RE: LETTER OF TONY Q.

VALENCIANO, HOLDING OF
RELIGIOUS RITUALS AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE
BUILDING IN QUEZON CITY.

Constitutional Law; Freedom of Religion; The State still

recognizes the inherent right of the people to have some form of
belief system, whether such may be belief in a Supreme Being, a
certain way of life, or even an outright rejection of religion.—
The State still recognizes the inherent right of the people to have
some form of belief system, whether such may be belief in a
Supreme Being, a certain way of life, or even an outright
rejection of religion. Our very own Constitution recognizes the
heterogeneity and religiosity of our people as reflected in
Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 SCRA 146 (2014), as follows: At the
outset, it cannot be denied that we all live in a heterogeneous
society. It is made up of people of diverse ethnic, cultural and
religious beliefs and backgrounds. 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
to-

_______________

*  EN BANC.
 

314

314

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

wards all — the religious people of different sects and the

nonbelievers. The undisputed fact is that our people generally
believe in a deity, whatever they conceived Him to be, and to
Who they called for guidance and enlightenment in crafting our
fundamental law.

Same; Same; The right to religious profession and worship has a

two (2)-fold aspect — freedom to believe and freedom to act on
one’s beliefs.—Freedom of religion was accorded preferred
status by the framers of our fundamental law. And this Court has
consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is
“designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience,
to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess
his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent
with the liberty of others and with the common good.” “The
right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect
— freedom to believe and freedom to act on one’s beliefs. The
first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm
of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief
is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.”

Same; Same; Allowing religion to flourish is not contrary to the

principle of separation of Church and State.—Allowing religion
to flourish is not contrary to the principle of separation of
Church and State. In fact, these two principles are in perfect
harmony with each other. The State is aware of the existence of
religious movements whose members believe in the divinity of
Jose Rizal. Yet, it does not implement measures to suppress the
said religious sects. Such inaction or indifference on the part of
the State gives meaning to the separation of Church and State,
and at the same time, recognizes the religious freedom of the
members of these sects to worship their own Supreme Being. As
pointed out by Judge Lutero, “the Roman Catholics express their
worship through the holy mass and to stop these would be
tantamount to repressing the right to the free exercise of their
religion. Our Muslim brethren, who are government employees,
are allowed to worship their Allah even during office hours
inside their own offices. The Seventh Day Adventists are
exempted from rendering Saturday duty because their religion
prohibits them from working on a Saturday. Even Christians
have been allowed to conduct their own bible studies in their
own offices. All these have been allowed in respect of the
workers’ right to the free exercise of their religion.”

315

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

315

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

Same; Same; Religious freedom is not absolute. It cannot have

its way if there is a compelling state interest.—Religious
freedom, however, is not absolute. It cannot have its way if there
is a compelling state interest. To successfully invoke compelling
state interest, it must be demonstrated that the masses in the QC
Hall of Justice unduly disrupt the delivery of public services or
affect the judges and employees in the performance of their
official functions.

Same; Same; Policy of Accommodation; In order to give life to

the constitutional right of freedom of religion, the State adopts a
policy of accommodation.—In 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.

Same; Same; Same; Several laws have been enacted to

accommodate religion.—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 Zhul Hijja, the twelfth month of the Islamic
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.

Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) recognized that

the observance of Ramadan as integral to the Islamic faith and
allowed Muslim employees in the Judiciary to hold flexible
office hours from 7:30 in the morning to 3:30 in the afternoon
without any break during the period.—In Re: Request of Muslim
Employees in the Different Courts in Iligan City (Re: Office
Hours), 477 SCRA 648 (2005),

316

316

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals
at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

the Court recognized that the observance of Ramadan as integral

to the Islamic faith and allowed Muslim employees in the
Judiciary to hold flexible office hours from 7:30 in the morning
to 3:30 in the afternoon without any break during the period.
This is a clear case of accommodation because Section 5, Rule
XVII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No.
292, enjoins all civil servants, of whatever religious
denomination, to render public service of no less than eight (8)
hours a day or forty (40) hours a week.

Same; Same; Establishment Clause; The non-establishment

clause reinforces the wall of separation between Church and
State.—On the opposite side of the spectrum is the constitutional
mandate that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment
of religion,” otherwise known as the non-establishment clause.
Indeed, there is a thin line between accommodation and
establishment, which makes it even more imperative to
understand each of these concepts by placing them in the
Filipino society’s perspective. The non-establishment clause
reinforces the wall of separation between Church and State. It
simply means that 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 and vice versa. Its minimal
sense is that the state cannot establish or sponsor an official
religion.

Same; Same; Same; Policy of Accommodation; The holding of

Catholic masses at the basement of the Quezon City (QC) Hall
of Justice is not a case of establishment, but merely
accommodation.—It is our considered view that the holding of
Catholic masses at the basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not
a case of establishment, but merely accommodation. First, there
is no law, ordinance or circular issued by any duly constitutive
authorities expressly mandating that judiciary employees attend
the Catholic masses at the basement. Second, when judiciary
employees attend the masses to profess their

 
317

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

317

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

faith, it is at their own initiative as they are there on their own

free will and volition, without any coercion from the judges or
administrative officers. Third, no government funds are being
spent because the lightings and air-conditioning continue to be
operational even if there are no religious rituals there. Fourth,
the basement has neither been converted into a Roman Catholic
chapel nor has it been permanently appropriated for the
exclusive use of its faithful. Fifth, the allowance of the masses
has not prejudiced other religions.

Same; Same; Same; Section 29(2), Article VI of the 1987

Constitution provides, “No public money or property shall be
appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly,
for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of
any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or
dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.”—Section
29(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides, “No public
money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support
of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or
system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces,
or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.” The word “apply” means “to use or employ for a
particular purpose.” “Appropriate” means “to prescribe a
particular use for particular moneys or to designate or destine a
fund or property for a distinct use, or for the payment of a
particular demand.”

Statutory Construction; Principle of Noscitur a Sociis; Words

and Phrases; Under the principle of noscitur a sociis, where a
particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally
susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may be
made clear and specific by considering the company of words in
which it is found or with which it is associated.—Under the
principle of noscitur a sociis, where a particular word or phrase
is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various
meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and
specific by considering the company of words in which it is
found or with which it is associated. This is because a word or
phrase in a statute is always used in association with other

318

318

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

words or phrases, and its meaning may, thus, be modified or

restricted by the latter. The particular words, clauses and phrases
should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but
the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in
fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a
harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as to
harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever
possible.
Constitutional Law; Freedom of Religion; That a priest belongs
to a particular church and the latter may have benefited from the
money he received is of no moment, for the purpose of the
payment of public funds is merely to compensate the priest for
services rendered and for which other persons, who will perform
the same services will also be compensated in the same manner.
—The phrase “directly or indirectly” refers to the manner of
appropriation of public money or property, not as to whether a
particular act involves a direct or a mere incidental benefit to
any church. Otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would
have placed it before “use, benefit or support” to describe the
same. Even the exception to the same provision bolsters this
interpretation. The exception contemplates a situation wherein
public funds are paid to a priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher, or dignitary because they rendered service in
the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium. That a priest belongs to a particular
church and the latter may have benefited from the money he
received is of no moment, for the purpose of the payment of
public funds is merely to compensate the priest for services
rendered and for which other persons, who will perform the
same services will also be compensated in the same manner.

Same; Same; Establishment Clause; What is proscribed is the

passage of any law which tends to establish a religion, not
merely to accommodate the free exercise thereof.—Ut magis
valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a
whole. As such, the foregoing interpretation finds support in the
Establishment Clause, which is as clear as daylight in stating
that what is proscribed is the passage of any law which tends to
establish a religion, not merely to accommodate the free exercise
thereof.

Same; Same; Same; No undue religious bias is being committed

when the subject basement is allowed to be temporarily used by
the

319

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

319

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City
Catholics to celebrate mass, as the same area can be used by
other groups of people and for other purposes.—Here, the
basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not appropriated, applied
or employed for the sole purpose of supporting the Roman
Catholics. Further, it has not been converted into a Roman
Catholic chapel for the exclusive use of its faithful contrary to
the claim of Valenciano. Judge Maceren reported that the
basement is also being used as a public waiting area for most of
the day and a meeting place for different employee
organizations. The use of the area for holding masses is limited
to lunch break period from twelve (12) o’clock to one (1)
o’clock in the afternoon. Further, Judge Sagun, Jr. related that
masses run for just a little over thirty (30) minutes. It is,
therefore, clear that no undue religious bias is being committed
when the subject basement is allowed to be temporarily used by
the Catholics to celebrate mass, as the same area can be used by
other groups of people and for other purposes. Thus, the
basement of the QC Hall of Justice has remained to be a public
property devoted for public use because the holding of Catholic
masses therein is a mere incidental consequence of its primary
purpose.

Same; Same; Same; That the holding of masses at the basement

of the Quezon City (QC) Hall of Justice may offend non-
Catholics is no reason to proscribe it. 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.—That the holding of masses at the
basement of the QC Hall of Justice may offend non-Catholics is
no reason to proscribe it. 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. One cannot espouse
that the constitutional freedom of religion ensures tolerance, but,
in reality, refuses to practice what he preaches. One cannot ask
for tolerance when he refuses to do the same for others.

Leonardo-De Castro, J., Concurring Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Freedom of Religion; View that it is a

mistake to trivialize the import of the ruling in Estrada v.
Escritor, 408

320
320

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

SCRA 1 (2003), in the case at bar which involves a lawful

exercise of religious freedom.—I respectfully submit that it is a
mistake to trivialize the import of the ruling in Estrada v.
Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003), in the case at bar which involves a
lawful exercise of religious freedom. While this case does not
concern an immoral act nor a criminal offense, Estrada v.
Escritor is a jurisprudential gem that painstakingly,
comprehensively, and exhaustively considered numerous cases
of different factual background before passing upon the issue in
said case. It traced the Old World antecedents of the American
religion clauses, particularly the history and background of the
concepts, jurisprudence and standards of the two religion clauses
in the United States — the Free Exercise Clause and the
Establishment Clause — and the history of religious freedom in
the Philippines from the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898,
the Malolos Constitution of 1899, the laws and regulations
enforced in the Philippines during the American regime, and the
provisions of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitution dealing with
the religious clauses and the jurisprudence that applied the said
provisions to diverse factual settings which called upon the
Court to determine “what the clauses specifically require, permit
and forbid.” The standards and the tests in the balancing of the
interaction between the two religious clauses that jurisprudence
has laid down throughout the long history of these clauses are
valuable guides in the resolution of this case.

Same; Same; View that religious freedom can be invoked not

only against a facially-neutral law that unduly impairs such
freedom but any regulation or practice that has the same effect
unless it passes the accepted test or standard laid down by
jurisprudence to protect the freedom of religion that occupies a
preferred status in the hierarchy of human rights.—Religious
freedom can be invoked not only against a facially neutral law
that unduly impairs such freedom but any regulation or practice
that has the same effect unless it passes the accepted test or
standard laid down by jurisprudence to protect the freedom of
religion that occupies a preferred status in the hierarchy of
human rights. Moreover, religion has an admitted moralizing
influence that can contribute in the nurturing of high moral
values among public servants which will have a beneficial effect
in the discharge of their duties. At the outset, it must be stressed
that the holding of the masses at the premises of the Quezon
City Hall of Justice is not sponsored or supported by the said
Court. It was at the own initiative of the Catholic faithful.
Neither were the masses
 

321

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

321

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

endorsed by the Court or any of its officials with the intention of

propagating the Catholic religion to the detriment of other
religions. The assumption that inequality of treatment is
promoted has no factual basis. No person has complained that
his/her religious practice has been discriminated upon. Hence,
the holding of masses during lunch break would not amount to
an excessive entanglement between the courts and religion.
Same; Same; View that to require the faithful to go to nearby
churches to attend masses or to pray will make the exercise of
religious freedom too burdensome, notwithstanding that no
prejudice to public service nor discrimination of other religions
is shown.—To require the faithful to go to nearby churches to
attend masses or to pray will make the exercise of religious
freedom too burdensome, notwithstanding that no prejudice to
public service nor discrimination of other religions is shown.
The obligations demanded of a public servant to comply with
the highest standards of integrity, morality and commitment in
the efficient delivery of public service almost always coincide
with the obligations dictated by his religion, which has been
defined in American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil.
386 (1957), also cited in Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1
(2003), as follows: [Religion] has reference to one’s views of his
relations to His Creator and to the obligations they impose of
reverence to His being and character, and obedience to His Will.

Same; Same; View that Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003),

ruled not that “urgent and compelling need” must be shown
before religious freedom can be exercised, but instead, it is the
State that bears a heavy burden to show a compelling State
interest to hinder the exercise of religious freedom.—The
Dissenting Opinion reverses the test enunciated in the Estrada v.
Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003), case when it posits that there must
be an “urgent and compelling need” for allowing religious
rituals or the exercise of one’s religious freedom. The said case
ruled not that “urgent and compelling need” must be shown
before religious freedom can be exercised, but instead, it is the
State that bears a heavy burden to show a compelling State
interest to hinder the exercise of religious freedom.

322

322

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

Leonen, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Freedom of Religion; Establishment Clause;

View that tolerating and allowing court personnel to hold and
celebrate daily masses within public Halls of Justice is a clear
violation of the Constitutional prohibition against the State’s
establishment of a religion.—Tolerating and allowing court
personnel to hold and celebrate daily masses within public Halls
of Justice is a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition
against the State’s establishment of a religion. It has no secular
purpose other than to benefit and, therefore, promote a religion.
It has the effect of imposing an insidious cultural discrimination
against those whose beliefs may be different. Religious rituals
should be done in churches, chapels, mosques, synagogues, and
other private places of worship. To provide that all faiths of all
denominations may likewise avail of the same public space
within courts of law is a painful illusion. Apart from violating
Sections 5 and 29(2) of Article III of the Constitution, it is a
privilege that is not available to those who profess nonbelief in
any god or whose conviction is that the presence or absence of
god is unknowable. It likewise undermines religious faiths,
which fervently believe that rituals that worship icons and
symbols are contrary to their conception of god. Furthermore,
the majority opinion invites judges to excessively entangle
themselves with religious institutions and worship. Decisions on
the duration, frequency, decorations, and other facets of
religious rituals are not judicial functions. This also should
certainly not be a governmental one. By holding daily Catholic
masses or any religious ritual within court premises, courts
unnecessarily shed their impartiality. It weakens our
commitment to protect all religious beliefs.

Same; Same; Same; View that allowing the exercise of religious

rituals within government buildings violate both Section 5,
Article III and Section 29(2), Article VI of the Constitution.—
Allowing the exercise of religious rituals within government
buildings violate both Section 5, Article III and Section 29(2),
Article VI of the Constitution. Section 5, Article III of the
Constitution provides: 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.

323

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

323

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City
Same; Same; Same; View that the sponsorship of these rituals
within the halls of justice will not be acceptable to atheists, who
fervently believe that there is no god; or to agnostics, who
fundamentally believe that the existence of a supernatural and
divine being cannot be the subject of either reason or blind faith.
—It will take great strides in both humility and sensitivity to
understand that religious practices within government buildings
are offensive to those who do not believe in any of the
denominations or sects of Christianity. Those who do believe in
a god but do not practice any ritual that worships their
supernatural being or their deity will also find the allowance of
the full Catholic sacrament of the Holy Eucharist demeaning.
Definitely, the sponsorship of these rituals within the halls of
justice will not be acceptable to atheists, who fervently believe
that there is no god; or to agnostics, who fundamentally believe
that the existence of a supernatural and divine being cannot be
the subject of either reason or blind faith. As correctly
underscored by the Chief Attorney, courts are not simply venues
for the resolution of conflict. Our Halls of Justice should
symbolize our adherence to the majesty and impartiality of the
rule of law. Unnecessary sponsorship of religious rituals
undermines the primacy of secular law and its impartiality. It
consists of physical manifestations of a specific kind of belief
which can best be done in private churches and chapels, not in a
government building. There is no urgency that it be done in halls
of justice.
Same; Same; Benevolent Neutrality; View that benevolent
neutrality in reality may turn out to be an insidious means for
those who believe in a majority decision to maintain their
dominance in the guise of neutral tolerance of all religions.—
Since Estrada v. Escritor’s promulgation, benevolent neutrality
has been constantly but erroneously quoted as a talisman to
erase all legitimate constitutional objections to religious activity
that impinges upon secular government policy. Yet, in the 2003
Decision, where the two-part test was formulated, only five
Justices fully concurred with Justice Puno’s ponencia. Two
other Justices wrote separate concurring opinions. There were
five other Justices who dissented, with Justice Carpio leading in
the dissent. That benevolent neutrality is even doctrine is,
therefore, suspect. More importantly, benevolent neutrality in
reality may turn out to be an insidious means for those who
believe in a majority decision to maintain their dominance in the
guise of neutral tolerance of all religions. Not all Buddhists have
as active, collective,

324

324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

and public a ritual that requires a public space as Catholics.

Agnostics do not practice any ritual. Opening space in our Halls
of Justice for rituals such as the Holy Eucharist in effect
provides further advantage to an already dominant religion.
Since the number of Catholics in Quezon City far outnumbers
any other denomination, the number of requests to make use of
public spaces within the Halls of Justice will likely dwarf any
other Christian denomination or religion. This is true in Quezon
City. This is also true in most other Halls of Justice, including
portions of the Supreme Court Compound. Catholic rituals
dominate. Benevolent neutrality in practice, thus, favors the
already dominant.

Same; Same; Establishment Clause; View that the proscription

in Section 5, Article III of the Constitution against the State’s
establishment of a religion covers not only official government
communication of its religious beliefs. It likewise generally
prohibits support and endorsement of a religious organization or
any of their activities or rituals.—The proscription in Section 5,
Article III of the Constitution against the State’s establishment
of a religion covers not only official government communication
of its religious beliefs. It likewise generally prohibits support
and endorsement of a religious organization or any of their
activities or rituals. The non-establishment clause can be
appreciated in two basic ways. First, it can be a corollary to the
Constitutional respect given to each individual’s freedom of
belief and freedom of exercise of one’s religion. Second, it is
also a restatement of the guarantee of equality of each citizen.
That is, that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis
of her or his creed or religious beliefs.

Same; Same; View that there is no urgency in holding masses

within the Halls of Justice. The Catholic Church owns many
elegant places of worship. There are churches and chapels
accessible to court personnel in the Quezon City (QC) Hall of
Justice during their lunch hour. There are some, which are
walking distance from their offices.—Any unnecessary
endorsement, policy, or program that privileges, favors,
endorses, or supports a religious practice or belief per se
therefore would be constitutionally impermissible. It
communicates a policy that contrary beliefs are not so
privileged, not so favored, not so endorsed and unsupported by
the Constitutional order. It implies that those whose creeds or
whose faiths are different may not be as part of the political
community as the other citizens who

 
 

325

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

325

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

understand the rituals that are supported. It is to install

discrimination against minority faiths or even against those who
do not have any faith whatsoever. There is no urgency in
holding masses within the Halls of Justice. The Catholic Church
owns many elegant places of worship. There are churches and
chapels accessible to court personnel in the Quezon City Hall of
Justice during their lunch hour. There are some, which are
walking distance from their offices. Allowing masses to be held
within Halls of Justice therefore have no other purpose except to
allow a sect, or religious denomination to express its beliefs. The
primary purpose of the policy that is favored by the majority of
this Court is not secular in nature, but religious. This is contrary
to the existing canons of our Constitutional law.
Same; Same; Establishment Clause; View that Section 5, Article
III does not allow the endorsement by the State of any religion;
Exception.—Section 5, Article III does not allow the
endorsement by the State of any religion. The only exception
would be if such incidental endorsement of a religious exercise
is in the context of a governmental act that satisfies the
following three-part test: it has a “secular legislative purpose”;
“its primary effect [is] that [which] neither advances nor inhibits
religion”; and that it “must not foster ‘an excessive
entanglement with religion.’”

Same; Same; Same; View that directing our Executive Judges to

regulate and closely monitor the holding of masses and other
religious practices within our courts promotes excessive
entanglements between courts and various religions.—Directing
our Executive Judges to regulate and closely monitor the
holding of masses and other religious practices within our courts
promotes excessive entanglements between courts and various
religions. This close monitoring will result in an unnecessary
interaction between the church and the State. It will take time
from our Executive Judges, who, instead of monitoring the
holding of religious rituals, could otherwise be performing their
secular functions such as reducing court dockets. They will be
asked to arbitrate between religions.
Same; Same; Same; View that our Halls of Justice were not built
for religious purposes. Allowing the performance of religious
rituals in our Halls of Justice runs roughshod over the rights of
non-believing employees and other litigants who, for
nonreligious purposes, are present in the courthouse but are
involuntarily exposed to

326

326

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

the religious practice.—Any moralizing effect of religion

notwithstanding, religion should correctly remain to be “a
private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions
of private choice.” As Justice Jardeleza points out, setting and
context determine whether the use of a religious symbol
effectively endorses a religious belief. There is no violation of
the establishment clause if we allow an employee to privately
pray the rosary within the confines of his or her workspace. The
case is different, however, if the religious ritual is collectively
and publicly performed. Our Halls of Justice were not built for
religious purposes. Allowing the performance of religious rituals
in our Halls of Justice runs roughshod over the rights of
nonbelieving employees and other litigants who, for
nonreligious purposes, are present in the courthouse but are
involuntarily exposed to the religious practice.

Same; Same; Same; View that the Constitution specifically

prohibits public property from being “employed for the benefit
or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution or system of religion.”—The Constitution specifically
prohibits public property from being “employed for the benefit
or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution or system of religion.” This provision allows for no
qualification. Allowing Catholic masses to be celebrated daily
within the Halls of Justice definitely employs public property for
the “benefit or support” of the Catholic religion. Catholicism is a
“church,” “denomination,” and a “system of religion.”

Same; Same; Same; View that the religious use of public

property is proscribed in its totality. This proscription applies to
any religion.—Section 29(2), Article VI of the Constitution is
straightforward and needs no statutory construction. The
religious use of public property is proscribed in its totality. This
proscription applies to any religion. This is especially so if the
accommodation for the use of public property is principally,
primarily, and exclusively only for a religious purpose. This
holistic interpretation of the Constitution is more sensitive to
those who disbelieve — the agonistics and the atheists — who
are equally protected under the Constitution. It is also more
sensitive to the concept that the state remains neutral in matters
pertaining to faith: that no institutional religion, due to their
dominance or resources, may have any form of advantage over
another act of religious belief.

327

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

327
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals
at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

Same; Same; Same; View that projecting the verses of Catholic

prayers in a public building, using powerful sound systems to
proclaim one’s faith, selecting a space in the center of a Hall of
Justice where the rituals resonate will not be obviously offensive
to Catholics in the majority. However, it is utter callousness to
say that it will offend no one.—The non-establishment clause is
the normative protection that ensures and mandates tolerance. It
is meant to sharpen the sensitivity of those who are powerful so
that they understand the point of view of others who have
different beliefs. It is a sovereign command that those who hold
important public offices — such as judges and justices — be
conscious that their fervent personal and religious beliefs should
not be mirrored in the doctrines and results of their cases.
Projecting the verses of Catholic prayers in a public building,
using powerful sound systems to proclaim one’s faith, selecting
a space in the center of a Hall of Justice where the rituals
resonate will not be obviously offensive to Catholics in the
majority. However, it is utter callousness to say that it will
offend no one. It causes discomfort to all those who will pass
and do not share or have objections to the teachings broadcast in
the Holy Eucharist. It offends those who believe that the State
should endeavor to be neutral and impartial and avoid situations
where this will be compromised.
Same; Same; Same; View that there is no urgent and compelling
need to allow a certain sect to exercise their rituals within the
Halls of Justice on a regular basis.—Certainly, there is no urgent
and compelling need to allow a certain sect to exercise their
rituals within the Halls of Justice on a regular basis. There are
churches, chapels, mosques, synagogues, and private spaces
available for worship. “Benevolent neutrality” to render state
regulation impotent in a situation where a religion dominates
becomes a painful illusion to those at the margins of our society.
For this Court to adopt this facade is to reward the dominant. It
is to maintain the status quo and reify the hegemony of those
who have power. This will not be lost to those that pass our
Halls of Justice.

Same; Same; Same; View that religious rituals in our Halls of

Justice, no matter the justification, breed contempt for the
impartiality of the Rule of Law.—To reward the dominant
would be to further ensure divisiveness, distrust, and
intolerance. It will ultimately result in the accommodation of
fundamentalist views embedded in popular religions. The
marginalized will perceive no succor in the

 
328

328

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

system. They will see no opening and no space for their own
freedoms. Religious rituals in our Halls of Justice, no matter the
justification, breed contempt for the impartiality of the Rule of
Law.

Jardeleza, J., Concurring Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Freedom of Religion; Free Exercise Clause;

View that the Free Exercise Clause mandates an absolute
protection of the freedom to believe.—The Free Exercise Clause
mandates an absolute protection of the freedom to believe. Thus,
a person is free to worship any god he or she may choose or
none at all. The difficulty and the beauty of the Free Exercise
Clause, however, are found in its application in the realm of
actions. While a person is free to believe what he or she may
choose, he or she is not absolutely free to act on his or her
beliefs. In constitutional adjudication, the challenge has often
been the determination of whether a governmental act
jeopardizes the freedom to act on one’s belief, and whether the
freedom to exercise a religion justifies an exemption from a law
or government regulation. We have had the opportunity to rule
on cases involving the Free Exercise Clause, and we have
consistently endeavored to find the delicate balance between the
secular interest of the state and the freedom of religion of the
individual.

Same; Same; Establishment Clause; View that the Establishment

Clause, in its strict sense, bars a state from creating a state
religion or espousing an official religion.—The Establishment
Clause, in its strict sense, bars a state from creating a state
religion or espousing an official religion. There are, however,
several gradations in the application of the Establishment
Clause. It extends its prohibition not only to official acts
establishing a state religion but also to government acts that
have the effect of endorsing religion or favoring one over others.
In Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 529 (1996),
we held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from
leaning in favor of religion. “Neutrality alone is its fixed and
immovable stance.”

Same; Same; Same; View that the Establishment Clause must

not be construed so literally so as to impose an absolute
separation between the affairs of the state and the church.—The
Establishment Clause must not be construed so literally so as to
impose an absolute separation between the affairs of the state
and the church. It exists

329

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

329

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

not in the pursuit of separation for its own sake. Rather, the goal
of the Establishment Clause is to create constitutional space
where religion may flourish. The Establishment Clause bars the
state from favoring any religion so that it may not inhibit
religious belief by rewarding other religious beliefs. The
Establishment Clause has never been intended, and as such,
should not be interpreted to serve as a tool to alienate the church
from the state.

Same; Same; Same; View that the Establishment Clause upholds

freedom of religion by enforcing neutrality and making
volunteerism the determining factor in an individual’s religious
choices.—The Religion Clauses are unique in that while their
application oftentimes creates tension, they also exist to protect
the essential need to promote liberty of conscience — the choice
to believe or not to believe in a greater being. The Free Exercise
Clause insures this by insulating the individual from any
government act that may prevent or burden his or her right to
practice his or her faith within the limits of the law. The
Establishment Clause upholds freedom of religion by enforcing
neutrality and making volunteerism the determining factor in an
individual’s religious choices. The state is neutral to all
religions. It does not espouse any of them so that an individual
will be free, without any kind of compulsion, to make the choice
for himself or herself.

Same; Same; Benevolent Neutrality; View that benevolent

neutrality, as held in Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003), is
an approach to the Religion Clauses which leaves room for the
accommodation of religion.—In 2003, we promulgated Estrada
v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1, which became an essential case in our
growing jurisprudence on the Religion Clauses. Here, we
categorically and unequivocally declared that in resolving
claims involving religious freedom benevolent neutrality or
accommodation, whether mandatory or permissive, is the spirit,
intent, and framework underlying the Religion Clauses in our
Constitution. Benevolent neutrality, as held in Estrada, is an
approach to the Religion Clauses which leaves room for the
accommodation of religion. In explaining the concept of
accommodation and how it is compatible with the Establishment
Clause, we quoted the American case Zorach v. Clauson, 343
U.S. 306 (1952), which said — The First Amendment, however,
does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a
separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the
manner, the

330

330

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals
at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or

dependency one or the other. That is the common sense of the
matter. Otherwise, the state and religion would be aliens to each
other — hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.

Same; Same; Establishment Clause; View that the Establishment

Clause exists not for the sake of separation per se but as a tool to
allow all religion (as well as the choice not to have one) to thrive
and flourish.—This is the path that our jurisprudence on the
Religion Clauses has taken. It is one that chooses
accommodation, where there is no danger of breaching the wall
of separation, instead of a blind and literal adherence to the
concept of a separate church and state. To repeat, the
Establishment Clause exists not for the sake of separation per se
but as a tool to allow all religion (as well as the choice not to
have one) to thrive and flourish. Our Establishment Clause,
existing in the context of a unique Filipino culture, has
developed its own narrative. It is this narrative that must
permeate any understanding of what it means for our
constitutional democracy to uphold the separation of church and
state.
Same; Same; Same; View that not every governmental action
that has religious undertones must be automatically struck down
as a breach of the wall of separation.—Not every governmental
action that has religious undertones must be automatically struck
down as a breach of the wall of separation. In Lynch v.
Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), the United States Supreme
Court held that each case requires courts to scrutinize whether
the challenged official conduct, in reality, establishes a religion
or tends to do so. Each case thus requires line-drawing. In this
task, Lynch applied the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman,
403 U.S. 602 (1971), which involves an inquiry as to whether
the official act has a secular purpose, whether its principal or
primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion, and whether it
creates an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

Same; Same; View that in accordance with the protection

accorded to freedom of religion, every person in the judiciary is
free to pray in the way he or she desires or not at all.—In
accordance with the protection accorded to freedom of religion,
every person in the judiciary is free to pray in the way he or she
desires or not at all. The Ecumenical and Centennial prayers
exist merely as options for members and employees of the
judiciary to express their prayer in

 
 

331

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

331

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

one particular way. These prayers exist to support the practice of

religious faith but they do not impose a monopoly or a singular
standard on the proper expression of prayers. Consistent with the
Religion Clauses, these practices allow all religions to flourish
while leaving sufficient room for people to practice their faith or
lack thereof in the manner they deem proper. Supreme Court
employees also hold first Friday masses within the Court
premises. These employees have done so voluntarily during
lunch break for years now. This Court has not deemed it
necessary to prevent them from doing so. We merely regulate
the time and place for the holding of the masses so as to insure
that there will be no prejudice to public service. It is worth
highlighting that this Court, while it has not prohibited the
holding of first Friday masses, has refused to designate one
particular room where the masses may be held. These employees
are free to hold their masses during lunch break within the
Court’s premises provided that the area they intend to use is not
currently needed for any official Court activity. The Court has,
and continues to exercise, the right to regulate the use of rooms
within the Court premises for the purpose of these first Friday
masses. To me, this practice is an eloquent example of the
proper understanding of our Religion Clauses and their narrative
within the unique Filipino culture.

Same; Courts; View that how the Constitution should be applied

in a matter involving the administration of our courts is a matter
that ultimately lies within the province of the Supreme Court
(SC). While recommendations of the Court Administrator and
Chief Attorney are important, they are not definitive.—I note
that in 2003, the Office of the Chief Attorney recommended to
then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide that the request to hold a
one-day vigil in honor of the Our Lady of Caysasay be rejected
on constitutional grounds. Specifically, the Chief Attorney
opined that this would violate the wall of separation between the
Church and the State. Certainly while the recommendations of
the Chief Attorney, and even of the Court Administrator, are
given due consideration, they are nonetheless not binding on the
Supreme Court. How the Constitution should be applied in a
matter involving the administration of our courts is a matter that
ultimately lies within the province of the Supreme Court. While
recommendations of the Court Administrator and Chief
Attorney are important, they are not definitive. This Court
determines for itself what the rule is.

332

332

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

Same; Freedom of Religion; Establishment Clause; View that

for as long as these Catholic masses are not being used to
discriminate against any other religion or against the choice to
believe, the Quezon City (QC) trial courts’ acquiescence ought
not to be interpreted as endorsing a religion.—That these
Catholic masses are being held within the Quezon City Hall of
Justice is, by no means, an indication that the trial court
endorses Catholicism. For as long as these Catholic masses are
not being used to discriminate against any other religion or
against the choice to believe, the Quezon City trial courts’
acquiescence ought not to be interpreted as endorsing a religion.
Rather, the Quezon City trial courts are simply allowing people
of a particular faith to practice it. In Re: Request of Muslim
Employees in the Different Courts in Iligan City (Re: Office
Hours), 477 SCRA 648 (2005), we allowed our Muslim
employees to hold office within flexible hours during the period
of Ramadan. We have pursued a policy of creating a work
environment where our employees may be free to worship as
they see fit, the only limitation being that public service is not
prejudiced. As the Catholic masses in this case are being held
during lunch break and only for 30 minutes, the Catholic
employees who persist in pursuing the practice of their faith
cannot be said to have sacrificed their duty to serve the public.

Same; Same; Religious Tolerance; View that religious tolerance,

a doctrine essential to our religious clauses, mandates that,
within the bounds of law, we give space for religion even if to
us, it is unusual or unnecessary.—That Mr. Valenciano and
other non-Catholics may be offended by these Catholic masses
is no reason to declare the practice unconstitutional. Religious
tolerance, a doctrine essential to our religious clauses, mandates
that, within the bounds of law, we give space for religion even if
to us, it is unusual or unnecessary. As the United States Supreme
Court pronounced in Town of Greece v. Galloway, 12-696
(2014), offense itself is not sufficient for a finding of
unconstitutionality. We protect speech even if it is offensive as it
is essential to the freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights, in truth,
realizes its purpose and reaffirms its value in instances where
what is sought to be protected is the exercise of a right that does
not seem traditional, acceptable, or normal. In the realm of
religion, it is in the lawful practice of religious activities that
may seem odd or unusual that we are challenged, as a society, to
further extend the limits of our religious tolerance. It is in
questions like this that we are called to choose between an
interpretation of the law that is

333

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

333

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City
humane or one that is literal, strict, and blind to the dictates of
conscience. The Establishment Clause, as well as the Bill of
Rights, speaks to our humanity.

Same; Same; View that faithful among public servants to hear

mass in the workplace, insofar as it renews in them daily their
desire to achieve the highest principles of morality, can only
better equip them to meet their secular obligation to be at all
times accountable to the people.—There is an important secular
purpose achieved when employees are allowed to practice their
religion during their free time in the workplace, under defined
restrictions that ensure they do not obstruct their delivery of
public service. The Constitution declares that public office is a
public trust. In Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201 (1937), we
recognized that religion exerts an elevating influence in human
affairs because it instills into human minds the purest principles
of morality. Among the many general concessions
indiscriminately accorded to religious sects and denominations,
we declare certain religious holy days as legal holidays “because
of the secular idea that their observance is conducive to
beneficial moral results.” Allowing the faithful among public
servants to hear mass in the workplace, insofar as it renews in
them daily their desire to achieve the highest principles of
morality, can only better equip them to meet their secular
obligation to be at all times accountable to the people. That other
public servants may draw their sense of morality from other
faiths, or no religion at all, or find no need for any morality to
define or guide their discharge of the public trust, is of no
moment. This is what religious tolerance is all about.

Same; Same; View that in a very real sense, choosing not to

interfere with what employees decide to do in their free time,
whether it is to attend mass, pray, or participate in sports
activities, provided it does not affect their work and the delivery
of public service, carries an important secular purpose. It creates
a satisfying working environment for our employees who can
then perform their work with better efficiency.—From this
management perspective, allowing Catholic employees to group
together in prayer and in Catholic masses serves an important
human resources purpose. By choosing to allow Catholic masses
instead of stifling them, these Catholic employees are made to
feel that their spiritual well-being, on a nondiscriminatory basis,
is important to the Judiciary. At the same time, the Court, as
administrator, must emphasize that all religions represented
within

334
334

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

the Judiciary are free to express their religious beliefs, provided

they similarly do not interfere with public service and do not
coerce others to participate. In the same vein, nonbelievers can
pursue their own interests without prejudice or bias against
them. In a very real sense, choosing not to interfere with what
employees decide to do in their free time, whether it is to attend
mass, pray, or participate in sports activities, provided it does
not affect their work and the delivery of public service, carries
an important secular purpose. It creates a satisfying working
environment for our employees who can then perform their
work with better efficiency.

Same; Same; View that I see no distinction between allowing

employees to group together to attend mass in the Quezon City
(QC) Hall of Justice in their free time and allowing them to use
their workspace to pray, which Justice Leonen concedes in his
dissent as valid.—There is no breach of the proscription against
using public property to benefit a religion. I see no distinction
between allowing employees to group together to attend mass in
the Quezon City Hall of Justice in their free time and allowing
them to use their workspace to pray, which Justice Leonen
concedes in his dissent as valid. These two situations involve
similar religious acts done in government property. It is not as if
we allowed or funded the construction of a particular portion of
the Quezon City Hall of Justice for the sole purpose of allowing
Catholic Masses to be held there. The Quezon City Hall of
Justice’s basement remains to be an area dedicated for the use of
the courts. That it sometimes becomes a venue, for a brief thirty-
minute period during lunch break, of the activities of certain
employees does not change the situation into one where the
judiciary is allotting a public property for the benefit of a
religion.

Same; Same; View that I agree with the recommendation of the

Court Administrator that Catholic images used for the Catholic
mass must not be permanently stationed in the area.—I note,
however, that the matter of the display of Catholic images may
be a different matter. I agree with the recommendation of the
Court Administrator that Catholic images used for the Catholic
mass must not be permanently stationed in the area. This is to
avoid any impression that the Quezon City Trial Courts are
endorsing a particular religion by allowing the building of a
chapel exclusive for the use of Catholic employees. There is
here a greater danger that we become entangled in the religious
practice of Catholicism as well as greater likelihood
 

335

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017

335

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals

at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

that we be misconstrued to espouse Catholicism as a favored

religion. This threatens to breach the wall of separation, and thus
must be avoided.

Same; Same; Establishment Clause; View that to ensure that no

espousal or sponsoring of the Catholic faith arises out of this
case, the Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
and Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City (QC) should
be allowed to regulate the time, place, and manner of the
holding of the Catholic masses at the QC Hall of Justice.—To
ensure that no espousal or sponsoring of the Catholic faith arises
out of this case, the Executive Judges of the Regional Trial
Court and Municipal Trial Court of Quezon City should be
allowed to regulate the time, place, and manner of the holding of
the Catholic masses at the Quezon City Hall of Justice. While
the Catholic mass is traditionally held during lunch break at the
basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice, the Executive
Judges of the trial courts should retain the authority to order its
transfer to another area or its conduct at another time before or
after office hours, when public service so demands. Allowing
Executive Judges to regulate the time, place, and manner of the
Catholic masses by no means leads to excessive entanglement
by the government in religious matters.

ADMINISTRATIVE MA Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano,

Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in
Quezon City, 819 SCRA 313, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC March 7,
2017