|
|
|
|
 |
Freedom of Religion and Freedom of expression
Guaranteed by the Constitution
Believer Magazine | March | 2005
by
Atty. Batas Mauricio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 N DECEMBER 23, 2004, the lawyers comprising the
entire legal department of the Iglesia Ni Cristo
filed two cases before the Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), against
Brother Eli Soriano and his erstwhile partners in
disseminating the Word of God through the Church of
God International, which is more popularly known as
the "Ang Dating Daan."
The cases, docketed as Administrative Case No. 04-03
and 04-04, sought to stop Bro. Eli, Bro. Josel
Mallari and Sister Luz Cruz,
and all the television programs featuring their
evangelistic activities from calling the Iglesia ni
Cristo the "Iglesia ni Manalo."
The complainants, lawyers Restituto Lazaro, Susan
May Castillo Tuazon, Estrellita C. Panulaya and
Wilfredo M. Santos, charged, quite vehemently, that
in calling the Iglesia ni Cristo the "Iglesia ni
Manalo", Brother Eli and company are doing something
that "mocks, ridicules and destroys the good name
and reputation of the Iglesia ni Cristo."
The gist of the lawyers' argument is that they are
offended and scandalized when their religious
organization, which they say is the Iglesia ni
Cristo, is called the "Iglesia ni Manalo,"
While these cases are now pending resolution by the
MTRCB and, therefore, the merits of which should no
longer be discussed in a manner that would sway the
MTRCB board members one way or the other, I am
referring to them just the same, not to sway the
Board nor to discuss their merit, but to drive home
a few points about religious freedom and press
freedom in this country.
Irrespective of Administrative Cases Nos. 04-03 and
04-04 of the MTRCB, there are certain immutable
truths about religious freedom which every
self-thinking Filipino should be aware and should
know deep in his heart.
The first of these truths is that the 1987
Constitution of the Philippines guarantees the free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination and preference.
This is what the Constitution provides on this
point. In Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 5,
it reads: “No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights."
Corollarily, the same 1987 Constitution provides a
similar guarantee for freedom of expression and of
the press in the following manner: "Sec. 4. No law
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances."
What is the significance of these two Constitutional
rights to the case at bar?
Their significance lies in the fact that the
Constitution provides for the untrammeled exercise
of these two rights, and no agency like the Board
could limit the exercise of those rights without
running afoul of the law.
And this is the second immutable truth that I am
concerned about in this piece -- that the MTRCB does
not have the power—and jurisdiction—to act on the
instant cases, as acting, one way or the other,
would mean violating the Constitutional guarantees
in question.
The fact is that Brother Eli, et. al. (or any other
religious minister, for that matter) are being sued
here in their capacities as religious ministers
engaged in religious profession and worship, and as
media practitioners who are engaged in media work.
Pursuant to their role as religious ministers, it is
their right and prerogative, based on the aforesaid
Section 5, Art. Ill of the 1987 Constitution, to
engage in religious rituals and other activities
that they may deem expedient and necessary in
teaching their flock, such as discussing other forms
of religious groups or branding these religious
groups by this or that name.
Of course, there maybe a dispute as to whether or
not these discussions and labeling of other
religious organizations maybe appropriate or not, or
maybe classified as a religious ritual or not.
This dispute would be natural, for there would
always be two sides to that controversy, no matter
what.
When there is such a dispute, as to whether what the
religious ministers are doing is actually a
religious ritual or not, which agency of government
is called upon to rule on the matter?
Authority on this point is to the effect that it is
only the courts which can legally make a declaration
whether that ritual is indeed religious or not.
No other agency, like the MTRCB, is given the right
to make that declaration.
In the book, "The 1987 Constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines: A Commentary", eminent
constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., wrote
that on issues calling for a determination of
whether a certain ritual is to be considered a
religious ceremony or not, it is the courts which
are given the power to make the determination.
Citing the case of Gerona vs. Secretary of
Education, 106 Phil. 2, 11 (1959), the Supreme
Court, according to Fr. Bernas' book, has already
ruled that "the determination of whether a certain
ritual is or is not a religious ceremony must rest
with the courts".
About that case, this is what the Supreme Court
actually said:
"After all, the determination of whether a certain
ritual is or is not a religious ceremony must rest
with the courts. It cannot be left to a religious
group or sect, much less to a follower of said group
or sect; otherwise, there would be confusion and
misunderstanding for there might be as many
interpretations and meanings to be given to a
certain ritual or ceremony as there are religious
groups or sects or followers, all depending upon the
meaning which they, though in all sincerity and good
faith, may want to give to such ritual or ceremony."
It is clear therefore that the MTRCB has no
jurisdiction over an action which would call for the
rendition of a judgment over the issue of whether or
not a certain act is a religious ritual.
Additionally, I would like to point out that the
Supreme Court has already laid down the rule that
the exercise of religious freedom could not be
subject to a prior restraint or limitation, except
where there exists a grave and present danger of a
character both grave and imminent.
In the case of Ebralinag vs. The Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA256, the
Supreme Court, quoting a dissent of former Chief
Justice Claudio Teehankee in German vs. Barangan,
135 SCRA 514, 517, said that "the sole justification
for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise
of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and
present danger of a character both grave and
imminent, of a serious evil to his public safety,
public morals, public health or any other legitimate
public interest, that the State has a right (and
duty) to prevent".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctrines of
Christ
