7/28/2019 Social Justice and Separation of Church and State

1/5

Calalang vs Williams (Social Justice)

Facts:

CA No. 458 authorizes Director of Public Works with theapproval of the Secretary of Public Works and Comms. topromulgate rules and regulations for regulation and controlof use and traffic on national roads. The Director, with

approval of Secretary of Pub Works and Comm, and uponrecommendation of Nat'l Traffic Commission, issued anorder closing to animal-drawn vehicles certain parts of RizalAve. and Rosario Street. Petitioner challengesconstitutionality of the Act (and order) as being an unduedelegation of legislative powers.

ISSUE: W/N there is undue delegation

HELD:

No. The authority delegated to Director and Secretary is notto determine what public policy demands but merely tocarry out the legislative policy laid down by the Nat'lAssembly, "to promote safe transit upon and avoidobstruction on, roads and streets designated as nat'l roads"and to close them temporarily to any or all classes ofvehicles "whenever the condition of the road or the trafficmakes such action necessary or advisable in the publicconvenience or interest." The delegated power, if at all, isnot the determination of what the law should be but merelythe ascertainment of facts and circumstances on which theapplication of the law is to be predicated. This is anadministrative function which must depend on discretion ofanother govt official to whom is confided the duty ofdetermining whether there is proper occasion to execute thelaw. But the exercise of such discretion cannot be said asmaking the law.

1. Aglipay vs Ruiz

Facts of the Case:

The Director of Posts announced on May 1936 in Manilanewspapers that he would order the issuance of postage stampsfor the commemoration of the 33rd International EucharisticCongress celebration in the City of Manila. The said event wasorganized by the Roman Catholic Church. Monsignor GregorioAglipay, the petitioner, is the Supreme Head of the PhilippineIndependent Church, requested Vicente Sotto who is a member ofthe Philippine Bar to raise the matter to the President. The saidstamps in consideration were actually issued already and soldthough the greater part thereof remained unsold. The further saleof the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated the Constitution in issuingand selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty-thirdInternational Eucharistic Congress

Held:

No, the respondent did not violate the Constitution by issuing andselling the commemorative postage stamps. Ruiz acted under theprovision of Act No. 4052, which contemplates no religiouspurpose in view, giving the Director of Posts the discretion todetermine when the issuance of new postage stamps would beadvantageous to the Government. Of course, the phraseadvantageous to the Government does not authorize theviolation of the Constitution. In the case at bar, the issuance of the

postage stamps was not intended by Ruiz to favor a particularchurch or denomination. The stamps did not benefit the RomanCatholic Church, nor were money derived from the sale of thestamps given to that church. The purpose of issuing of the stampswas to actually take advantage of an international eventconsidered to be a great opportunity to give publicity to thePhilippines and as a result attract more tourists to the country. Inevaluating the design made for the stamp, it showed the map ofthe Philippines instead of showing a Catholic chalice. The focuswas on the location of the City of Manila, and it also bore theinscription that reads Seat XXXIII International EucharisticCongress, Feb. 3-7, 1937. In considering these, it is evident that

there is no violation of the Constitution therefore the act of the

3. Everson vs. Board of EducationFacts:A New Jersey statute authorized local school districts to make rules andcontracts for the transportation of children to and from public and privateschools. The Board of Education of Ewing Township authorized

reimbursement to parents of money spent by them for the bustransportation of their children on regular buses operated by the publictransportation system. A taxpayer brought suit claiming thatreimbursement to the parents of parochial school students violated theEstablishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Issue:Whether reimbursing parents for their childrens transportation to andfrom religious schools violates the Establishment Clause when it is part ofa general transportation reimbursement scheme.

Holding:By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that the state does not violate the

Establishment clause when it reimburses parents, as the money flows tothe parents as part of a general secular policy designed to keep childrensafe while en route to and from school.

Reasoning:The Court found that while the Establishment Clause requires that thestate remain neutral among religions and between religion and non-religion, the New Jersey plan merely provided money to parents as part ofa general government service that was not inherently religious incharacter, similar to providing sewer and police services to churches.

Majority:"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means atleast this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up achurch. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, orprefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a personto go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him toprofess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished forentertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for churchattendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, canbe levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever theymay be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practicereligion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly orsecretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groupsand vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishmentof religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation betweenchurch and State." (Justice Hugo Black)

Dissent:Although the Court was unanimous in affirming the principle of"neutrality" by the government toward religion, four Justices disagreedwith the majoritys view that allowing reimbursement for bus

2. Engel vs. VitaleCircumstances of the Case

In 1951 the New York State Board of Regents (the State board of education)approved a 22-word nondenominational prayer for recitation each morning in the publicschools of New York. It read: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, andwe beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country. The Regentsbelieved that the prayer could be a useful tool for the development of character and good

citizenship among the students of the State of New York. The prayer was offered to the schoolboards in the State for their use, and participation in the prayer-exercise was voluntary. InNew Hyde Park, New York, the Union Free School District No. 9 directed the local principal tohave the prayer said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of theschool day.

The parents of ten pupils in the New Hyde Park schools objected to the prayer. Theyfiled suit in a New York State court seeking a ban on the prayer, insisting that the use of thisofficial prayer in the public schools was contrary to their own and their children's beliefs,religions, or religious practices. The State appeals court upheld the use of the prayer, so longas the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection.

Constitutional Issues:The question before the Court involved the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Didthe Regents of New York violate the religious freedom of students by providing time during theschool day for this particular prayer? Did the prayer itself represent an unconstitutional actionin effect, the establishment of a religious codeby a public agency? Did the EstablishmentClause of the 1st Amendment prevent schools from engaging in religious activity? Was the

wall of separation between church and state breached in this case?

ArgumentsFor Engel (the parents): The separation of church and state requires that government stay outof the business of prescribing religious activities of any kind. The Regents' prayer quite simplyand clearly violated the 1st Amendment and should, therefore, be barred from the schools.

For the Regents of the State of New York: The New York Regents did not establish a religion byproviding a prayer for those who wanted to say it. Countless religious elements are associatedwith governments and officials, reflecting the religious heritage of the nation. New York actedproperly and constitutionally in providing an optional, nonsectarian prayer. It would be anintrusion into State matters for the Supreme Court to strike down the right of the Regents tocompose the prayer and encourage its recitation.

Decision and RationaleThe Court found the New York Regents' prayer to be unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black wrotethe opinion for the 6-1 majority: We think that by using its public school system to encourage

recitation of the Regents' Prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice whollyinconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York'sprogram of daily classroom invocation of God's blessingsin the Regents' Prayer is a religiousactivity

Black further explained that When the power, prestige and financial support of government isplaced behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religiousminorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. The EstablishmentClause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitutionthat religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civilmagistrate.

To support the Court's finding, Black referred to the following ideas of the Framers: To thosewho may subscribe to the view that because the Regents' official prayer is so brief and general[it] can be no danger to religious freedom, it may be appropriate to say in the words of JamesMadison, the author of the First Amendment: 'Who does not see that the same authoritywhich can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same

ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?'

The Court's decision was not, Black pointed out, antireligious. It sought, rather, only to affirmthe separation between church and state. It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say thateach separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing orsanctioning official prayers Thereafter, State governments could not prescribe by law anyarticular form of ra er which is to be used as an official ra er in carr in on an ro ram of

7/28/2019 Social Justice and Separation of Church and State

2/5

4. Tudor vs. Board of EducationFacts:

Gideons International applied to the Board of education of

Rutherford, New Jersey, for permission to distribute theGideon Bible in the public schools to children in the fifththrough eighth grades and high school. Mimeographedforms, provided by the schools, were to be given thestudents to take home to their parents. If the parentssignified by signing and returning the forms that theywished their children to have a bible, the teachers wouldthen give the student a Bible after school hours on aspecified day. The board of education accepted this planover the objection of Jewish and Catholic parents, who thensought to enjoin the adopted plan for Bible distribution. The

Catholic parent subsequently withdrew his child from theschool. The lower court refused to enter a permanentinjunction.

Held:

The Gideons International is a nonprofit corporationorganized under the laws of the State of Illinois, whoseobject is "to win men and women for the Lord Jesus Christ,through * * * (c) placing the Bible God's Holy Words orportions thereof in hotels, hospitals, schools, institutions,

and also through the distribution of same for personal use."In recent years it began a campaign to make available topupils in the public schools of this country the so-called"Gideon Bible," which was characterized by the Internationalin its pleadings as "a book containing all of the New

Testament, all of the Book of Psalms from the OldTestament, all of the Book of Proverbs from the OldTestament; all without note or comment, conformable to theedition of 1611, commonly known as the Authorized, or King

James version of the Holy Bible." In furtherance of thiscampaign it applied by letter to the Board of Education of

the Borough of Rutherford for permission to distribute itsBible to the public schools of that municipality:

5. Zorach vs. Clauson

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioners, Zorach and othertaxpayers and residents of New York City (Petitioners),

brought suit challenging the constitutionality of a releasedtime program, which allowed children to leave school, withparental permission, for religious instruction.

Facts. The released time program allowed children, withparental permission, to be released from school for religiousinstruction. The instructions took place away from the schoolgrounds and no school involvement was required, other thanacknowledging the students participation. The Petitionersbrought suit challenging the constitutionality of the programalleging that the prohibition against any laws respecting the

establishment of any religion also prohibited this voluntaryprogram. The Petitioners appealed from a judgment for theRespondents, Clauson and other member of the Board ofEducation of the City of New York (Respondents) and theSupreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court)granted writs.

Issue. The issue is simply whether New York, through itsacceptance of the released time program, has engaged inthe respect of an establishment of religion, within themeaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. This case stands for the propositionthat the Establishment Clause of the United StatesConstitution (Constitution) does not advocate hostilitytoward religion and mere acknowledgment of a religiousprogram, without participation, is not unconstitutional.

7/28/2019 Social Justice and Separation of Church and State

3/5

6. Board of Education vs. AllenFacts:

A 1965 amendment to New York's Education Law required

public school boards to lend textbooks to elementary andsecondary school students enrolled in private and parochialschools. The Board of Education for New York Central SchoolDistrict No. 1, contending that the law violated theEstablishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the FirstAmendment, filed suit against James Allen, Commissioner ofEducation, requesting a declaratory injunction to preventenforcement of the statute. The trial court agreed with theboard and found the statute unconstitutional. The AppellateDivision reversed the ruling, finding that the boards lackedstanding. On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals ruled

the boards did have standing, but also found that, becausethe law's purpose was to benefit all students regardless ofthe type of school they attended, the law did not violate theFirst Amendment.

Issue:

Do the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the FirstAmendment forbid New York from requiring that publicschool boards loan textbooks to parochial school studentswithout cost?

Held:

No. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Byron R. White, theCourt applied the test constructed in Abington SchoolDistrict v. Schempp and found that, because the statedlegislative purpose and necessary effects of the statute didnot advance any one religion or religion in general, the lawdid not violate the First Amendment. Because the bookswere given to the students, rather than the parochialschools themselves, the Court reasoned, "the financial

benefit is to parents and children, not schools."

7. People vs Fernandez

7/28/2019 Social Justice and Separation of Church and State

4/5

7/28/2019 Social Justice and Separation of Church and State

5/5

8. Garces vs. EstenzoFacts:Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc Citywere passed:

a. Resolution No. 5- Reviving the traditional socio-religiouscelebration every fifth of April. This provided for the acquisition ofthe image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waitingshed. Funds for the said projects will be obtained through theselling of tickets and cash donations.b. Resolution No. 6- The chairman or hermano mayor of the fiestawould be the caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer andthat the image would remain in his residence for one year anduntil the election of his successor. The image would be madeavailable to the Catholic Church during the celebration of thesaints feast day.

These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and saidprojects were implemented. The image was temporarily placed inthe altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. However, after a

mass, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea refused to return the imageto the barangay council, as it was the churchs property sincechurch funds were used in its acquisition.

Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring alawyer for the replevin case against the priest for the recovery ofthe image. Resolution No. 12 appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as arepresentative to the case. The priest, in his answer assailed theconstitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest with AndresGarces, a member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that Sec. 8Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution wasviolated.

Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in theConstitution violated.

Held: No. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over thecustody of the image. The image was purchased in connectionwith the celebration of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose offavoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters orbeliefs of the barrio residents. Any activity intended to facilitatethe worship of the patron saint(such as the acquisition) is notillegal. Practically, the image was placed in a laymans custody sothat it could easily be made available to any family desiring toborrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. It was

the councils funds that were used to buy the image, therefore it istheir property. Right of the determination of custody is their right,and even if they decided to give it to the Church, there is no

8. Gonzales vs. Archbishop of Manila

Facts:

Gonzalez brought the suit against the archbishop in the CFI ofManila and prayed for judgment declaring that he, the lawful heirto the chaplaincy and its income; establishing the right of thepetitioner and his successors to be appointed to and receive theincome of the chaplaincy during their infancy whenever it may bevacant and, pending such appointment, to receive the income fortheir maintenance and support. The trial court directed thearchbishop to appoint Gonzalez as chaplain; and ordered paymentto him the sum being the aggregate net income of the chaplaincyduring the vacancy, less the expense of having the prescribedmasses celebrated in each year. It reserved to the petitioner anylegal right he may have to proceed in the proper court forcancellation of the certificate of registration of the property in thename of the archbishop.

Issue: Is the Gonzalez legally entitled to be appointed thechaplain?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands reversed thejudgment and absolved the archbishop from the complaint,'without prejudice to the right of proper persons in interest toproceed for independent relief,' in respect to the income accruedduring the vacancy, or in respect to the reformation of thecertificate of registration so as to show the fiduciary character ofthe title. Without deciding whether such disposition of the surplus

was proper or what should be its disposition in the future, that ason of the last incumbent, who was properly refused appointmentas chaplain because he had not the qualifications prescribed bythe Canon Law, was not entitled, as the nearest relative, to theaccrued surplus.