PHILIPPINES
Inputs on the Steps Taken to Combat Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping,
Stigmatization, Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence against
Persons, Based On Religion and Belief
Freedom of religion or belief in the Philippines
1. As Member State1 of the United Nations (UN) that adopted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and signatory to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),2 the Philippines protects the
human right to freedom of religion or belief of all its inhabitants. This
commitment is demonstrated by the provisions in the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines (the 1987 Constitution), approval of other pertinent
laws, policies, standards and guidelines pertaining to freedom of religion or belief
and decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court on religion or belief.
2. In a UN report,3 Member States are called upon to broadly interpret the freedom
of religion or belief to protect theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as
the right not to profess any religion or belief.
“As the Human Rights Committee has rightly pointed out, freedom of
religion or belief should therefore be broadly construed so as to protect
‘theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to
profess any religion or belief.’ ”4
3. Freedom of religion or belief is enshrined in Articles 18 of both the UDHR and of
the ICCPR. It is a universal human right that applies to all persons equally
everywhere, regardless of who they are, where they live, their age, gender, race
or ethnicity, and what they believe or do not believe in. Articles 18 of UDHR and
ICCPR should be read in the light of the UN Human Rights Committee's General
Comment no. 22 which demonstrates that freedom of religion or belief has two
components:
(a) the freedom to have or not to have or adopt (which includes the right to
change) a religion or belief of one’s choice, and
1
2
3
4
October 24, 1945
December 19, 1966
United Nations, General Assembly, Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/HRC/19/60(22 December 2011),
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-60_en.pdf (last visited 19 May 2017)
Item III.B.31, United Nations, General Assembly, Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and
cultural rights, including the right to development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/HRC/19/60 (22
December 2011), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-60_en.pdf (last visited 19
May 2017)
(b) the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief, individually or in
community with others, in public or private, through worship, observance,
practice and teaching.
4. The right of freedom of religion or belief is also enshrined in Article 27 of the
ICCPR which is the most widely accepted legally binding provision on minorities
and mandates the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minority to enjoy their
own culture, to profess their own religion, and to use their own language.
“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist,
persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in
community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own
culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own
language.”
5. Under the 1987 Constitution as expounded in the Imbong case,5 religious
freedom provides two guarantees based on the principle of separation of Church
and State: Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
5.1. The establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a state religion
and the use of public resources for the support or prohibition of a
religion.6
5.2.
Free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human
conscience wherein the State is prohibited from unduly interfering with
the outside manifests of one’s belief and faith.7
6. In relation with the principles of separation of Church and State, the Imbong case
also provides that “the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church,
much less question its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one
religion and discriminate against another. On the other hand, the church cannot
impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of the citizenry. It
cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that
they are good for the country.”
7. The principle of separation of Church and State was enshrined in Article II of the
1987 Constitution, viz:
“Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”
5
6
7
Imbong v. Hon. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
“The establishment clause principally prohibits the State from sponsoring any religion or favoring any religion as against other religions. It
mandates a strict neutrality in affairs among religious groups. Essentially, it prohibits the establishment of a state religion and the use of public
resources for the support or prohibition of a religion.” (emphasis in the case) [Imbong. v. Hon. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014,
quoting Gorospe, Constitutional Law, Vol. I, p. 1007]
“[T]he basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience. Under this part of religious freedom
guarantee, the State is prohibited from unduly interfering with the outside manifestations of one's belief and faith.” [Imbong v. Hon. Ochoa,
Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014]
8. As a secular state, the Philippines protects religious rights. All religious groups
are equal under the law. On freedom of religion or belief in the context of the
doctrine of separation of Church and State, the Court held that:
“In conformity with the principles of separation of Church and State, one
religious group cannot be allowed to impose its beliefs on the rest of the
society.”8
No Reported Abuses Based on Religion or Belief
On reported cases of abuse on religious freedom, inputs in the preparation for
the 2016 International Religious Freedom (IRF) Report of Office of the President
Task Force on Interreligious and Intercultural Concerns provides that “[u]pon review
of available data, in coordination with the Presidential Human Rights Committee,
there are no reported cases of abuse or restriction on religious freedom, religious
groups, religious institutions, or religious activities and practices.”9
Action Taken by Government to Protect the Freedom of Religion or Belief
1. “History has shown us that our government, in law and in practice, has allowed
these various religious, cultural, social and racial groups to thrive in a single
society together. It has embraced minority groups and is tolerant towards all - the
religious people of different sects and the non-believers. The undisputed fact is
that our people generally believe in a deity, whatever they conceived Him to be,
and to Whom they called for guidance and enlightenment in crafting our
fundamental law.”10
2. “Our Constitution ensures and mandates an unconditional tolerance, without
regard to whether those who seek to profess their faith belong to the majority or
to the minority. It is emphatic in saying that ‘the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship shall be without discrimination or preference.’
Otherwise, accommodation or tolerance would just be mere lip service.” 11
(underscoring supplied)
3. The Court held that “government must act for secular purposes and in ways that
have primarily secular effects.”12 Hence, in pursuing secular objectives by the
government, incidental benefit may be allowed, unless for “compelling state
interest” and indirect burden on certain religious observance may be imposed,
unless the state can accomplish its purpose without imposing such burden. As
8
Imbong, v. Hon. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
Letter to Ms. Merideth Manella, Human Rights Officer, Embassy of the United States of America dated, 21 September 2016
10
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7,
2017 quoting lmbong v. Ochoa, ., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
11
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7,
2017
12
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010, SC E-Library
9
the Court held in Estrada v. Escritor cited in the case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party
v. Commission on Election (COMELEC):
“Recognizing the religious nature of the Filipinos and the elevating
influence of religion in society, however, the Philippine constitution's
religion clauses prescribe not a strict but a benevolent neutrality.
Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular
goals and interests but at the same time strive to uphold religious liberty to
the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus,
although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent
neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion,
provided it does not offend compelling state interests.”13
4. Further, in the case of Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC,14 the Philippine
Supreme Court adopted a policy of benevolent neutrality which allows
accommodation of religion under certain circumstances.
“Accommodations are government policies that take religion specifically
into account not to promote the government’s favored form of religion, but
to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance.
Their purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the
exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion. As Justice Brennan
explained, the ‘government [may] take religion into account . . . to exempt,
when possible, from generally applicable governmental regulation
individuals whose religious beliefs and practices would otherwise thereby
be infringed, or to create without state involvement an atmosphere in
which voluntary religious exercise may flourish.”
5. The same is reiterated in a recent Supreme Court resolution where it was stated
that “[i]n order to give life to the constitutional right of freedom of religion, the
State adopts a policy of accommodation. Accommodation is a recognition of the
reality that some governmental measures may not be imposed on a certain
portion of the population for the reason that these measures are contrary to their
religious beliefs. As long as it can be shown that the exercise of the right does
not impair the public welfare, the attempt of the State to regulate or prohibit such
right would be an unconstitutional encroachment.”15
6. Relatedly, “several laws have been enacted to accommodate religion. The
Revised Administrative Code of 1987 has declared Maundy Thursday, Good
Friday, and Christmas Day as regular holidays. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9177
proclaimed the first day of Shawwal, the tenth month of the Islamic Calendar, a
national holiday for the observance of Eidul Fitr (the end of Ramadan). R.A. No.
9849 declared the tenth day of Zhu/ Hijja, the twelfth month of the Islamic
13
14
15
Ibid.
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015 (Decision), citing Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7,
2017
Calendar, a national holiday for the observance of Eidul Adha. Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws
of the Philippines, expressly allows a Filipino Muslim to have more than one (1)
wife and exempts him from the crime of bigamy punishable under Revised Penal
Code (RPC). The same Code allows Muslims to have divorce.”16
7. In addition, the Court also discussed the Lemon test which provides “that a
regulation is constitutional when: (1) it has a secular legislative purpose; (2) it
neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) it does not foster an excessive
entanglement with religion.”17
8. The restrictions to government and religious sects provide, “[i]n the same breath
that the establishment clause restricts what the government can do with religion,
it also limits what religious sects can or cannot do with the government. They can
neither cause the government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy for
everyone, nor can they not cause the government to restrict other groups. To do
so, in simple terms, would cause the State to adhere to a particular religion and,
thus, establishing a state religion.”18
9. In the Philippines, public policy is based on secular law because “if government
relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the
resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what some might regard
as religious programs or agenda. The non-believers would therefore be
compelled to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a religious belief,
i.e., to a ‘compelled religion,’ anathema to religious freedom. Likewise, if
government based its actions upon religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve or
endorse that belief and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious or nonreligious views that would not support the policy. As a result, government will not
provide full religious freedom for all its citizens, or even make it appear that those
whose beliefs are disapproved are second-class citizens.”19
10. Thus, “the State cannot set up a Church; nor pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another nor force nor influence a
person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to
profess a belief or disbelief in any religion; that the state cannot punish a person
for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance
or nonattendance; that no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activity or institution whatever they may be called or
whatever form they may adopt or teach or practice religion; that the state cannot
openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization or group
16
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7,
2017
17
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015 (Decision)
18
Imbong v. Hon. Ochoa, Jr. G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
19
Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003, SC E-Library
and vice versa. Its minimal sense is that the state cannot establish or sponsor an
official religion.”20
11. New laws or policies were approved to further protect religious freedom, viz:
11.1. Republic Act (RA) No. 10908, entitled “An Act Mandating the Integration of
Filipino-Muslim and Indigenous Peoples History, Culture and Identity in
the Study of Philippine History in Both Basic and Higher Education” or the
Integrated History Act of 2016 (21 July 2016)
With the objective of creating an inclusive history that accounts for
all Filipinos, Congress deemed it necessary to integrate the history,
culture and identity studies of Filipino-Muslims and Indigenous
People in the grand narrative of Philippine history. Thus, concerned
government agencies are called to consult recognized experts on
Filipino-Muslims and Indigenous Peoples history, culture and
identity in the formulation of the curriculum on Filipino history.
11.2. RA No. 10818, entitled “An Act Instituting the Philippine Halal
Export Development and Promotion Board, Creating for the Purpose the
Philippine Halal Export Development and Promotion Board, and for Other
Purposes” (16 May 2016)
This law recognized the significant role of exports to national
economic development, and the potential contribution of Halal
industries. The Halal Board established under this law is called to
institutionalize the involvement of Muslim Filipino people’s
organizations and nongovernment organizations through
membership in consultative or advisory bodies, coordination of
activities with government agencies concerned with Halal industry
development, and participation in regular consultative mechanisms
such as public hearings and roundtable discussions. The law also
called for the development of Philippine National Standards for
Halal.
11.3. Memorandum Circular No. 88 (s. 2015) entitled “Directing the Creation of
Ad Hoc Task Group on Cultural and International Events”
In recognition of the significance of the 51st International
Eucharistic Congress and the Annual Sinulog Festival, the
government created an Ad Hoc Task Group to oversee, direct,
control and supervise the overall preparation, integration of plans,
20
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7,
2017
programs and activities on security, peace and order, and
emergency preparedness and response, to ensure a peaceful
hosting of the said cultural and international events. The Task
Force was tasked to be the government coordinator of the said
events.
11.4. The government, through the National Commission for Muslim Filipinos
(NCMF), under RA No. 9997, continues to administer, manage and
supervise the conduct of the annual Hajj to Mecca, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, to provide every Muslim pilgrim the necessary support and
service. For 2016, the NCMF’s Hajj calendar of events started on 22
January 2016 and will end on 10 October 2016. Under RA 10924 GAA FY
2017, NCMF allotted a total of PhP30,828,000 for Hajj Travel assistance
and endowment administration services.21
11.5. The government has also continued to recognize the needs of the Filipino
faithful to fully observe their respective religious traditions and occasions.
For 2016, the Eid’l Fitr (Proclamation No. 6 s. 2016) and Eidul Adha
(Proclamation No. 59 s. 2016) were declared regular holidays, as
recommended by the NCMF, to enable the Muslim community to give due
observance to the two greatest feasts of Islam. In the proclamation of
holidays for 2017 (Proclamation No. 50 s. 2016), the Eid’l Fitr and Eidul
Adha were similarly declared national holidays.
Penalties Interfering with the Freedom of Religion or Belief
The 1987 Constitution recognized the importance of freedom of religion or belief,
consequently, the Revised Penal Code22 and the Civil Code of the Philippines23
punish acts interfering with the freedom of religion or belief.
a. The Revised Penal Code punishes (1) any public officer or employee who
shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion
(Article 132); and (2) penalizes any person who shall perform acts notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful in a place devoted to religious worship
or during the celebration of any religious ceremony (Article 133).
21
22
23
Republic Act No. 10924, General Appropriations Act Fiscal Year 2017, Volume IB, p. 361
“ARTICLE 132. Interruption of Religious Worship. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
ARTICLE 133. Offending the Religious Feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious
ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” [Section 4 – Crime Against Religious Worship, Act No.
3815, “The Revised Penal Code”, December 8, 1930]
“Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of
religion; x x x” [Chapter 2 – Human Relations, “Republic Act No. 386, “Civil Code of the Philippines”, June 18, 1949]
b. The Civil Code makes any public officer or employee or any private individual
liable for damages, who shall directly or indirectly obstruct, defeat, violate or
in any manner impede or impair the freedom of religion of another person
(Article 32).
Relationship between the Freedom of Religion or Belief and Other Human Rights
1. Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution24 states that the Philippines
“adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land.” Under generally accepted principles of international law, freedom of
religion or belief is enshrined in Articles 18 and 19 of both the UDHR 25 and of
ICCPR.26 To fight against all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on
religion or belief, freedom of religion or belief is considered by the UNGA to be
interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing with other human rights.
“Emphasizes that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of
expression are interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing,
and stresses also the role that these rights can play in the fight against
all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief;”27
(italics in the UN Report)
1.1. Right to Participate in Government and Free Elections
1.1.1. The Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines28 reinforces the
separation of church and state by expressly prohibiting the political
24
25
26
27
28
“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.” (underscoring supplied)
[Section 2, Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies, 1987 Philippine Constitution]
“Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (emphases in the original) [A/RES/3/217AUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948]
“Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion
or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief
in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect
public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to
ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Article 19
xxx
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of
all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
x x x” (emphases in the original) [A/RES/21/220A, Annex 2 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN
General Assembly on 16 December 1966]
A/HRC/31/L.35, “Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to
development”, 21 March 2016
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, December 3, 1985, as amended
participation of religious groups who achieves its goal through
violence,29 banning their intervention in elections, prohibiting the
raising and donating to campaign funds,30 and preventing
ecclesiastics from coercing subordinates to vote for or against any
candidate.31
1.1.2. In a case32 which involves denial by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) of an accreditation in the party-list system of lesbians,
gays, bisexuals, or transgendered individuals (LGBTs), the Court
held, “Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that ‘[n]o law
shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.’ At bottom, what our non-establishment
clause calls for is ‘government neutrality in religious matters.’ Clearly,
‘governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with
this policy of neutrality.’ We thus find that it was grave violation of the
non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and
the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.” (italics in the case)
1.2. Children’s Right to Education
Under RA 905433 on policies and principles on religious instruction, it
provides that the implementation of religious instructions is allowed
provided it does not entail additional cost to the government.
“Religious instruction in public schools shall be optional, with the
written consent of the parent or guardian, and taught by the
authorities of the religion to which the student belongs. The
teaching of religion shall not involve additional costs to the
government in accordance with national policies.”
“No religious sect shall be registered as a political party and no political party which seeks to achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled
to accreditation.” [Section 61 - Registration, Article VIII – Political Parties, Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881, December 3, 1985 as amended]
30
“No candidate x x x shall x x x directly or indirectly, make any donation x x x [for] the construction or repair of x x x churches or chapels
cement pavements or any structure x x x for the use of any religious or civic organization: Provided, That normal and customary religious dues
or contributions, such as religious stipends, tithes or collections on Sundays or other designated collection days x x x are excluded from the
prohibition.” [Section 104 - Prohibited donations by candidates, treasurers of parties or their agents, Article XI – Electoral Constitutions and
Expenditures, Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, December 3, 1985 as amended]
31
“The following shall be guilty of an election offense:
xxx
(d) Coercion of subordinates.
(1) Any x x x head, superior, or administrator of any religious organization x x x who coerces or intimidates or compels, or in any
manner influence, directly or indirectly, any of his subordinates or members or parishioners or employees x x x to aid, campaign or
vote for or against any candidate or any aspirant for the nomination or selection of candidates.
(2) Any x x x head, superior or administrator of any religious organization x x x who dismisses or threatens to dismiss, punishes or
threatens to punish [by] x x x excommunication, x x x for disobeying or not complying with any of the acts ordered by the former to
aid, campaign or vote for or against any candidate, or any aspirant for the nomination or selection of candidates.” [Section 261,
Prohibited Acts, Article XXII – Election Offenses, Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, December
3, 1985 as amended]
32
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010, SC E-Library
33
Republic Act No. 9054, “An Act to Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Amending for
the Purpose Republic Act No. 6734, Entitled ‘An Act Providing for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao,’ as amended”, March 31,
2001
29
1.3. Right to Information
1.3.1. In another case, a Reproductive Health (RH) Law34 was assailed
because it exempts, among others, hospitals operated by religious
groups from rendering reproductive health service and modern family
planning methods.
1.3.2. It is unclear, however, if these institutions are also exempt from
giving reproductive health information or from rendering reproductive
health procedures.
1.3.3. It was held that there is no need to belabor “the issue of whether the
right to be exempt from being obligated to render reproductive health
service and modern family planning methods, includes exemption
from being obligated to give reproductive health information and to
render reproductive health procedures. Clearly, subject to the
qualifications and exemptions earlier discussed, the right to be
exempt from being obligated to render reproductive health service
and modern family planning methods, necessarily includes
exemption from being obligated to give reproductive health
information and to render reproductive health procedures. The terms
‘service’ and ‘methods’ are broad enough to include the providing of
information and the rendering of medical procedures.”35 (emphasis in
the case)
1.3.4. In a related case, Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, 36 the
Respondents cited the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to
support that they had the power to regulate the tarpaulin displayed
during the election. However, the court held that all these provisions
pertain to candidates and political parties. The Diocese of Bacolod
are not candidates but a religious group that “exist within a society
that is regulated by law.”37 Neither do they belong to any political
party. The COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the
enjoyment of the right of freedom of expression exercised by noncandidate.38 The Philippine Supreme Court held that “[t]he act of the
34
Republic Act No. 10354, The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, December 21, 2012
Imbong v. Hon. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
36
G.R. No. 205728, July 5, 2016 (Resolution) and January 21, 2015 (Decision)
37
“Clearly, not all acts done by those who are priests, bishops, ustadz, imams, or any other religious make such immune from any secular
regulation. The religious also have a secular existence. They exist within a society that is regulated by law.” [Diocese of Bacolod v.
COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015 (Decision)
38
“The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the
operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation
or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply, including
reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding
free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.” (underscoring supplied) [Section 4, Article IX – Constitutional Commissions, C – The
Commission on Elections, 1987 Philippine Constitution]
35
COMELEC in issuing the assailed notice dated February 22, 2013 39
and letter dated February 27, 201340 is declared unconstitutional.”41
2. Member States should ensure that provisions on behalf of religion or belief are
conceptualized and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner.42 Based on
reports, to do otherwise may constitute adverse effects on individual States and
may result to the following:
2.1. “When the State itself announces its religion in the Constitution, the law
arguably ceases to reflect the ethnic and religious variety of the society,
opening the floodgates to arbitrary action and religious intolerance.
Furthermore, if one religion is recognized as a State religion, then women
belonging to religious minorities, or those who do not follow the mainstream
interpretation of the State religion, may face aggravated discrimination; for
example when the State or society seeks to impose its view of women. Both
with regard to State religions and other religious or belief communities, the
State should never try to take control of religion by defining its content and
concepts or by imposing limitations, apart from those which are strictly
necessary pursuant to article 18, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.”43
2.2. “State agencies can also be directly involved in violent sectarian
polarization. This is often the case where the State understands itself as the
guardian of one particular religion. If this is compounded with an ‘official’ or
State religion, the negative impact on people belonging to religious
minorities tends to be even worse. Whereas the followers of the protected
religion(s) usually receive a privileged treatment, adherents to other
religions or beliefs may suffer serious discrimination, such as
underrepresentation in public employment, exclusion from higher education
or even deprivation of citizenship.”44
2.3. “Ample experience demonstrates that the use of religion in the context of
national identity politics always harbours increased risks of discrimination
against minorities, in particular against members of immigrant religious
communities or new religious movements, who often are stigmatized as
allegedly endangering national cohesion.”45
39
Notice to Remove Campaign Materials
Letter ordering the immediate removal of the tarpaulin
41
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, July 5, 2016 (Resolution), quoting Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728,
January 21, 2015 (Decision)
42
United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, 26 December
2013; and 22 December 2011
43
United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, 22 December
2011
44
United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, 29 December
2014
45
United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, 26 December
2013
40
2.4. “State religions or official religions are not per se prohibited under
international human rights law.”46 However, it is pointed out that “States
should ensure that having an official religion — or making reference in
constitutional or legal provisions to the historical role of a particular religion
— does not lead to a de jure or de facto discrimination against members of
other religions and beliefs.”47 In addition, the report provides that
“[n]otwithstanding, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of an
application of the concept of an official ‘State religion’ that in practice does
not have adverse effects on religious minorities, thus discriminating against
their members.”48
3. “A secular constitution can well serve a society in which many people manifest
their religious convictions, passions and loyalties, perform religious practices and
enjoy religious festivities. A secular State and a religious society can
harmoniously exist together. But a secular State cannot at the same time be a
religious State, i.e. a State proclaiming an official State religion.”49
4. Therefore, “[i]n order to operate as a credible guarantor of freedom of religion or
belief for everyone, the State should not identify itself exclusively with one
particular religion or belief (or one particular type of religions) at the expense of
equal treatment of the followers of other faiths.”50
From the foregoing, the State is dissuaded from unduly interfering with the outside
manifestations of one’s belief and faith51 with limitations,52 while religious group are also
not allowed to impose its beliefs on the rest of the society. 53
46
Ibid.
Ibid.
48
United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, 26 December
2013
49
Preliminary findings of Country Visit to Bangladesh by Heiner Bielefeldt, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief , 9 September
2015, http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID= 16399&LangID=E#sthash.dBEuKcbJ.dpuf (last visited May
19, 2017)
50
United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, 29 December
2014
51
“On the other hand, the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience. Under this part of religious
freedom guarantee, the State is prohibited from unduly interfering with the outside manifestations of one's belief and faith.” [Imbong, v. Hon.
Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014, p. 66]
52
“Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect
public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” [Article 18(3), International Covenant on Civil
Political Rights]
53
“In conformity with the principle of separation of Church and State, one religious group cannot be allowed to impose its beliefs on the rest of
the society.” [Imbong, v. Hon. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014, p. 101]
47