Not a lawful exercise of police power

- it is not a lawful means because it violates protected

constitutional rights (free speech, religion, assembly)
2. Hate speech unconstitutional
- according to american jurisprudence, content based
prohibitions are unconstitutional because they violate the
first amendment
- punish bad acts not bad beliefs
- hate speech law is over breadth and void for vagueness
- arbitrary because what may be hateful to you may not be
hateful to me
3. Religious solidarity unconstitutional
- favoring certain religions
- against constitution in providing funds for religion itself
Religious solidarity (Petitioners) : Does not fulfill requisites
for valid exercise of police power - > no lawful means
-There can only be a certain degree of entanglement
between the state and the church; meaning that they
should not intrude unto each others business. In Sec 2 of
RA XBYZ it states that funds shall be provided to support
joint religious celebrations especially in government
functions. Sec 4 creates a religious solidarity commission.
This fosters excessive entanglement between government
and religion. > this creates a conflict since the funds and
salaries of the officials come from the state
-excessive punishment para sa mga offending religious
feelings etc.
- creation of the commission is unconstitutional

Defendants :The Anti-Hate Speech Act falls within the

police power of the statethat is the state has the power
to address hate speech and take measures to prevent it
for the following reasons: first, it is an accepted principle in
our jurisprudence that the freedom of expression, speech
and assembly are not absolute but is subject to the
regulation through the police power of the state. That is the
very reason why the court has used the different test to
determine if a regulation is valid like clear and present
danger test and dangerous tendency test. Upon close
examination of authorities and court precedents there is no
compelling reason to depart from this principle which
provides that these freedoms are not absolute and are
subject to the police power of the state; second, the two
requisites for valid exercise of police power are present in
this case, to wit: interest of the public generally as
distinguished from a particular class and means employed
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive.
Religious solidarity: 1. requisites for valid exercise of police
power present 2. passed compelling state interest test