LEX SCEPTICUS

Article II, Sec. 6. “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” This is also called as the Non-establishment clause. The Concept of this provision is that the State has no right to establish a religion, force or influence a person against his will to associate or disassociate himself to a particular religion and to mandate a national religion. The constitutional provisions not only prohibits legislation for the support of any religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect, thus forestalling compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship (U.S. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 88 L. ed. 1148, 1153) The non-establishment clause can be summarized as: 1. The prohibition of supporting directly institutional religion but not support which indirectly accrues to churches and church agencies through support given to its members; and 2. Prohibition to both direct and indirect aid to religion when the aid involves preference of one rel

Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th

Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h

Aglipay vs. Ruiz  GR No. L-45459                             March 13, 1937 Facts: The Director of Post announced that he would order the issues of postage stamps commemorating the celebration of City of Manila of the 33 rd International Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic Church pursuant to Act No. 4052 for the purpose of appropriating funds for the making of new postage stamps. Aglipay requested Atty. Vicente Sotto to denounce the matter to the President. It was alleged that Ruiz is in direct violation of the Constitution by issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33 rd International Eucharistic Congress. That such act was violative of Art. VI, Sec. 23 (3) of the Philippines, to wit: No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, secretarian, institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any pri

Halagueña, et al. vs PAL  GR No. 172013                                                                 October 2, 2009 Facts: Petitioners were employed as flight attendants of respondent on different dates prior to November 1996. They are members of FASAP union exclusive bargaining organization of the flightattendants, flight stewards and pursers. On July 2001, respondent and FASAP entered into a CBA incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement for the years 2000 to 2005 (compulsory retirement of 55 for female and 60 for males). In July 2003, petitioner and several female cabin crews, in a letter, manifested that the provision in CBA on compulsory retirement is discriminatory. On July 2004, petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with issuanceof TRO with the RTC Makati. The RTC issued a TRO. After the denial of the respondent on itsmotion for reconsideration for the TRO, it filed a Petition with the CA. CA granted respondent’s petition

Holganza, et al. vs Judge Apostol  GR No. L- 32953                                                 March 31, 1977 Facts: SSS filed with the lower court a complaint for damages with writ of preliminary attachments against herein petitioners Holganza, et al. for an alleged labor dispute that resulted in strike by the latter. The latter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and with additional objection that the case was filed prematurely. Respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Issue: Whether or not regular courts has jurisdiction over cases for damages involving labor disputes? Ruling: No, in the case of Associated Labor Union v. Gomez the Supreme Court held that, the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIR (now NLRC) in dispute of this character was upheld. To hold otherwise, is to sanction split jurisdiction, which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of Justice. Also in the case of Progressive labor Association v