The battle between inalienable rights: Will the exercise of religion freedom violate other civil and political rights?

• Main Authors: Jao, Charissa Grace U., Yap, Iris Hannah S.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2013
• Subjects: Commercial Law
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/18010
• Institution: De La Salle University

According to Reynold's v. United States, law are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious and opinions, they may with practices . Can a man excuse this practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To provide such exemptions to neutral laws would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances. The right to freedom of expression has been afforded the utmost priority in the hierarchy of rights. Present international conventions declare that the state obligations with regards to freedom of expression are absolute and immediate. The free-exercise clause and the non-establishment clause forestall any government interference with any form of belief, religious or not. Pursuant to such grant of liberty, the Philippines has adopted a Benevolent Neutrality Theory in the interpretation of its laws. This theory, stemming from American Jurisprudence, has long been adopted by the Philippine Courts in their interpretation of cases related to religious freedom. Yet, through the passage of time, cases have been ruled and overruled, causing inconsistencies in our Jurisprudence and proving a need for a better foundation than a mere liberal approach. Further, such liberal exercise has caused the impairment of an individual’s other civil and political rights, which are no less important than one's right to religious freedom. The liberality afforded by the Benevolent Neutrality Theory has further contributed to an unclear and indefinite boundary to what extent may be freedom of religion be exercised contrary to the constitutional principle of the Separation of Church and State, which disallows the state's encroachment on religious freedom, and conversely, the encroachment of religious fiat on secular laws. In 1960, when then presidential candidate John F. Kennedy had his speech, many Christians questioned whether or not the presidential candidate's beliefs as a Roman Catholic would affect his decision making as a president. Kennedy's view on progressivism, as dictated by his speech, set a solid ground for the Separation of Church and State in America and has been the basic tenet in the founding of a Republic that affords the utmost respect for an individual's human rights. This research seeks to address the said issue on the exercise of freedom of expression, particularly religious freedom. Furthermore, pursuant to the Separation of Church and State, this research seeks to discover where the boundaries lie before the State may legally step in without impairing the religious freedom of the individual.