Intro

In the case of Centeneo V Ponnillos further emphasizes Article VI section 28 (3) that
there is a clear difference between Religious purposes and that of Charitable
purposes.
II Body
In the case of INC V CA , the freedom to act on ones belief is based on the
externalized acts involve thus the speeches while offending and attacking other
religions is not yet subject to the regulation and authority of the state because the
speeches did not lead to external acts from the practitioners.
On the other hand the in the case of Re: Request while the court recognizes the
freedom to act on ones belief in respect to Ramadan, the other request which
would affect all the Fridays outside Ramadan if allowed is an externalized act that
would affect the government thus is subject to the regulation and authority of the
state.
I. Taxation and appropriation of Funds
In the Case of Versoza V Fernandez shows importance to religious funds and that
even if a religious group secedes from the religion the funds that they attain as a
religious group should belong to the religion.
In the case of Centeneo V Ponnillos also emphasizes that funds for religious
purposes are separate and independent from funds for charitable purposes thus
cannot be subject to laws regarding charities unless specifically indicated.
II. Labor and Employment
in the case of Victoriano V Elizalde workers Union shows that labor unions cannot
force upon association to members especially if it against their religion and should
not affect the persons employment.
In the similar case of Anucension v National Labor Union this is also established by
the courts even more so because a union cannot simply go on strike against a
specific religion due to their beliefs.
In the case of Roman Catholic Archbishop v Social Security Commission it is shown
that term employer and the employer employee relations are still applying to
religious and charitable institutions thus are bound to specific labor laws.
In Re; Request it is shown that while court is shown to respect the request of their
employees in regards to Ramadan but if the request such as exempting them from
work in all Fridays of the calendar they would be denied especially if there is no
legal standing to justify such a request.
III. Jurisdiction

In the case of INC v CA show that the courts may have jurisdiction over the freedom
to belief but must be based on the external acts of the religious groups. While in this
case the court ruled that the board has the jurisdiction to review the TV show it has
yet to have the right to give the punishments to the show because there were no
externalized repercussions that came from the show.
In the case of Re: Request it is shown that the court has jurisdiction over the
freedom to belief because their request in line with the freedom to act on ones
belief.