Victoriano v.

Elizalde, 59 SCRA 94

Facts: Benjamin Victoriano, appellee, a member of the religious sect known as the
"Iglesia ni Cristo", had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc.
(Company) since 1958. As such employee, he was a member of the Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union (Union) which had with the Company a collective bargaining
agreement containing a closed shop provision. Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of
Republic Act No. 875, prior to its amendment by Republic Act No.3350, the
employer was not precluded "from making an agreement with a labor organization
to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor
organization is there presentative of the employees." On June 18, 1961, however,
Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment to paragraph (4)
subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as follows: "but such agreement
shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their
members in any such labor organization".

Issue: Whether or not Republic Act No. 3350 does not violate the establishment of
religion clause or separation of Church and State.

Held: Yes. The constitutional provision 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, but also assures the free exercise of one's chosen form of
religion within limits of utmost amplitude. It has been said that the religion clauses
of the Constitution are all 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. Any legislation, whose effect or purpose is to
impede the observance of one or all religions, or to discriminate invidiously between
the religions, is invalid, even though the burden may be characterized as being only
indirect. But if the stage regulates conduct by enacting, within its power, a general
law which has for its purpose and effect to advance the state's secular goals, the
statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance, unless the state
can accomplish its purpose without imposing such burden.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296

Facts: Jesse Cantwell and his son were Jehovah's Witnesses; they were
proselytizing a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. The Cantwells
distributed religious materials by travelling door-to-door and by approaching people
on the street. After voluntarily hearing an anti-Roman Catholic message on the
Cantwells' portable phonograph, two pedestrians reacted angrily. The Cantwells
were subsequently arrested for violating a local ordinance requiring a permit for
solicitation and for inciting a breach of the peace.

Issue: Whether or not the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance
violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights?

Ruling: Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while general
regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds
were not. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were
religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a
valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free
communication of views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not
entail any threat of "bodily harm" and was protected religious speech.
9.26 US v. Ballard – 322 US 78

Facts: Ballard (Respondent) was charged with defrauding the public by practicing a
religion that he knew was false. Respondent was convicted of using the mail to
defraud the public. He organized a religious group. He claimed that he had
supernatural powers to heal the sick and diseased. The charge indicated that
Respondent knew that these claims were false.

Issue: Whether or not Respondent being unconstitutionally persecuted for his

religious beliefs?

Ruling: Yes. Although Respondent’s religion seems incredible to most, it is not the
role of a jury to determine its veracity. If this religion were subject to such a trial,
then all organized religions would need to be treated similarly. The First
Amendment protects the right to choose and practice a religion of the individual’s
choice. This includes freedom to believe and freedom to act. Just because a religious
doctrine cannot be proven does not mean that it is not a religion and not protected
by the United States Constitution.