Letter of Tony Valencia Notes

- Tony found that the basement of a Hall of Justice (HOJ) had been
converted into a Roman Catholic Chapel
- He argues:
o It violates Section 6, Article II of Consti
o Disturbance of employees
o Favored Catholic lititgants/Catholicism in general
o Lavatories were being blocked for an hour
o Water supply was cut off because generator made too much noise
for the mass
o Allowing so violates constitutional prohibition against the
appropriation of public money or property for the benefit of a sect,
church, denomination, or any other system of religion.

- HOJ response
o It was merely a prayer corner
o Open for use to all religious sects who wish to do rituals there as
well
o Merely incidental to a temporary use of the basement
- Judge Bay of RTC compromised
o 30 min mass only
o No loud singing
o Inconveniences caused by mass be addressed
- Tony sought to stop holding of religious rituals in all HOJs and was
referred to the OCA
- In response
o Judges said they already implemented measures to address
complaints, to minimize disturbance and hindrances rituals may
cause
- OCA found Tonys complaints unfounded
o Benevolent Neutrality/Accommodation (BNA) was espoused
because the principal religion clauses were not limited to the
Establishment Clause (which created a wall of separation). It was
followed by the Free Exercise Clause (which protected right of
people to practice religion)
o It does not favor Catholicism for it also allowed other denominations
to practice religion within the courthouses

ISSUE:
WON masses held violates Consti Art 2 Sec 6

WON masses violate the prohibition of appropriation of public funds for the
benefit of any sect (art 7 sec 29)
HELD:
- NAH
o Although union of church and state is prejudicial to them both, and
that a wall is beneficial because it limits their exclusive jurisdictions,
the State recognizes religiosity of people
o Freedom to believe is absolute (because men oftentimes believe
what they cannot prove) while freedom to act is subject to
regulation (because it may affect the public welfare)
This terminates disabilities, not create new privileges
Gave religious liberty, not civil immunity
Freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not
freedom from conformity to law because of
religious dogma
o No compelling state interest to prevail over the exercise of
religion
To successfully invoke compelling state interest, it shouldve
been shown how the masses disrupt the delivery of public
service or affect the performance of official functions
Masses were on noon breaks
No detrimental effect on public service
Example of successful invocation:
o Muslims moved to be excused from 10-2pm
every Friday
o This would render service 12 hrs less than
required by civil service rules for each month
o Would encourage similar religions for similar
treatment
The test is to afford protection to the States paramount
interest and also to revere religious liberty
o This is a mere case of Accommodation, not Establishment (as
the petitioner claims)
Accommodation is toleration and consideration
Establishment entails a positive action using government
resources w/ primary intention of setting up a state religion
1. No law or ordinances mandating employees to attend the
masses
2. Employees go on their own free will
3. No extra government funds are being spent (ilaw and
aircon would be open even without the mass)
4. Not exclusive use of Roman Catholic rituals
5. Allowance of masses does not prejudice other religions
- NAH
o Basta it doesnt