfreedom
ofworshipandmovement,haveprayedthatawritofmandamus/injunctionissuefromthisCourtagainstrespondentsChief
ofthePresidentialSecurityCommandandhissubordinatesatMalacaang,directingthem"(1)toallowhereinpetitionersto
enterandprayattheSt.JudeChurchonFriday,October12,1984atorabout6:00P.M.oronanydateandtimethereafter
and(2)torefrainfrompreventinghereinpetitionersfrom[so]enteringandprayinginsideSt.JudeChurch."

As aptly and concisely stated in the Solicitor General's comment, "(T)he issue petitioners present is whether
respondentPresidentialSecurityCommandofficershave,inpreventingpetitioners'groupfromproceedingdown
J.P.LaurelStreetonOctober2violatedtheirfreedomofworshipandmovement.Giventhattherehasbeensuch
aviolation,petitionerswantsimilaractsofrespondentsinthefutureenjoined."2

On October 2, 1984 at about 5:00 p.m., the petitioners and their companions totalling about fifty (50) to eighty
(80)personshadwalkedalongthesidewalkinsmallgroupstowardstheSt.JudeChurchatJ.P.LaurelStreet,
Manilatohearaspecialmassthattheyhadsponsored"forthemainpurposeofprayingtoGodthroughSt.Jude
toputanendtoviolence"3andforthosewhowereinjuredduringtheSeptember22and27,1984rallydispersalsandthe
lonefatalityOsiasAlcala.PeitionerReliGerman,aleaderoftheATOM(August21Movement),waswearingayellowTshirt
and he and those lined up after him were physically prevented from proceeding farther on the ground that the church was
located within the Malacaang security area. Earlier, another ATOM leader Ramon Pedrosa who was wearing a barong
tagaloghadgonethroughunnoticedtothechurchwithsometenothers. 4 Petitioners' pleas with respondent Lariosa to be
allowed their right of worship and religion were unheeded. They then knelt on the pavement in front of the barricade and
prayed the holy Rosary. Afterwards, they sang Bayan ko with clenched fists of protest against the violation of their rights
and thereafter dispersed peacefully. 5 Having been then warned that any further attempts on their part to enter the church
would be similarly barred, they filed the petition at bar, which was heard and submitted for resolution on October 16, 1984
(renderingmoottheirprayertoenterthechurchonOctober12,1984butnotastoanyopensubsequentdate,asprayedfor).

AbriefrestatementoftheapplicableconstitutionalprinciplesassetforthinthelandmarkcaseofJ.B.LReyesvs.
Bagatsing6shouldguideusinresolvingtheissues.

1.Therighttofreelyexerciseone'sreligionisguaranteedinSection8ofourBillofRights. 7 Freedom of worship,

alongsidewithfreedomofexpressionandspeechandpeaceableassembly"alongwiththeotherintellectualfreedoms,are
highlyrankedinourschemeofconstitutionalvalues.Itcannotbetoostronglystressedthatonthejudiciaryevenmoreso
than on the other departmentsrests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such
preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitiously
termedbyJusticeHolmes'asthesovereignprerogativeofjudgment.'Nonetheless,thepresumptionmustbetoinclinethe
weightofthescalesofjusticeonthesideofsuchrights,enjoyingastheydoprecedenceandprimacy."8

2.Inthefreeexerciseofsuchpreferredrights,thereistobenopriorrestraintalthoughtheremaybesubsequent
punishmentofanyillegalactscommittedduringtheexerciseofsuchbasicrights.Thesolejustificationforaprior
restraint or limitation on the exercise of these basic rights is the existence of a grave and present danger of a
character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other
legitimatepublicinterest,thattheStatehasaright(andduty)toprevent.9

3. The burden to show the existence of grave and imminent danger that would justify prior restraint and bar a
group of persons from entering the church of their choice for prayer and worship lies on the military or police
officials who would so physically restrain them. Indeed, there is no precedent in this time and age where
churchgoers whose right of free exercise of their religion is recognized have been physically prevented from
enteringtheirchurchongroundsofnationalsecurity.Ontheotherhand,itdoesnotliewithinthecompentence
nor authority of such officials to demand of churchgoers that they show and establish their "sincerity and good
faith . . . . in invoking the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious worship and of locomotion" as a pre
condition,asseemstobethethrustofthemajoritydecision. 10Noristhereanyburdenonthechurchgoertomake"a
satisfactoryshowingofaclaimdeeplyrootedinreligiousconviction"beforehemayworshipatthechurchofhischoiceas
appearstobethebasisofJusticeGutierrez'concurringopinionfordismissalofthepetition.Theexerciseofsuchbasicand
sacredrightswouldbetootenuousiftheyweremadetodependonthesnapjudgmentanddispositionofsuchofficialsasto
one'sgoodfaithandhisattire.Infact,Article132oftheRevisedPenalCodepenalizespublicofficersandemployeeswho
"preventordisturbtheceremoniesormanifestationsofanyreligion"whileArticle32oftheCivilCodegrantsanindependent
cause of action for moral and exemplary damages and "for other relief" against such officials or employees or private
individuals "who directly or indirectly obstruct, defeat, violate or in any manner impede or impair (the) freedom of religion
(and)freedomofspeech"ofanyperson.

4.Goodfaithonbothsidesisandmustbepresumed.Thus,petitioners'manifestationsoftheirsincereintention
asChristianstogathertogetherinprayeratSt.JudeChurchwhoisknownasthePatronoftheImpossibleshould
be taken in good faith. It would seem that no court petition should be necessary to enable a group of persons
suchaspetitionerstofreelyproceedandenterachurchoftheirreligionandchoiceandthereinhearmassand
say their prayers. We are basically a people of peace who believe in the power of prayer and pray silently for
God'sguidanceandcompassionandthatpeaceandjusticemayreignintheland.ManyrecalltheLord'spromise
toSolomonthat"ifmypeoplewhobearmynamehumblethemselvesandprayandseekmypresenceandturn

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 4/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

from their wicked ways, I myself will hear from Heaven and forgive their sins and restore their land." 11
Respondents' acts of barring petitioners from the Malacaang security perimeter and thereby preventing their entering and
prayingattheSt.JudeChurchshouldlikewisebetakenasingoodfaithintheirzealtoavoidanyuntowarddisturbanceor
developmentinthearea.But"uncontrolledofficialsuppressionoftheprivilegecannotbemadeasubstituteforthedutyto
maintainorderinconnectionwiththeexerciseoftheright."12

5.Overandaboveall,publicofficialsshouldeverbeguidedbythetestamentoverhalfacenturyagoofthelate
JusticeJoseAbadSantosinhisdissentingopinioninPeoplevs.Rubio13thatthe"commendablezeal..ifallowedto
override constitutional limitations would become 'obnoxious to fundamental principles of liberty.' And if we are to be saved
from the sad experiences of some countries which have constitutions only in name, we must insist that governmental
authority be exercised within constitutional limits for, after all, what matters is not so much what the people write in their
constitutionsasthespiritinwhichtheyobservetheirprovisions."Torequirethecitizenateverysteptoasserthisrightsand
togotocourtistorenderillusoryhisrights.

ThelateChiefJusticeRicardoParas'injunctioninhisconcurringopinioninPrimiciasvs.Fuguso,14citingthe1907
seditioncaseofU.S.vs.Apurado15thatinstancesof"disorderlyconductbyindividualmembersofacrowd[benotseized]
asanexcusetocharacterizetheassemblyasaseditiousandtumultuousrisingagainsttheauthorities,mutatis mutandis,
isfullyapplicablehere,thus:"Butiftheprosecutionbepermittedtoseizeuponeveryinstanceofsuchdisorderlyconduct
byindividualmembersofacrowdasanexcusetocharacterizetheassemblyasaseditiousandtumultuousrisingagainst
theauthorities,thentherighttoassembleandtopetitionforredressofgrievanceswouldbecomeadelusionandsnareand
the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceable manner would expose an those who
tookpartthereintotheseverestandmostunmeritedpunishment,ifthepurposeswhichtheysoughttoattaindidnothappen
to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty
individualsshouldbesoughtoutandpunishedtherefor."16

Applyingtheabovesettledstandardsandprinciplestotheissueatbar,respondents'actofpreventingpetitioners
fromproceedingdownJ.P.LaurelStreetonOctober2,1984toattendtheirspecialmassatSt.JudeChurchwas
notjustifiedandthisCourtmustaccordinglygrantthepetitionandenjoinsimilaractsofrespondentsinthefuture.
Therewasnocallforsuchpriorrestraint.RespondentsthemselvesintheSolicitorGeneral'scommentadmitthat
"true,therewereonlyabout80personsinpetitioners'grouponOctober2andthisnumbercouldhardlyposethe
dangerfeared,"butexpressedthefearthatpetitioners'rankscouldwithinhoursreachhundredsifnotthousands
and"peacefuldispersalbecomesimpossibleasinrecentdemonstrationsandrallies." 17 Respondents were in full
control and there is no question as to the capability of the security forces to ward off and stop any untoward move. They
hadplacedanadvancecheckpointasfarbackastheSta.MesaRotondaandcouldstoptheflowofpeopleinthechurchif
theydeemeditunmanageable.Theredefinitelywasnoclearandpresentdangerofanyseriouseviltopublicsafetyorthe
securityofMalacaang.ThemajoritydecisionandrespondentshavereliedheavilyontheOctober1218,1984issueofMr.
&Ms.magazine,particularlyonaninterpretivearticlewrittenaftertheeventbystaffmemberJ.P.Fenixfortheirconclusion
that petitioners' objective on October 2, 1984 was not "innocently to worship at St. Jude" 18 but to "conduct an anti
governmentdemonstrationataplaceclosetotheveryresidenceandofficesofthePresident." 19These conjectures were
categoricallydeniedbypetitionersatthehearing,supra,andwerenotrebutted.Thesaidarticleitselfcitedinthedecisionas
"castingseriousdoubtsonthesincerityandgoodfaithininvokingtheconstitutionalguarantyoffreedomofreligiousworship
andlocomotion"showedthegovernmenttroopssmilingandingoodformandhumor,andwithtruncheonsraised,"readyand
waitingforanyuntowardincident."Atanyrate,petitionershavegivenfullassuranceoftheirpeacefulintentions.Theywere
walking and would walk along the sidewalks. They did not and will not hold any demonstrations. They were and are
unarmed,andwereandarewillingtobesearchedandhavepledgedpeacefulandorderlybehavior.

Themajority'sdismissalofthepetitiononthegroundthattherestrictionimposedbyrespondentswas"necessary
tomaintainthesmoothfunctionsoftheexecutivebranchofthegovernmentwhichpetitioners'massactionwould
certainly disrupt" and that such prior restraint was not violative of petitioners' constitutional rights of freedom of
religiousworshipandmovement"havingbeenestablishedintheinterestofnationalSecurity," 20 manifestly is not
inaccordwiththeapplicableestablishedstandardsandprinciples.

MAKASIAR,J.,dissenting:

The petitioners gave the assurance that they are marching towards St. Jude's Church only for the purpose of
prayingorattendingmassthereinthattheywereandaregoingtomarchinanorderlymannerwithoutblocking
thetrafficandwiththemarshalspolicingandIdentifyingthemarchersthattheyarenotarmedandarenotgoing
to be armed with any kind of weapon and that they are willing to be frisked. These are practically the same
assurancesmadebythepetitionersinthecaseofReyesvs.Bagatsing(125SCRA553,November9,1983)and
bythepetitionerswhomarchedfromEspaaRotondatoLiwasangBonifaciosometimeinSeptember,1984.

The petitioners likewise manifested that on October 2, 1984 after they entered the premises of the church the
parishpriestinvitedthemtoprayerwithoutallowingthemtodemonstrateinanymannerordeliveranyspeeches.

On the other hand, respondents in charge of the security of Malacaang and its immediate environs, including
J.P. Laurel Street, which is the only street going direct to St. Jude's Church which is so close to Malacaang,
likewise assured that they are not going to block or stop petitioners as long as they march peacefully and their
realpurposeisjusttohearmassinsideSt.Jude'sChurch.Respondentsortheiragentscanfriskpetitionersfor
anyconcealedweapon.

TheirwearingyellowTshirtsandclothingandbearingyellowemblemsorbanners,areformsofexpressionwhich
arealsoprotectedbytheconstitutionalguaranteesoffreedomofexpressioningeneral,andreligiousfreedomin
particular. The fact that most, if not all, of them are not residents of Sampaloc or the neighborhood around St.
Jude's Church, should not impair their credibility as to their true intentions because St. Jude's Church, to the
believersordevotees,istheonlychurchinMetroManilaespeciallydedicatedtosupplicationsfortherealization
ofimpossiblehopesanddreams.

Withtheassurancesaforestatedgivenbybothpetitionersandrespondents,thereisnoclearandpresentdanger
to public peace and order or to the security of persons within the premises of Malacaang and the adjacent

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 5/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

areas,astherespondentshaveadoptedmeasuresandarepreparedtoinsureagainstanypublicdisturbanceor
violence.

Hence,thepetitionshouldbegranted.

ABADSANTOS,J.,dissenting:

TheCourttookabigstepforwardintheWEFORUMcase(G.R.No.64261,Dec.26,1984).Ithastakenanother
stepbutthistimeintheotherdirection.Inmartiallawjargonitisabackslider.

Weareaskedtogivemeaningtotheconstitutionalguaranteethat,"Thefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligious
professionandworship,withoutdiscriminationorpreference,shallforeverbeallowed."(Art.IV,Sec.8.)

We have here a group of people. It may be conceded that Reli German, Ramon Pedrosa and company are
"oppositionminded."TheywantedtogoonfoottoSt.JudeChapeladjacenttotheMalacaangcompoundand
theretoprayandhearmass.Itmaybeassumedthattheyintendedtoprayforthefullrestorationofthecivilrights
oftheFilipinopeople.Buttheywerepreventedbytherespondentswhocontendedthattheirrealpurposewasto
demonstrate against the President of the Republic. In my opinion it is highly presumptuous for both the
respondentsandthisCourttoattributeunstatedandunadmittedmotivestothepetitioners.Thepetitionerssaid
thattheywantedtoprayandhearmass.Whycan'tgoodfaithbeaccordedtotheminthelightoftheconstitutional
provisionthatthefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionandworshipshallforeverbeallowed?Itis
unthinkable that they would conduct an antigovernment demonstration in the hallowed premises of St. Jude
Chapelandtherebydefileit.Iftheyraisedtheirfistsinprotestandshoutedinvectivesitwasonlyaftertheyhad
beenarbitrarilybarredfromgoingtothechapel.SothepetitionerssaidduringthehearingandIbelievethem.

Trueitisthatthefreeexerciseofreligioncanberestrainedundertheclearandpresentdangerprinciple.ButIfail
toperceivethepresenceofanycleardangertothesecurityofMalacaangduetotheactionofthepetitioners.
Thedangerexistedonlyinthefertilemindsoftheoverzealousguardiansofthecomplexwhichisprotectedbya
stoutsteelfence.

Ivotetograntthepetition.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.,dissenting:

Ivotetoaccordtopetitionerstheirrighttofreedomofworship.

One of the basic and fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution is the free exercise and enjoyment of
religiousprofessionandworship(Section8,Art.IV,1973Constitution)."Forfreedomofreligiousexpression,the
Constitution assures generous immunity, unless it can be shown that there is a clear and present danger of a
substantiveevilwhichtheStatehastherighttoprevent"(E.M.FernandoonTheBillofRights,SecondEdition,p.
198).

TheactofpetitionersinconvergingatJ.P.LaurelStreet,majorityofwhomwerewearingyellowTshirts,marching
towards St. Jude Chapel, there to hear Mass, shouting antiGovernment invectives with clenched fists as they
marched, did not in my opinion pose any clear and present danger. Petitioners were unarmed, marching
peacefully,albeitnoisily.

ButneithercanrespondentsbetakentotaskforimpedingpetitionersfromproceedingalongJ.P.LaurelStreet,
which is within the perimeter of the Malacaang security area, since it was not by chance that petitioners were
marching as a group, evidently also to hold a public demonstration. In other words, their objective cannot
conclusivelybesaidtohavehadapurelyreligiousflavor.Infact,inhisComment,theSolicitorGeneralhasstated
"thosewhocometoworshipinitstruesensewillnotbestopped."

The location of the St. Jude Chapel within the perimeter of the Malacaang security area is not, to my mind,
sufficient reason for a prior restraint on petitioners' right to freedom of religious worship. Proper security
measurescanalwaysbetaken.Itisonlywhenpetitioners,intheexerciseoftheirreligiousbeliefs,exceedthose
bounds and translate their freedoms into acts detrimental or inimical to the superior rights of public peace and
order, that the test of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil is met and the acts having a religious
significance may be infringed upon in the exercise of the police power of the State. "Freedom of worship is
susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the State may lawfully
protect"(WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationvs.Barnette(319U.S.624[1943]).

Whenclearandpresentdangerofriot,disorder,interference,withtrafficuponpublicstreets,orother
immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order appears, the power of the state to prevent or
punishisobvious.Equallyobviousisitthatastatemaynotundulysuppressfreecommunicationof
views, religious or other, under the guise of conserving desirable conditions. (Cantwell vs.
Connecticut310U.S.308)(Emphasisours).

Ourcountryisfacedwiththeprofoundestproblemsconfrontingademocracy.Intheclashofcompetinginterests,
sobriety, restraint, and a balanced regard not only for individual rights and liberties but also for the right of the
State to survival, should be the guiding criteria. There is need for sustained efforts to achieve a solution to the
dilemmaphrasedbyLincoln:"Mustagovernmentofnecessitybetoostrongforthelibertiesofitspeople,ortoo
weaktomaintainitsexistence?"

RELOVA,J.,Separatevoteandstatement.

Themajorityopiniondoubtsthesincerityandgoodfaithofthefifty(50)petitionersininvokingtheconstitutional
guarantee of religious worship and of locomotion because they were wearing yellow Tshirts as they marched
down J. P. Laurel Street with raised clenched fists on October 2, 1984, at about 5:00 in the afternoon, for the
purposeofprayingand/orhearingmassattheSt.JudeChapelwhichadjoinstheMalacaanggrounds.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 6/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

ItisknownthatdevoteesofSt.JudeattendmassandnovenaatthischapelonThursdays,justlikethoseofOur
Lady of Perpetual Help in Baclaran who pay homage to Her on Wednesdays, and worshippers at the Black
NazareneshowreligiousreverencetoHimattheQuiapoChurchonFridays.Wheneverthesedevoteesrequesta
massintheseplacesofworshipsfortheirspecialintentions,theymayalsoaskthatthesamebeheldonanyday
otherthanThursdays,WednesdaysorFridays.

October2,1984wasaTuesdayandwasnotaparticulardayofdevotiontoSt.Jude,knownastheSaintofthe
impossible. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioners' intention that afternoon was to conduct an antigovernment
demonstrationbecauseifthepurposewastostageonetheywouldhavegonetoSt.JudeChapelonaThursday
andbefavoredwithacrowdtohearthem.Stateddifferently,Thursdayswouldbethebestdaytostageamarch
at the place and, after praying and/or hearing mass, deliver speeches outside the chapel before the many
devotees.ThefactthatpetitionerschoseaTuesdaytohearmassand/orprayfortheirspecialintentionnegates
thesuspicionthattheywereouttostageademonstration.

Petitioners claim that they were on their way to hear mass and/or pray. For respondents to say, even before
petitioners have reached the place, that they would be delivering speeches is pure speculation. Respondents
should have allowed petitioners to hear mass and/or pray and, thereafter, see what they would do. Only then
wouldWeknowwhatwerereallyintheirminds.Whatrespondentsdidbyactingbeforepetitionerscoulddisplay
themselves was tantamount to prohibiting free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship. Demonstrations
aboutornearthepremisesofSt.JudeChapelbecauseofitsproximitytotheresidenceofthePresidentmaybe
restricted,butcertainly,forpetitionersoranygroupofmenforthatmatter,tohearmassand/orprayatthechapel
shouldbetolerated.

Thepetitionshouldbegranted.

GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.:concurring:

WhileconcurringintheCourt'sopinionpennedbymydistinguishedcolleague,Mr.JusticeVenicioEscolin,Iwould
liketoaddafewobservations.

Byitsverynature,libertyofmindandconscienceoccupiesaprimacyorpreeminentpositioninthehierarchyof
valuesprotectedbytheConstitution.Nothingcaninflamethepassionsofafreedomlovingpeoplemorethanan
attemptbycivilormilitaryauthoritiestorestrictpersonsintheirrighttoworship.Apersonwhosincerelybelieves
thatDivineProvidencedeterminesnotonlyhisdestinyinthislifebutalsohiseternaldwellingplaceafterdeathwill
resistwithallhismightanyefforttocurborpreventcommunionthroughworshipwithhisDeity.

Thispetition,therefore,furnishesanauspiciousoccasiontoreiterateourpeople'sdeepcommitmenttoreligious
liberty.Theuniquephraseologyofthereligiousfreedomclausefurnishesatextualbasisforthiscommitment.

Section8oftheBillofRightsreads:

Nolawshallbemaderespectinganestablishmentofreligionorprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.
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
politicalrights.(Emphasissupplied).

Article 5 of the Malolos Constitution provided for freedom and equality of religious worship as well as the
separation of church and state. President William McKinley's Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission
directed"thatnolawshallbemaderespectinganestablishmentofreligionorprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof
andthatthefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionandworshipwithoutdiscriminationorpreference
shallforeverbeallowed."(Emphasissupplied).Thesamestatementoftheeternalnatureofthefreedomisfound
inthePhilippineBillin1902andinthePhilippineAutonomyActof1916,morepopularlyknownastheJonesLaw.

Itis,ofcourse,axiomaticthatnoprovisionoftheConstitutionisbeyondrepealoramendment.Theclause"shall
foreverbeallowed"issimplyanexpressionoftheframers'faiththattheFilipinopeoplecherishreligiousfreedom
somuchthattheywouldneverremovethisfreedomfromtheConstitutionorwateritdownthroughamodification.
Ibelievethatthisfaithisjustified.

ThisCourtstatedinAglipayv.Ruiz(64Phil.201):

...ReligionasaprofessionoffaithtoanactivepowerthatbindsandelevatesmantohisCreatoris
recognized.And,insofarasitinstillsintothemindsthepurestprinciplesofmorality,itsinfluenceis
deeply felt and highly appreciated. When the Filipino people, in the preamble of their Constitution,
implored 'the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that shall embody their
Ideals,conserveanddevelopthepatrimonyofthenation,promotethegeneralwelfare,andsecure
to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty,
and democracy,' they thereby manifested their intense religious nature and placed unfaltering
relianceuponHimwhoguidesthedestiniesofmenandnations.Theelevatinginfluenceofreligionin
humansocietyisrecognizedhereaselsewhere.

InVictorianov.ElizaldeRopeWorkersUnion(59SCRA54)westated:

Theconstitutionalprovisionnotonlyprohibitslegislationforthesupportofanyreligioustenetsorthe
modesofworshipofanysect,thusforestallingcompulsionbylawoftheacceptanceofanycreedor
the practice of any form of worship, but also assures the free exercise of one's chosen form of
religionwithinitsofutmostamplitude.IthasbeensaidthatthereligionclausesoftheConstitutionare
alldesignedtoprotectthebroadestpossiblelibertyofconscience,toalloweachmantobelieveas
his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent
with the liberty of others and with the common good. Any legislation whose effect or purpose is to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 7/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

impedetheobservanceofoneorallreligions,ortodiscriminateinvidiouslybetweenthereligions,is
invalid,eventhoughtheburdenmaybecharacterizedasbeingonlyindirect.

Thus,thefreeexerciseofreligiousfreedomisnotonlyintendedtolast"forever"buttheclauseguaranteeingitis
interpretedwithinlimitsof"utmostamplitude".Ifthepresidentialsecurityforcesoranyotherpublicfunctionaries
trytoimpedeanygenuineandlegitimateexerciseofaperson'sreligiousprofessionorworship,therecanbeno
doubtthatthisCourtwouldruleagainstsuchanattempt.

Atthesametime,anyclaimtothefreeexerciseofreligionmustbeagenuineorvalidone.ThisCourtiskeenly
sensitivetoproblemsarisingfromthefreedomofreligionclause.Weexamineallegationsofitsviolationtocheck
anyinfringementofthispreferredfreedom.Aclaimbasedonitshouldberootedingenuinereligiousconviction,
althoughasmentionedbyJusticeAmeurfinaA.MelencioHerrerawehavetotakeintoaccountthepresumption
ofgoodfaith.

The petition, standing by itself, was pregnant with implications. Somehow, it seemed unthinkable that in our
country,atthistimeandage,citizenswouldbepreventedfromworshippingatachurchoftheirchoice.However,
during the hearing, it was ascertained and the respondents gave concrete assurances that anyone wishing to
worshipatSt.JudeChurchnearMalacaanghasneverbeenrestrictednorwinheeverberestrictedfromgoing
to that church. The presidential security guards check political demonstrators who try to hold rallies before the
presidential palace but not church goers, attending worship services in the vicinity. On the other hand, the
petitioners informed the Court through counsel that they did not intend to hold any protest rally or political
demonstrationinfrontofMalacaang.TheironlyintentwastoprayatSt.JudeChurch,thechurchdedicatedto
thepatronsaintofimpossiblecauses.Thefactsasstatedbycontendingcounselshowthattheproblemisoneof
a failure of communications and not a denial of freedom of worship. If the respondents do not deny completely
freeaccesstochurchgoerswhilethepetitionershadabsolutelynointentiontoholdapoliticaldemonstration,the
petitionbelaborsanonexistentissue.

I,therefore,concurinthedismissalofthepetitionsinceitbelaborsanonexistentissue.

SeparateOpinions

FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring:

Concurringintheresultanddissentinginsofarastheopinionfailstodeclarethatthefreedomofexerciseof
religiousprofessionandworshipcanonlybelimitedbytheexistenceofaclearandpresentdangerofa
substantiveevil.Thereis,forhim,aneedforsuchastatementfortheguidanceofthepartiesaswellasofthe
generalpublic.

1.Theprayerofthispetitionreadsasfollows:"Afterhearing,awritofmandamus/injunctionissueagainst
respondentscommanding,them(i)toallowhereinpetitionerstoenterandprayattheSt.JudechurchonFriday,
October12,1984atorabout6:00P.M.oronanydateandtimethereafterand(ii)torefrainfrompreventing
hereinpetitionersfrom[so]enteringandprayinginsidetheSt.JudeChurch."1Clearly,thepleatoenterandprayat
suchchurchonFriday,October12,1984ismootandacademic.Thereisinaddition,however,apleafortheinjunctiverelief
topreventrespondentsfrominterferingwithpetitionersexercisingtheirconstitutionalrighttoattendmassatsuchchurchin
thefuture.Thatistoinvokefreedomofreligionasapreferredrightofundoubtedprimacy.2Specificallypriorrestraintisrule
outexceptunderaclearshowingthatitsexercisewouldbeattendedbyaclearandpresentdangerofsubstantiveevil.That
issettledlawforrightsembracedinfreedomofexpressionandbelief,whethersecularandreligiousandmuchmoresoin
thecaseofthelatter.OurunanimousrulinginJ.B.L.Reyesv.Bagatsing3standsforsuchaproposition.

2.Whyaconcurrenceintheresultthen?IamledtodosoinviewoftheclearmanifestationbytheSolicitor
Generalthatsucharightwouldbeaccordedthefullestrespectwithdueregardtothecountervailing
considerationofavoidingdangertothelivesofthePresidentandhisfamily.Itislikewiseinkeepingwiththeletter
andspiritoftheConstitutionwhen,asnotedintheseparateopinionofJusticeTeehankee,"petitionershavegiven
fullassuranceoftheirpeacefulintentions.Theywerewalkingandwouldwalkalongthesidewalks.Theydidnot
andwillnotholdanydemonstrations.Theywereandareunarmed,andwereandarewillingtobesearchedand
havepledgedpeacefulandorderlybehaviour."4Therebeingsuchassurances,amorecategoricalpronouncementon
thefullscopeoftherighttofreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionandworshipwillhavetowaitanotherday.

3.Itmaynotbeamisstostatethatatthehearingofthispetition,whilecounselforpetitioners,admittedlywith
fluencyandevenwitheloquence,wasdiscoursingwithdenunciatoryfervorontheflagrantdisregardofthis
constitutionalright,thesuggestionwasmadethattheCourtwillwelcomeananalysisofpertinentconstitutional
lawdecisionsbothfromthePhilippinesandtheUnitedStates.Ithardlyelicited,however,aresponsethatcouldbe
consideredasadequate.Attheveryleast,therecouldhavebeenreferencetothewellknowndistinctionbetween
religiousbelief,whichisabsolute,anditsexpressionwhich,whilesubjecttorestriction,doesnotloseits
fundamentalcharacter.5ItisworthrecallingthatinoneofthelatestofsuchAmericancases,Wisconsinv.Yoder,6a
1972decision,theopinionofChiefJusticeBurgerreferredtothenonestablishmentclauseoftheFirstAmendmentofthe
AmericanConstitutionthesourceofourconstitutionalprovisionas"buttressingthisfundamentalright"7tothefree
exerciseofreligiousprofessionandworship.Itispreciselytoavoidanydiscriminationorpreferenceinfavorofanyother
religionthatthereissuchaprohibition.Parenthetically,itmaybeobservedthatthenonestablishmentclauseinthe
PhilippineswhichintheUnitedStatesisthebasisfortheconceptofseparationofchurchandstateismademuchmore
explicitbythisconstitutionalcommand:"Theseparationofchurchandstateshallbeinviolable."8Thepoint,Iwishto
make,however,isthathadtherebeennoclearmanifestationbybothpetitionersandrespondentsthattherighttoattend
massatSt.Jude'sChurchwouldberespected,evenifitislocatedinasecurityareabutwithdueprecautionarymeasures
takentoavoidinfiltrationbysubversiveelements,thisCourtwouldhavebeencalledupontoruleand,ifpossible,to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 8/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828
delineatewithsomedegreeofprecisionthescopeofsucharighttofreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionand
worship.

4.Sufficeitthenforthepresenttorelyonthestandardoftheclearandpresentdangerprincipleasthecontrolling
doctrinetojustifyanyrestrictiononthefreedomoftheexerciseofreligiousprofessionandworshipwithout
discriminationorpreference.IamfreedfromthenecessityofreferringtospecificparagraphsoftheJ.B.L.Reyes
decision,whereIwassingularlyfortunateinobtainingtheunanimousapprovalofmybrethreninmyponencia.
ThedissentofJusticeTeehankeeinthiscasequotesitsrelevantportions.MayIjustaddthatthereisan
impermissiblerestrictionunlesstheevilapprehended,accordingtoJusticeBrandeis,outsideofitsbeingserious
itissointhiscasemustlikewisebeimminent.9Fromtheverywordingoftheclearandpresentdangerprinciple,the
question,tofollowHolmes,whowastheauthorofthisconcept,is"oneofproximityanddegree."10Necessarilyineach
andeveryinstancewhereitisinvoked,theremustbethemostcarefulscrutinyoftheenvironmentalfactsandconditions.
Absentthatelement,thisCourtcannotgivetheimprimatur,ofitsapproval.

5.ItwouldbeanunwarranteddeparturethenfromwhathasbeenunanimouslyheldintheJ.B.L.Reyesdecision
ifonsuchabasicrightasreligiousfreedomclearlythemostfundamentalandthusentitledtothehighestpriority
amonghumanrights,involvingasitdoestherelationshipofmantohisCreatorthisCourtwillbelessvigilantin
upholdinganyrightfulclaim.Morethanever,intimesofstressandmuchmoresointimesofcrisisitisthat
deeplyheldfaiththataffordssolaceandcomfortifnotforeveryoneatleastforthemajorityofmankind.Without
thatfaith,man'sveryexistenceisdevoidofmeaning,bereftofsignificance.

6.Myvote,therefore,inconcurringintheresultistobeviewedinthatlight.IfeelIcoulddosobecauseofthis
excerptfromtheopinionofJusticeEscolin:"Petitioners'allegedpurposeinconvergingatJ.P.LaurelStreetwas
toprayandhearmassatSt.JudeChurch.Atthehearingofthispetition,respondentsassuredpetitionersandthe
Courtthattheyhaveneverrestricted,andwillneverrestrictanypersonorpersonsfromenteringandworshipping
atsaidchurch."11Independentlyofanyjudgmentofthepastconductof,itbearsrepeatingthatthepromisemadebythe
respondentsofnotrestrictingpetitionersfromenteringandworshippingatSt.JudeChurchisaguaranteethatnosuch
impermissiblerestraintofreligiousfreedomwouldthereafterbeattempted.Iampreparedtoaccordgoodfaithtobothparties
evenifontheoccasionthatpresenteditselfonOctober2,1984therecouldbeamistakeofjudgmentonthepartof
respondents.

7.ItismyreadingthenofthemainopinionaswellasoftheseparateopinionsinthiscasethattheCourtisunited
intheviewthatthefreeexerciseofreligiousprofessionandworshipistobeaccordedtheamplestprotection.The
dismissalofthepetition,tomymind,isnotabartotheapplicationhereafteroftheclearandpresentdanger
principle.IfnomentionwasmadeintheopinionoftheCourtofsuchcontrollingdoctrineitismyperceptionthatit
isdue,ashasbeenpointedout,totheassurancesmadebythepartiestothecontroversythattherighttothe
freeexerciseofreligiousprofessionandworshipwillbeaccordedthefullestrespect.Hencethefailuretomake
suchexplicitaffirmation.

8.Noristhedismissalofthepetitionabartosuchaconclusion.Itisnolongerunorthodoxinthisjurisdictionfor
thisCourttomakeapronouncementofcontrollingforceevenifacaseweredismissedforbeingmootand
academic.ItcantraceitsorigintothelandmarkopinionofJusticeMalcolminAlejandrinov.Quezon.12Thelatest
manifestationofsuchwellacceptedpracticeistheFebruary,1985decisionofSalongav.Pao.13Moreover,intheopinion
ofJusticeGutierrez,Jr.,14referencewasmadetothethreeothercasesofCamarav.Enage,15AquinoJr.v.Enrile,16
andGonzalesv.Marcos,17wheretheCourtenunciateddoctrinesthatcouldgovernfuturecontroversies.Itisforme,a
causeforregretthattheCourthasnotdonesointhiscase.Nonetheless,implicitinthepluralityopinionofJusticeEscolin
andtoagreaterdegreeintheseparateopinionsofJusticesRelovaandGutierrezisthedeepconcernforsafeguardingthe
constitutionalrighttofreeexerciseofreligiousprofessionandworship.Asfortheotherseparateopinions,itsbeinga
preferredrighttoberestrictedonlyiftherebesatisfactoryproofofaclearandpresentdangerofasubstantiveevilisquite
manifest.

TEEHANKEE,J.,dissenting:

Ivotetograntthepetitiononthegroundthattherightoffreeworshipandmovementisapreferredrightthat
enjoysprecedenceandprimacyandisnotsubjecttopriorrestraintexceptwherethereexiststheclearand
presentdangerofasubstantiveevilsoughttobeprevented.Therewasandismanifestlynosuchdangerinthis
case.

Themajorityjudgmentdismissesthepetitionoftheforty(40)hereinabovenamedpetitioners(composedof
"businessmen,bankers,professionals,studentsandofficeemployees"1),who,invokingtheirconstitutionalfreedom
ofworshipandmovement,haveprayedthatawritofmandamus/injunctionissuefromthisCourtagainstrespondentsChief
ofthePresidentialSecurityCommandandhissubordinatesatMalacaang,directingthem"(1)toallowhereinpetitionersto
enterandprayattheSt.JudeChurchonFriday,October12,1984atorabout6:00P.M.oronanydateandtimethereafter
and(2)torefrainfrompreventinghereinpetitionersfrom[so]enteringandprayinginsideSt.JudeChurch."

AsaptlyandconciselystatedintheSolicitorGeneral'scomment,"(T)heissuepetitionerspresentiswhether
respondentPresidentialSecurityCommandofficershave,inpreventingpetitioners'groupfromproceedingdown
J.P.LaurelStreetonOctober2violatedtheirfreedomofworshipandmovement.Giventhattherehasbeensuch
aviolation,petitionerswantsimilaractsofrespondentsinthefutureenjoined."2

OnOctober2,1984atabout5:00p.m.,thepetitionersandtheircompanionstotallingaboutfifty(50)toeighty
(80)personshadwalkedalongthesidewalkinsmallgroupstowardstheSt.JudeChurchatJ.P.LaurelStreet,
Manilatohearaspecialmassthattheyhadsponsored"forthemainpurposeofprayingtoGodthroughSt.Jude
toputanendtoviolence"3andforthosewhowereinjuredduringtheSeptember22and27,1984rallydispersalsandthe
lonefatalityOsiasAlcala.PeitionerReliGerman,aleaderoftheATOM(August21Movement),waswearingayellowTshirt
andheandthoselinedupafterhimwerephysicallypreventedfromproceedingfartheronthegroundthatthechurchwas
locatedwithintheMalacaangsecurityarea.Earlier,anotherATOMleaderRamonPedrosawhowaswearingabarong
tagaloghadgonethroughunnoticedtothechurchwithsometenothers.4Petitioners'pleaswithrespondentLariosatobe

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 9/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828
allowedtheirrightofworshipandreligionwereunheeded.Theythenkneltonthepavementinfrontofthebarricadeand
prayedtheholyRosary.Afterwards,theysangBayankowithclenchedfistsofprotestagainsttheviolationoftheirrights
andthereafterdispersedpeacefully.5Havingbeenthenwarnedthatanyfurtherattemptsontheirparttoenterthechurch
wouldbesimilarlybarred,theyfiledthepetitionatbar,whichwasheardandsubmittedforresolutiononOctober16,1984
(renderingmoottheirprayertoenterthechurchonOctober12,1984butnotastoanyopensubsequentdate,asprayedfor).

AbriefrestatementoftheapplicableconstitutionalprinciplesassetforthinthelandmarkcaseofJ.B.LReyesvs.
Bagatsing6shouldguideusinresolvingtheissues.

1.Therighttofreelyexerciseone'sreligionisguaranteedinSection8ofourBillofRights.7Freedomofworship,
alongsidewithfreedomofexpressionandspeechandpeaceableassembly"alongwiththeotherintellectualfreedoms,are
highlyrankedinourschemeofconstitutionalvalues.Itcannotbetoostronglystressedthatonthejudiciaryevenmoreso
thanontheotherdepartmentsreststhegraveanddelicateresponsibilityofassuringrespectforanddeferencetosuch
preferredrights.Noverbalformula,nosanctifyingphrasecan,ofcourse,dispensewithwhathasbeensofelicitiously
termedbyJusticeHolmes'asthesovereignprerogativeofjudgment.'Nonetheless,thepresumptionmustbetoinclinethe
weightofthescalesofjusticeonthesideofsuchrights,enjoyingastheydoprecedenceandprimacy."8

2.Inthefreeexerciseofsuchpreferredrights,thereistobenopriorrestraintalthoughtheremaybesubsequent
punishmentofanyillegalactscommittedduringtheexerciseofsuchbasicrights.Thesolejustificationforaprior
restraintorlimitationontheexerciseofthesebasicrightsistheexistenceofagraveandpresentdangerofa
characterbothgraveandimminent,ofaseriouseviltopublicsafety,publicmorals,publichealthoranyother
legitimatepublicinterest,thattheStatehasaright(andduty)toprevent.9

3.Theburdentoshowtheexistenceofgraveandimminentdangerthatwouldjustifypriorrestraintandbara
groupofpersonsfromenteringthechurchoftheirchoiceforprayerandworshipliesonthemilitaryorpolice
officialswhowouldsophysicallyrestrainthem.Indeed,thereisnoprecedentinthistimeandagewhere
churchgoerswhoserightoffreeexerciseoftheirreligionisrecognizedhavebeenphysicallypreventedfrom
enteringtheirchurchongroundsofnationalsecurity.Ontheotherhand,itdoesnotliewithinthecompentence
norauthorityofsuchofficialstodemandofchurchgoersthattheyshowandestablishtheir"sincerityandgood
faith....ininvokingtheconstitutionalguaranteeoffreedomofreligiousworshipandoflocomotion"asapre
condition,asseemstobethethrustofthemajoritydecision.10Noristhereanyburdenonthechurchgoertomake"a
satisfactoryshowingofaclaimdeeplyrootedinreligiousconviction"beforehemayworshipatthechurchofhischoiceas
appearstobethebasisofJusticeGutierrez'concurringopinionfordismissalofthepetition.Theexerciseofsuchbasicand
sacredrightswouldbetootenuousiftheyweremadetodependonthesnapjudgmentanddispositionofsuchofficialsasto
one'sgoodfaithandhisattire.Infact,Article132oftheRevisedPenalCodepenalizespublicofficersandemployeeswho
"preventordisturbtheceremoniesormanifestationsofanyreligion"whileArticle32oftheCivilCodegrantsanindependent
causeofactionformoralandexemplarydamagesand"forotherrelief"againstsuchofficialsoremployeesorprivate
individuals"whodirectlyorindirectlyobstruct,defeat,violateorinanymannerimpedeorimpair(the)freedomofreligion
(and)freedomofspeech"ofanyperson.

4.Goodfaithonbothsidesisandmustbepresumed.Thus,petitioners'manifestationsoftheirsincereintention
asChristianstogathertogetherinprayeratSt.JudeChurchwhoisknownasthePatronoftheImpossibleshould
betakeningoodfaith.Itwouldseemthatnocourtpetitionshouldbenecessarytoenableagroupofpersons
suchaspetitionerstofreelyproceedandenterachurchoftheirreligionandchoiceandthereinhearmassand
saytheirprayers.Wearebasicallyapeopleofpeacewhobelieveinthepowerofprayerandpraysilentlyfor
God'sguidanceandcompassionandthatpeaceandjusticemayreignintheland.ManyrecalltheLord'spromise
toSolomonthat"ifmypeoplewhobearmynamehumblethemselvesandprayandseekmypresenceandturn
fromtheirwickedways,ImyselfwillhearfromHeavenandforgivetheirsinsandrestoretheirland."11
Respondents'actsofbarringpetitionersfromtheMalacaangsecurityperimeterandtherebypreventingtheirenteringand
prayingattheSt.JudeChurchshouldlikewisebetakenasingoodfaithintheirzealtoavoidanyuntowarddisturbanceor
developmentinthearea.But"uncontrolledofficialsuppressionoftheprivilegecannotbemadeasubstituteforthedutyto
maintainorderinconnectionwiththeexerciseoftheright."12

5.Overandaboveall,publicofficialsshouldeverbeguidedbythetestamentoverhalfacenturyagoofthelate
JusticeJoseAbadSantosinhisdissentingopinioninPeoplevs.Rubio13thatthe"commendablezeal..ifallowedto
overrideconstitutionallimitationswouldbecome'obnoxioustofundamentalprinciplesofliberty.'Andifwearetobesaved
fromthesadexperiencesofsomecountrieswhichhaveconstitutionsonlyinname,wemustinsistthatgovernmental
authoritybeexercisedwithinconstitutionallimitsfor,afterall,whatmattersisnotsomuchwhatthepeoplewriteintheir
constitutionsasthespiritinwhichtheyobservetheirprovisions."Torequirethecitizenateverysteptoasserthisrightsand
togotocourtistorenderillusoryhisrights.

ThelateChiefJusticeRicardoParas'injunctioninhisconcurringopinioninPrimiciasvs.Fuguso,14citingthe1907
seditioncaseofU.S.vs.Apurado15thatinstancesof"disorderlyconductbyindividualmembersofacrowd[benotseized]
asanexcusetocharacterizetheassemblyasaseditiousandtumultuousrisingagainsttheauthorities,mutatismutandis,
isfullyapplicablehere,thus:"Butiftheprosecutionbepermittedtoseizeuponeveryinstanceofsuchdisorderlyconduct
byindividualmembersofacrowdasanexcusetocharacterizetheassemblyasaseditiousandtumultuousrisingagainst
theauthorities,thentherighttoassembleandtopetitionforredressofgrievanceswouldbecomeadelusionandsnareand
theattempttoexerciseitonthemostrighteousoccasionandinthemostpeaceablemannerwouldexposeanthosewho
tookpartthereintotheseverestandmostunmeritedpunishment,ifthepurposeswhichtheysoughttoattaindidnothappen
tobepleasingtotheprosecutingauthorities.Ifinstancesofdisorderlyconductoccuronsuchoccasions,theguilty
individualsshouldbesoughtoutandpunishedtherefor."16

Applyingtheabovesettledstandardsandprinciplestotheissueatbar,respondents'actofpreventingpetitioners
fromproceedingdownJ.P.LaurelStreetonOctober2,1984toattendtheirspecialmassatSt.JudeChurchwas
notjustifiedandthisCourtmustaccordinglygrantthepetitionandenjoinsimilaractsofrespondentsinthefuture.
Therewasnocallforsuchpriorrestraint.RespondentsthemselvesintheSolicitorGeneral'scommentadmitthat
"true,therewereonlyabout80personsinpetitioners'grouponOctober2andthisnumbercouldhardlyposethe
dangerfeared,"butexpressedthefearthatpetitioners'rankscouldwithinhoursreachhundredsifnotthousands
and"peacefuldispersalbecomesimpossibleasinrecentdemonstrationsandrallies."17Respondentswereinfull

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 10/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828
controlandthereisnoquestionastothecapabilityofthesecurityforcestowardoffandstopanyuntowardmove.They
hadplacedanadvancecheckpointasfarbackastheSta.MesaRotondaandcouldstoptheflowofpeopleinthechurchif
theydeemeditunmanageable.Theredefinitelywasnoclearandpresentdangerofanyseriouseviltopublicsafetyorthe
securityofMalacaang.ThemajoritydecisionandrespondentshavereliedheavilyontheOctober1218,1984issueofMr.
&Ms.magazine,particularlyonaninterpretivearticlewrittenaftertheeventbystaffmemberJ.P.Fenixfortheirconclusion
thatpetitioners'objectiveonOctober2,1984wasnot"innocentlytoworshipatSt.Jude"18butto"conductananti
governmentdemonstrationataplaceclosetotheveryresidenceandofficesofthePresident."19Theseconjectureswere
categoricallydeniedbypetitionersatthehearing,supra,andwerenotrebutted.Thesaidarticleitselfcitedinthedecisionas
"castingseriousdoubtsonthesincerityandgoodfaithininvokingtheconstitutionalguarantyoffreedomofreligiousworship
andlocomotion"showedthegovernmenttroopssmilingandingoodformandhumor,andwithtruncheonsraised,"readyand
waitingforanyuntowardincident."Atanyrate,petitionershavegivenfullassuranceoftheirpeacefulintentions.Theywere
walkingandwouldwalkalongthesidewalks.Theydidnotandwillnotholdanydemonstrations.Theywereandare
unarmed,andwereandarewillingtobesearchedandhavepledgedpeacefulandorderlybehavior.

Themajority'sdismissalofthepetitiononthegroundthattherestrictionimposedbyrespondentswas"necessary
tomaintainthesmoothfunctionsoftheexecutivebranchofthegovernmentwhichpetitioners'massactionwould
certainlydisrupt"andthatsuchpriorrestraintwasnotviolativeofpetitioners'constitutionalrightsoffreedomof
religiousworshipandmovement"havingbeenestablishedintheinterestofnationalSecurity,"20manifestlyisnot
inaccordwiththeapplicableestablishedstandardsandprinciples.

MAKASIAR,J.,dissenting:

ThepetitionersgavetheassurancethattheyaremarchingtowardsSt.Jude'sChurchonlyforthepurposeof
prayingorattendingmassthereinthattheywereandaregoingtomarchinanorderlymannerwithoutblocking
thetrafficandwiththemarshalspolicingandIdentifyingthemarchersthattheyarenotarmedandarenotgoing
tobearmedwithanykindofweaponandthattheyarewillingtobefrisked.Thesearepracticallythesame
assurancesmadebythepetitionersinthecaseofReyesvs.Bagatsing(125SCRA553,November9,1983)and
bythepetitionerswhomarchedfromEspaaRotondatoLiwasangBonifaciosometimeinSeptember,1984.

ThepetitionerslikewisemanifestedthatonOctober2,1984aftertheyenteredthepremisesofthechurchthe
parishpriestinvitedthemtoprayerwithoutallowingthemtodemonstrateinanymannerordeliveranyspeeches.

Ontheotherhand,respondentsinchargeofthesecurityofMalacaanganditsimmediateenvirons,including
J.P.LaurelStreet,whichistheonlystreetgoingdirecttoSt.Jude'sChurchwhichissoclosetoMalacaang,
likewiseassuredthattheyarenotgoingtoblockorstoppetitionersaslongastheymarchpeacefullyandtheir
realpurposeisjusttohearmassinsideSt.Jude'sChurch.Respondentsortheiragentscanfriskpetitionersfor
anyconcealedweapon.

TheirwearingyellowTshirtsandclothingandbearingyellowemblemsorbanners,areformsofexpressionwhich
arealsoprotectedbytheconstitutionalguaranteesoffreedomofexpressioningeneral,andreligiousfreedomin
particular.Thefactthatmost,ifnotall,ofthemarenotresidentsofSampalocortheneighborhoodaroundSt.
Jude'sChurch,shouldnotimpairtheircredibilityastotheirtrueintentionsbecauseSt.Jude'sChurch,tothe
believersordevotees,istheonlychurchinMetroManilaespeciallydedicatedtosupplicationsfortherealization
ofimpossiblehopesanddreams.

Withtheassurancesaforestatedgivenbybothpetitionersandrespondents,thereisnoclearandpresentdanger
topublicpeaceandorderortothesecurityofpersonswithinthepremisesofMalacaangandtheadjacent
areas,astherespondentshaveadoptedmeasuresandarepreparedtoinsureagainstanypublicdisturbanceor
violence.

Hence,thepetitionshouldbegranted.

ABADSANTOS,J.,dissenting:

TheCourttookabigstepforwardintheWEFORUMcase(G.R.No.64261,Dec.26,1984).Ithastakenanother
stepbutthistimeintheotherdirection.Inmartiallawjargonitisabackslider.

Weareaskedtogivemeaningtotheconstitutionalguaranteethat,"Thefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligious
professionandworship,withoutdiscriminationorpreference,shallforeverbeallowed."(Art.IV,Sec.8.)

Wehavehereagroupofpeople.ItmaybeconcededthatReliGerman,RamonPedrosaandcompanyare
"oppositionminded."TheywantedtogoonfoottoSt.JudeChapeladjacenttotheMalacaangcompoundand
theretoprayandhearmass.Itmaybeassumedthattheyintendedtoprayforthefullrestorationofthecivilrights
oftheFilipinopeople.Buttheywerepreventedbytherespondentswhocontendedthattheirrealpurposewasto
demonstrateagainstthePresidentoftheRepublic.Inmyopinionitishighlypresumptuousforboththe
respondentsandthisCourttoattributeunstatedandunadmittedmotivestothepetitioners.Thepetitionerssaid
thattheywantedtoprayandhearmass.Whycan'tgoodfaithbeaccordedtotheminthelightoftheconstitutional
provisionthatthefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionandworshipshallforeverbeallowed?Itis
unthinkablethattheywouldconductanantigovernmentdemonstrationinthehallowedpremisesofSt.Jude
Chapelandtherebydefileit.Iftheyraisedtheirfistsinprotestandshoutedinvectivesitwasonlyaftertheyhad
beenarbitrarilybarredfromgoingtothechapel.SothepetitionerssaidduringthehearingandIbelievethem.

Trueitisthatthefreeexerciseofreligioncanberestrainedundertheclearandpresentdangerprinciple.ButIfail
toperceivethepresenceofanycleardangertothesecurityofMalacaangduetotheactionofthepetitioners.
Thedangerexistedonlyinthefertilemindsoftheoverzealousguardiansofthecomplexwhichisprotectedbya
stoutsteelfence.

Ivotetograntthepetition.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 11/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.,dissenting:

Ivotetoaccordtopetitionerstheirrighttofreedomofworship.

OneofthebasicandfundamentalrightsguaranteedbyourConstitutionisthefreeexerciseandenjoymentof
religiousprofessionandworship(Section8,Art.IV,1973Constitution)."Forfreedomofreligiousexpression,the
Constitutionassuresgenerousimmunity,unlessitcanbeshownthatthereisaclearandpresentdangerofa
substantiveevilwhichtheStatehastherighttoprevent"(E.M.FernandoonTheBillofRights,SecondEdition,p.
198).

TheactofpetitionersinconvergingatJ.P.LaurelStreet,majorityofwhomwerewearingyellowTshirts,marching
towardsSt.JudeChapel,theretohearMass,shoutingantiGovernmentinvectiveswithclenchedfistsasthey
marched,didnotinmyopinionposeanyclearandpresentdanger.Petitionerswereunarmed,marching
peacefully,albeitnoisily.

ButneithercanrespondentsbetakentotaskforimpedingpetitionersfromproceedingalongJ.P.LaurelStreet,
whichiswithintheperimeteroftheMalacaangsecurityarea,sinceitwasnotbychancethatpetitionerswere
marchingasagroup,evidentlyalsotoholdapublicdemonstration.Inotherwords,theirobjectivecannot
conclusivelybesaidtohavehadapurelyreligiousflavor.Infact,inhisComment,theSolicitorGeneralhasstated
"thosewhocometoworshipinitstruesensewillnotbestopped."

ThelocationoftheSt.JudeChapelwithintheperimeteroftheMalacaangsecurityareaisnot,tomymind,
sufficientreasonforapriorrestraintonpetitioners'righttofreedomofreligiousworship.Propersecurity
measurescanalwaysbetaken.Itisonlywhenpetitioners,intheexerciseoftheirreligiousbeliefs,exceedthose
boundsandtranslatetheirfreedomsintoactsdetrimentalorinimicaltothesuperiorrightsofpublicpeaceand
order,thatthetestofaclearandpresentdangerofasubstantiveevilismetandtheactshavingareligious
significancemaybeinfringeduponintheexerciseofthepolicepoweroftheState."Freedomofworshipis
susceptibleofrestrictiononlytopreventgraveandimmediatedangertointerestswhichtheStatemaylawfully
protect"(WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationvs.Barnette(319U.S.624[1943]).

Whenclearandpresentdangerofriot,disorder,interference,withtrafficuponpublicstreets,orother
immediatethreattopublicsafety,peace,ororderappears,thepowerofthestatetopreventor
punishisobvious.Equallyobviousisitthatastatemaynotundulysuppressfreecommunicationof
views,religiousorother,undertheguiseofconservingdesirableconditions.(Cantwellvs.
Connecticut310U.S.308)(Emphasisours).

Ourcountryisfacedwiththeprofoundestproblemsconfrontingademocracy.Intheclashofcompetinginterests,
sobriety,restraint,andabalancedregardnotonlyforindividualrightsandlibertiesbutalsofortherightofthe
Statetosurvival,shouldbetheguidingcriteria.Thereisneedforsustainedeffortstoachieveasolutiontothe
dilemmaphrasedbyLincoln:"Mustagovernmentofnecessitybetoostrongforthelibertiesofitspeople,ortoo
weaktomaintainitsexistence?"

RELOVA,J.,Separatevoteandstatement.

Themajorityopiniondoubtsthesincerityandgoodfaithofthefifty(50)petitionersininvokingtheconstitutional
guaranteeofreligiousworshipandoflocomotionbecausetheywerewearingyellowTshirtsastheymarched
downJ.P.LaurelStreetwithraisedclenchedfistsonOctober2,1984,atabout5:00intheafternoon,forthe
purposeofprayingand/orhearingmassattheSt.JudeChapelwhichadjoinstheMalacaanggrounds.

ItisknownthatdevoteesofSt.JudeattendmassandnovenaatthischapelonThursdays,justlikethoseofOur
LadyofPerpetualHelpinBaclaranwhopayhomagetoHeronWednesdays,andworshippersattheBlack
NazareneshowreligiousreverencetoHimattheQuiapoChurchonFridays.Wheneverthesedevoteesrequesta
massintheseplacesofworshipsfortheirspecialintentions,theymayalsoaskthatthesamebeheldonanyday
otherthanThursdays,WednesdaysorFridays.

October2,1984wasaTuesdayandwasnotaparticulardayofdevotiontoSt.Jude,knownastheSaintofthe
impossible.Thus,itcannotbesaidthatpetitioners'intentionthatafternoonwastoconductanantigovernment
demonstrationbecauseifthepurposewastostageonetheywouldhavegonetoSt.JudeChapelonaThursday
andbefavoredwithacrowdtohearthem.Stateddifferently,Thursdayswouldbethebestdaytostageamarch
attheplaceand,afterprayingand/orhearingmass,deliverspeechesoutsidethechapelbeforethemany
devotees.ThefactthatpetitionerschoseaTuesdaytohearmassand/orprayfortheirspecialintentionnegates
thesuspicionthattheywereouttostageademonstration.

Petitionersclaimthattheywereontheirwaytohearmassand/orpray.Forrespondentstosay,evenbefore
petitionershavereachedtheplace,thattheywouldbedeliveringspeechesispurespeculation.Respondents
shouldhaveallowedpetitionerstohearmassand/orprayand,thereafter,seewhattheywoulddo.Onlythen
wouldWeknowwhatwerereallyintheirminds.Whatrespondentsdidbyactingbeforepetitionerscoulddisplay
themselveswastantamounttoprohibitingfreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousworship.Demonstrations
aboutornearthepremisesofSt.JudeChapelbecauseofitsproximitytotheresidenceofthePresidentmaybe
restricted,butcertainly,forpetitionersoranygroupofmenforthatmatter,tohearmassand/orprayatthechapel
shouldbetolerated.

Thepetitionshouldbegranted.

GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.:concurring:

WhileconcurringintheCourt'sopinionpennedbymydistinguishedcolleague,Mr.JusticeVenicioEscolin,Iwould
liketoaddafewobservations.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 12/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

Byitsverynature,libertyofmindandconscienceoccupiesaprimacyorpreeminentpositioninthehierarchyof
valuesprotectedbytheConstitution.Nothingcaninflamethepassionsofafreedomlovingpeoplemorethanan
attemptbycivilormilitaryauthoritiestorestrictpersonsintheirrighttoworship.Apersonwhosincerelybelieves
thatDivineProvidencedeterminesnotonlyhisdestinyinthislifebutalsohiseternaldwellingplaceafterdeathwill
resistwithallhismightanyefforttocurborpreventcommunionthroughworshipwithhisDeity.

Thispetition,therefore,furnishesanauspiciousoccasiontoreiterateourpeople'sdeepcommitmenttoreligious
liberty.Theuniquephraseologyofthereligiousfreedomclausefurnishesatextualbasisforthiscommitment.

Section8oftheBillofRightsreads:

Nolawshallbemaderespectinganestablishmentofreligionorprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.
Thefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionandworship,withoutdiscriminationor
preference,shallforeverbeallowed.Noreligioustestshallberequiredfortheexerciseofcivilor
politicalrights.(Emphasissupplied).

Article5oftheMalolosConstitutionprovidedforfreedomandequalityofreligiousworshipaswellasthe
separationofchurchandstate.PresidentWilliamMcKinley'sInstructionstotheSecondPhilippineCommission
directed"thatnolawshallbemaderespectinganestablishmentofreligionorprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof
andthatthefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionandworshipwithoutdiscriminationorpreference
shallforeverbeallowed."(Emphasissupplied).Thesamestatementoftheeternalnatureofthefreedomisfound
inthePhilippineBillin1902andinthePhilippineAutonomyActof1916,morepopularlyknownastheJonesLaw.

Itis,ofcourse,axiomaticthatnoprovisionoftheConstitutionisbeyondrepealoramendment.Theclause"shall
foreverbeallowed"issimplyanexpressionoftheframers'faiththattheFilipinopeoplecherishreligiousfreedom
somuchthattheywouldneverremovethisfreedomfromtheConstitutionorwateritdownthroughamodification.
Ibelievethatthisfaithisjustified.

ThisCourtstatedinAglipayv.Ruiz(64Phil.201):

...ReligionasaprofessionoffaithtoanactivepowerthatbindsandelevatesmantohisCreatoris
recognized.And,insofarasitinstillsintothemindsthepurestprinciplesofmorality,itsinfluenceis
deeplyfeltandhighlyappreciated.WhentheFilipinopeople,inthepreambleoftheirConstitution,
implored'theaidofDivineProvidence,inordertoestablishagovernmentthatshallembodytheir
Ideals,conserveanddevelopthepatrimonyofthenation,promotethegeneralwelfare,andsecure
tothemselvesandtheirposteritytheblessingsofindependenceunderaregimeofjustice,liberty,
anddemocracy,'theytherebymanifestedtheirintensereligiousnatureandplacedunfaltering
relianceuponHimwhoguidesthedestiniesofmenandnations.Theelevatinginfluenceofreligionin
humansocietyisrecognizedhereaselsewhere.

InVictorianov.ElizaldeRopeWorkersUnion(59SCRA54)westated:

Theconstitutionalprovisionnotonlyprohibitslegislationforthesupportofanyreligioustenetsorthe
modesofworshipofanysect,thusforestallingcompulsionbylawoftheacceptanceofanycreedor
thepracticeofanyformofworship,butalsoassuresthefreeexerciseofone'schosenformof
religionwithinitsofutmostamplitude.IthasbeensaidthatthereligionclausesoftheConstitutionare
alldesignedtoprotectthebroadestpossiblelibertyofconscience,toalloweachmantobelieveas
hisconsciencedirects,toprofesshisbeliefs,andtoliveashebelievesheoughttolive,consistent
withthelibertyofothersandwiththecommongood.Anylegislationwhoseeffectorpurposeisto
impedetheobservanceofoneorallreligions,ortodiscriminateinvidiouslybetweenthereligions,is
invalid,eventhoughtheburdenmaybecharacterizedasbeingonlyindirect.

Thus,thefreeexerciseofreligiousfreedomisnotonlyintendedtolast"forever"buttheclauseguaranteeingitis
interpretedwithinlimitsof"utmostamplitude".Ifthepresidentialsecurityforcesoranyotherpublicfunctionaries
trytoimpedeanygenuineandlegitimateexerciseofaperson'sreligiousprofessionorworship,therecanbeno
doubtthatthisCourtwouldruleagainstsuchanattempt.

Atthesametime,anyclaimtothefreeexerciseofreligionmustbeagenuineorvalidone.ThisCourtiskeenly
sensitivetoproblemsarisingfromthefreedomofreligionclause.Weexamineallegationsofitsviolationtocheck
anyinfringementofthispreferredfreedom.Aclaimbasedonitshouldberootedingenuinereligiousconviction,
althoughasmentionedbyJusticeAmeurfinaA.MelencioHerrerawehavetotakeintoaccountthepresumption
ofgoodfaith.

Thepetition,standingbyitself,waspregnantwithimplications.Somehow,itseemedunthinkablethatinour
country,atthistimeandage,citizenswouldbepreventedfromworshippingatachurchoftheirchoice.However,
duringthehearing,itwasascertainedandtherespondentsgaveconcreteassurancesthatanyonewishingto
worshipatSt.JudeChurchnearMalacaanghasneverbeenrestrictednorwinheeverberestrictedfromgoing
tothatchurch.Thepresidentialsecurityguardscheckpoliticaldemonstratorswhotrytoholdralliesbeforethe
presidentialpalacebutnotchurchgoers,attendingworshipservicesinthevicinity.Ontheotherhand,the
petitionersinformedtheCourtthroughcounselthattheydidnotintendtoholdanyprotestrallyorpolitical
demonstrationinfrontofMalacaang.TheironlyintentwastoprayatSt.JudeChurch,thechurchdedicatedto
thepatronsaintofimpossiblecauses.Thefactsasstatedbycontendingcounselshowthattheproblemisoneof
afailureofcommunicationsandnotadenialoffreedomofworship.Iftherespondentsdonotdenycompletely
freeaccesstochurchgoerswhilethepetitionershadabsolutelynointentiontoholdapoliticaldemonstration,the
petitionbelaborsanonexistentissue.

I,therefore,concurinthedismissalofthepetitionsinceitbelaborsanonexistentissue.

Footnotes

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 13/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

ESCOLIN,J.:

*Onthedaythisdecisionwaspromulgated,March27,1985,theponente,JusticeEscolin,hadnot
begunhisleave.Theinclusionoftheadditionalparagraphsinmyseparateopinionpreventedits
releaseuntil,April1,1985.

1Seepicturesattachedtorespondents'comment.

2310U.S.296.

3106Phil.2.

FERNANDO,C.J.

1Petition,prayer,7.

2AccordingtoSection8,ArticleIVoftheConstitution:"Nolawshallbemaderespectingan
establishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.Thefreeexerciseandenjoymentof
religiousprofessionandworship,withoutdiscriminationorpreference,shallforeverbeallowed.No
religioustestshallberequiredfortheexerciseofcivilorpoliticalrights."

3G.R.No.65366,November9,1983,125SCRA553.

4SeparateOpinionofJusticeTeehankee,

5Cf.Reynoldsv.UnitedStates,98US145(1878)Cantwellv.Connecticut,310US296(1940)
Princev.Massachusetts,321USJ.58(1944)Braudfeldv.Brown,366US599(1960)Sherbertv.
Verner,374US398(1963).

6406US205.Incidentally,thisisoneofthe33opinionschosenbyChiefJusticeBurgerasamong
hismostsignificantduringhisincumbency.Cf.SignificantSupremeCourtOpinionsofChiefJustice
WarrenE.Burger.

7Ibid,215.

8Section15,ArticleXVoftheConstitution.

9Whitneyv.California,274US357,377(1927)

10Schenckv.UnitedStates,249US45,52(1919).

11OpinionoftheCourt,2.

1246Phil.83(1924).

13G.R.59524,Februaryl8,1985.

14JusticeAbadSantosfiledaseparateopinionandJusticesAquinoandDelaFuentedidnottake
part.

15L329512,September17,1971,41SCRA1.

16L35546,Septemberl7,1974,59SCRA183.

17L31685,July31,1975,65SCRA624.

TEEHANKEE,J.,dissenting:

1Petition,p.2.

2Atpp.23.

3T.s.n.ofhearing,p.2.

4Idem,atp.13.

5Idem,atp.2.

6125SCRA553(1983).

7Thetextreads,asfollows:"SEC.8.Nolawshallbemaderespectinganestablishmentofreligion,
orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.Thefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionand
worship,withoutdiscriminationorpreference,shallforeverbeallowed.Noreligioustestshallbe
requiredfortheexerciseofcivilorpoliticalrights."

8J.B.L.Reyes,125SCRAatpp.569570.

9Idem,atpp.560561.

10Atpage3.

112Chronicles,7,14.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 14/15
2/19/2017 G.R.No.L68828

12SeeJ.B.L.Reyes,125SCRAatp.574.

1357PhiL384(1932).

1480Phil.71(1948).

157Phil.422,426,perCarson,J.

16125SCRAatp.574.

17Comment,atpp.56.

18SolicitorGeneral'sComment,p.2.

19Decision,atp.2.

20Idem,atpp.45.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jan1985/gr_l68828_1985.html 15/15