An Assessment of Student’s Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Religion is one of the basic rights guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution
to the Filipino people. Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution states that “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.”

According to UN Convention on the Rights of the Children, children have the right to
choose their own religion and belief. Their parents should help them decide what is right and
wrong, and what is best for them. An issue now arise as to when does educational institutions’
power in implementing rules and regulations repress the freedom of religion vested by every
student.

Freedom and Religion put together had created different connotations and
understanding that most of the time, it was used as a weapon for abuse and discrimination.
These two words are so powerful that misunderstanding to the extent of either of the two will
render chaotic results. Hence, such grounds should be established.

Mandate of the Constitution

The transcendental impact of religion has long been regarded in the country especially
to the state and its inhabitants specifically when the Filipino people, in the preamble of their
Constitution, implored "the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that
shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the
general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence
under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy," they thereby manifested their intense religious
nature and placed unfaltering reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of men and nations.
The elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized here as elsewhere. 1

The 1987 Constitution provide for the express provision for the separation of the Church
and the State as it states in Article II Section 6 “the separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable”. In the case of Ruiz v. Aglipay, the Court held that “without the necessity of adverting

1
Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 45459, [March 13, 1937], 64 PHIL 201-210)
to the historical background of this principle in our country, it is sufficient to say that our history,
not to speak of the history of mankind, has taught us that the union of church and state is
prejudicial to both, for occasions might arise when the state will use the church, and the church
the state, as a weapon in the furtherance of their respective ends and aims. It should be stated
that what is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration.

Furthermore, section 5 Article III of the Bill Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides
carries with it the non-establishment and free exercise clause when it comes to the relation of
the state and religion and the minimal interference of the state with the religious acts of its
inhabitants. Such is also in connection with the constitutional inhibition of appropriation of public
funds for religious expressly stated in Article VI, Section 23 (3).2

Notwithstanding express the provision regarding the two entities, "the right to religious
profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on
one's belief. 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.”3

Religion and Education: An Overview

Religion has played a significant role in the society in the early as well as the modern
times. It is evident as religions has thrived through time despite of the differences, persecution
and oppression within and among religions. As defined in Merriam Webster, religion is the
service and worship of god or of the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or
observance; a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and
practices. The latter definition was reiterated in the meaning of religion in the Department of
Education Order No. 049-09 4
2

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for
the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of
religion, or for the use, benefit, or support 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, orphanage, or leprosarium.
3
J. Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1991 Ed., pp. 176-177
4
Reiterating the Revised Rules and Regulations on the Teaching of Religion in Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools.
 It is also defined as a system of faith and worship usu. involving belief in a supreme
being and usu. containing a moral or ethical code; esp., such a system recognized and
practiced by a particular church, sect, or denomination. In construing the protections under the
Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, courts have interpreted the term religion
quite broadly to include a wide variety of theistic and nontheistic beliefs 5. It was defined as a
profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized.
And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply
felt and highly appreciated6.

Philippine Education and Religion through time

The Philippine educational system developed and evolved through time, from a tribal
form of teaching to one that is primarily governed by Spanish religious heads, which later on
adopted Japanese education policies. Currently the educational system of the country is held by
several government agencies, to wit: Department of Education (DepEd) which is responsible for
basic education, particularly primary and secondary education; Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) which manages higher education; and Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA) which administers the post-secondary, middle level manpower
training and development.

The state distinguishes the ability of educational instrumentalities in enhancing the

ethical and spiritual values of students which could benefit the society for generations to come
in providing that all educational institutions shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love
of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical
development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and
spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative
thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency. 7

However, it also recognizes the autonomy of the family in matters regarding education
and religion in providing in the 1987 Constitution under Article XIV, Section 3 par 3 “At the
option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to
their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within regular class hours by
instructors designated and approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the
children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government”
5
Religious Societies 1. C.J.S. Religious Societies §§ 2–5, 7–13
6
Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 45459, [March 13, 1937], 64 PHIL 201-210
7
Article XIV, Section 3 [2]
Religious groups are free to establish private schools under secular law. In fact, the
Constitution expressly recognizes the role of private schools, which in the Philippines
are typically and predominantly religious in nature: ―The State recognizes the
complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and
shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.‖ 74
In addition, they are tax-exempt.75 Finally, these religious schools in fact enjoy special
treatment in that they are exempt from the national ownership requirements in the
Constitution:‖Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups
and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations
or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
citizens.‖ 76 All educational institutions, religious or secular, are regulated by the state,
the Department of Education77 for elementary and high schools, and the Commission
on Higher Education78 for tertiary education. Finally, the Constitution carves out an
exception to allow religious instruction in public schools under safeguards to avoid
establishment clause problems.79

Government and Church Role in the freedom

Church

It was in 1941, ‘when Catholic education institutions organized themselves into an

association called the CEAP (Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines) to be able to
collectively respond not only to urgent educational issues but also societal issues. There are
about more than 1300 Catholic schools all over the country that offers “different levels of
education and types of formation.” It cannot then be denied that “Catholic Education laid the
foundations for education in our country.”

Christian Education is tasked to develop harmoniously the persons’ physical, moral and
intellectual endowments so that they may gradually acquire a mature sense of responsibility in
striving endlessly to form their own lives properly and in pursuing true freedom as they surmount
the vicissitudes of life with courage and constancy. Catholic Education strives to remain faithful
to its mission of providing complete education which necessarily includes a religious dimension.
Religion is an effective contribution to the development of other aspects of a personality in the
measure in which it is integrated into general education. “With the significant shortage of
classrooms and teachers in public schools, Catholic schools assist the government in providing
education to the rest of the citizens who opt for Catholic education as well as those who cannot
be accommodated in public schools.”

DepEd

The Department of Education (DepEd) formulates, implements, and coordinates policies,

plans, programs and projects in the areas of formal and non-formal basic education. It
supervises all elementary and secondary education institutions, including alternative learning
systems, both public and private; and provides for the establishment and maintenance of a
complete, adequate, and integrated system of basic education relevant to the goals of national
development.

According to International Religious Freedom Reports commissioned by the United

States, Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor: “the government
permits religious instruction in public schools with the written consent of parents, provided there
is no cost to the Government. Based on a traditional policy of promoting moral education, local
public schools make available to church groups the opportunity to teach moral values during
school hours. Attendance is not mandatory, and various churches rotate in sharing classroom
space. The Government also allows interested groups to distribute free Bibles in public schools.

According to law, public schools must ensure that the religious rights of students are
protected. Muslim students are allowed to wear their head coverings (hijab), and Muslim girls
are not required to wear shorts during physical education classes. In many parts of Mindanao,
Muslim students routinely attend Catholic schools from elementary to university level; however,
these students are not required to receive Catholic religious instruction.”

CHED

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is an agency that is attached to the Office of

the President for administrative purposes. Its creation “was part of a broad agenda” to reform
the country’s educational system outlined by the Congressional Commission on Education
(EDCOM) in 1992 wherein apart from refocusing DepEd’s mandate, Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority (TESDA) administering the post-secondary, middle-level
manpower training and development, CHED is responsible for higher education: the tertiary and
graduate education.
 Pursuant to Republic Act 7722, CHED’s mandate is to promote relevant and quality
higher education which are at par with international standards and graduates and professionals
who are highly competent and recognized in the international arena; ensure affordable and
accessible quality education; “guarantee and protect academic freedom for continuing
intellectual growth, advancement of learning and research, development of responsible and
effective leadership, education of high level professionals, and enrichment of historical and
cultural heritages; and commit to moral ascendancy that eradicates corrupt practices,
institutionalizes transparency and accountability and encourages participatory governance in the
Commission and the sub-sector.” Part of their powers and functions are to “review the charters
of institutions of higher learning and state universities and colleges including the chairmanship
and membership of their governing bodies and recommend appropriate measures as basis for
necessary action”.

There is no mention of religion in the mandate, powers, and functions of CHED. It must
be noted that CHED’s jurisdiction over the students comes only when they reach the tertiary
level. It is may be inferred that like DepEd, CHED (as well as TESDA) is responsible for making
sure that the religious rights of students are protected.

Public and Private schools freedom

Public schools or state school are tuition-free schools that are funded and operated by
the Government. This means that public schools must adhere to the Constitution like any other
government establishments: the separation of church and state must be observed. In the
Philippines, when it comes to religion, public schools must obey two legal requirements. These
legal requirements are found in the Constitution and are known as “religion clauses”. The first
one is the free exercise of religion and the other is the prohibition on the government from
establishing religion. In other words, students have to: let religion be and ironically push it away.

What it really amounts to is that public schools compared to private schools are being
fair. Unlike private schools, public schools are bound by the Constitution therefore forcing them
into a delicate balance. Board members, school administrators, and school principals are
required to allow personal acts of religious faith. Simultaneously, they are to prohibit or avoid
that any particular religion enjoys a special status. School districts may not endorse or appear to
be endorsing religious activities in school sponsored activities. What that means in practice is
that public schools may not give special treatment to believers or special prominence to
activities that highlight religion. In other words, the establishment clause in the Constitution
prevents public entities like public schools from taking sides with faith-based communities.

In keeping with the Constitutional mandate, DepEd has issued several orders on the
mechanics of teaching religion in public elementary and secondary schools. The DepEd
stressed on its orders that these classes are optional religious instruction. In other words, the
optional character of religious instruction in public schools pertains as prerogative or choice of
the parents or guardians of the children, who are free to request or not to request that the
children under their care be instructed in the religion of their choice. The principal or school
head shall accommodate said request by providing or sourcing the needed teacher/instructor.
Other orders by the DepEd for Muslim students, allowing them to wear their hijabs during class
hours and allowing them not to participate in non-Muslim religious rites. There were orders for
pertaining to students who have other religion that usually have church on Saturdays, excusing
those students in such a way that the student’s absence will not affect his or her grade.

Private schools are privately owned and managed institutions for teaching and learning,
to operate certain educational programs in accordance with law and prescribed rules and
policies. In other words, they have the right to select who their students will be, and they get
their funds by charging their students tuition. The duty to uphold the Constitution is a
fundamental difference between public schools and private schools. While public schools must
stay neutral, private schools are not similarly bound. These private schools openly inculcate
religion in their teachings of different subjects like reading, writing and math. Government
regulations have given private schools more flexibility and autonomy by issuing the Revised
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.

Prevailing Rules and Regulations in the Education System

Department of Education, the primary governmental agency in charge of the operation

primary and secondary education, has continuously formulated orders and memoranda to
ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the educational sector. As the right to education
caters to students of different socio-economic and religious background, the right to religious
freedom of the students inside or outside the school must also be protected. Proof these are the
Department Orders promulgated by DepEd. One of which is the recent Department Order on
Child Protection Policy

DepEd Order No. 53 entitled “Strengthening the Protection of Religious Rights of Students”
specifically addresses the right of women Muslim students to wear the veil

One of those is the allowing of female Muslim school children to use their veil or headdress
(hijab) inside the school campus, Muslim girls are also allowed to wear appropriate clothing in
accordance with their religious belief in physical education classes, and the non-compulsory
participation of Muslim students in non-Muslim religious rites.

Students, belonging to any religious group are, also not required to attend seminars,
examinations, special classes, trainings and other school activities on Saturdays when the same
is their church day of day of rest. In cases of conflict arrangements must be made by the
students with their teachers concerning the requirements without prejudice to their right to free
exercise of religion.

A pertinent provision in Department Order 49, s. 2009 of Department of Education

regarding the Teaching of Religion in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools states that
teachers/instructors of religion as referred to in Item d shall be allowed to teach those
pupils/students whose parents or guardians have opted to request that their children or wards
learn religion in school shall be expressed in writing by the parent or guardian who shall
likewise accomplish in full the necessary application form. No student/pupil shall be allowed or
permitted to attend religious instruction classes without the said written application and duly
accomplished request of his/her parent or guardian, consistent with the provision of the
Constitution.

Under the DepEd Order 39, s. 1987 pertaining to Optional Religious Instruction of the
Constitution, schools superintendent are requested to ask their principals to: 1) arrange existing
regular class hours to accommodate the teaching of religion within the regular class hours; and
2) assist in the preparation and distribution of appropriate forms which parents and guardians
may use to signify their conformity or refusal to have their children or ward receive religious
instruction.

Meanwhile Commission on Higher Education also provide in some of their memoranda

safeguards for the practice of religion for students in tertiary level. Under the CHED Memo No.
21 Series of 2006 the Higher Education Institute shall ensure that the right to freedom of religion
 is respected, which will be secured through establishing multi-faith services or an environment
conducive to free expression of one’s religious orientation in accordance with institutional
principles and policies.

1. Public school teachers are prohibited from giving religious instruction. This
prohibition is embodied in Opinion No. 208, s. 1950 of the Department of Justice,
quoting therein the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code as amended,
particularly the following:
"SEC. 927. Discussion of religious doctrines to be eschewed. - No teacher or other
persons engaged in any public school whether maintained from (insular) national,
provincial, or municipal fund, shall teach or criticize the doctrine of any church,
religious sector, or denomination, or shall attempt to influence the pupils for or against
any church or religious sect. If any teacher shall intentionally violate this section he or
she shall, after due hearing, be dismissed from the public service."

"SEC. 928. Provision for religious instruction by local priest or minister. – It shall be
lawful, however, for the priest or minister of any church to establish in the town where
a public school is situated, either in person or by a designated teacher of religion, to
teach religion for one-half hour three times a week, in the school building, to those
public-school pupils whose parents or guardians desire it and express their desire
therefore in writing filed with the principal teacher of the school, to be forwarded to
the division superintendent, who shall fix the hours and room for such teaching. But no
public school teachers shall either conduct religious exercises or teach religion or act as
a designated religious teacher in the school building under the foregoing authority, and
no pupils shall be required by any public school teacher to attend and receive the
religious instruction herein permitted. Should the opportunity thus given to teach
religion be used by the priest, minister, religious teacher for the purpose of arousing
disloyalty to …. or of discouraging the attendance of pupils at such public school, or
creating a disturbance of public order, or of interfering with the discipline of the school,
the division superintendent, subject to the approval of the Director of Education, may,
after due investigation and hearing, forbid such offending priest, minister, or religious
teacher from entering the public school building thereafter."
http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-108-s-1987

2. DepEd Memorandum No. 3, s. 2010 was issued on January 10, 2010 advising all
DepEd officials to ensure that the free exercise of religion by DepEd personnel are
respected in the course of the regular operations of the Department.
3. Said memorandum, specifically mentioned that DepEd personnel belonging to
the Seventh-Day Adventist Church should not be required to attend seminars,
examinations, trainings and other professional development activities held on
Saturday, which is their day of rest or church day, in accordance with their religious
beliefs. However, in some public elementary and secondary schools, there is a practice
of conducting special or make-up for the suspension of classes during typhoons or for
any other reasons every Saturday for a particular duration of time. Hence, there are
some complaints of discrimination and non-compliance with the provisions of DepEd
Memorandum No. 3, s. 2010 in relation to the exercise of the right to religious worship
by teachers. Likewise, there are complaints that said DepEd Memorandum excludes
affected students from its coverage.

4. Accordingly, all concerned are hereby informed and advised of the following:

a. DepEd personnel and students belonging to any religious group, where Saturday
is their day of rest or “church day,” should not be required to attend seminars,
examinations, special classes, trainings and other school activities on Saturdays;

b. There should be no diminution or deduction in the salaries (in the case of

teachers) or no effect in the grades (in the case of students) for those teachers
and students who incur absences on Saturdays due to the exercise of their right
to religious worship; and

c. An arrangement should be made by the concerned teacher/ personnel with the

school head for the performance of functions or by the concerned students with
the teacher for the completion of school requirements, without prejudice to their
right to free exercise of religion.

http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-105-s-2010

Other pertinent laws

Individual’s right to freedom of religion was also given importance through providing an
express remedy for the impairment of the same. Article 32 of the Civil Code provides “Any
public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

Revised Penal Code of the Philippines also guaranteed the freedom from interruption of
religious worship through penalizing acts which obstructs religious activities as Article 132
provides “The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion. If the crime shall be committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision
correccional in its medium and maximum.”

In recognition with the promotion of the religious teachings and inculcating the necessary
doctrines and values for the moral upbringing of the child PD 603 in providing that all churches
and religious orders, congregations or groups may, conformably to law, establish schools for the
purpose of educating children in accordance with the tenets of their religion(Art 80) and
the religious education of children in all public and private schools is a legitimate concern of the
Church to which the students belong. All churches may offer religious instruction in public and
private elementary and secondary schools, subject to the requirements of the Constitution and
existing laws (Art. 81).

The Republic Act 8292 or the Act Providing For The Uniform Composition And Powers
Of The Governing Boards, The Manner Of Appointment And Term Of Office Of The President Of
Chartered State Universities And Colleges, And For Other Purposes provides in Section 12
under the Admission portion that No student shall be denied admission to any university or
college by reasons of sex, nationality, religion, political affiliation, or physical disability. Charters
of several state universities were also realigned to accommodate more conducive environment
for diverse religious association students who will avail of their services.

Jurisprudence

The clash between the exercise of one’s belief and the existing rules and laws in the society is a
novel issue in the country. As phrased by Justice Cruz, “The exercise of freedom of religion has
a two-fold aspect: freedom to believe; and freedom to act on the belief. The former is absolute
so long as it is confined within the realm of thought. The latter is subject to regulation where the
belief is translated into external acts that affect public welfare.

There were cases that the Court has had to intervene to settle this dispute. In these
cases, it has always been expressed by the different sects and religious personalities of the
existence of the Constitutional limitation on the power of State to compel individuals to adhere to
the law in forfeiture of their religious beliefs and practices.

However, there’s an added challenge to this debate when the circumstances present on
the other side students, together with their parents, asserting that it is the duty of the
government to respect whatever form of religious practice they are observing with in their daily
lives. Indeed, although freedom of religion is enshrined in and protected by the Constitution, the
Supreme Court ruled in the earlier cases of Gerona et. Al. v Secretary of Education that
between the freedom of belief and its corresponding exercise, there are still limitations to be
observed. Of which, is the upholding of the law and the yielding of a person’s belief when in
conflict.

It was further supported and strengthened in the case of Balbuna v Secretary of

Education where the Supreme Court ruled the validity of a Department Order issued by the
Department of Education as within the powers delegated to the Secretary by Republic Act 1265,
which clarifies that the observance of the flag salute does not constitute as a religious
ceremony, but that of the profession of love and allegiance, as well as a pledge of loyalty to the
country, and does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of religion.

However, the undisturbed jurisprudence of the Supreme Court regarding the exercise of
one’s belief came into examination upon the case of Ebralinag v Secretary of Education. In this
particular case, the Supreme Court opined that it might be high time to reconsider this well-
settled jurisprudence in order to give due course to the petitioner’s motion. The Court reiterated
the previous assumption in the case of Gerona that exclusion of such members of Jehovah’s
Witnesses in the salute of the flag and pledge of loyalty would only create a nation is not imbued
with the proper reverence for the flag and love of country. Such is not the case anymore.

It is worth noting the point made by Justice Teehankee in his dissenting opinion in
German v Barangan that the only justification for the government to restraint or limit the exercise
of religious freedom is when there’s an existence of a serious evil to public safety. The absence
of which does not justify the expulsion from schools. It is with this same opinion that the
petitioners are also hinging their argument. They forward the reasoning that they show respect
for those who wish to pledge loyalty to the country by attending the flag ceremony, and just
standing quietly without disturbing anyone, which does not constitute any evil that it may cause
to society. It is not like the petitioners seek for their exclusion in the public school where they are
taught the history, the government and even the Constitution, as well as the democratic way of
life. This conflict in religious belief also produces, as a consequence, a violation of the
Constitutional provision to receive free education. It is not only within Philippine jurisprudence
that the dispute between government control and religious freedom can be gleaned. Even in
other countries, there are various interpretations on how best to approach this kind of issue.
 In the United States, a similar case, as evidenced by the case of Minersville School
District v Board of Education, was decided by the Supreme Court. In the said case, there was
also a question of whether it is within the scope of the authority of the school authorities to
implement a system of expelling students who refuses to salute the American flag and pledge
their allegiance to it. The Court is of the opinion that it is within the scope of the legislative power
to enact laws to evoke and foster a sentiment of national unity among the children in public
schools. In furtherance, the Court also expressed that religious practices cannot relieve an
individual from obeying a valid law that is not restrictive of a person’s religious beliefs.

Although the Bill of Rights guarantees the respect and upholding of a person’s freedom
to choose and practice freely their chosen religion, it is still subject to government authority in
cases where it poses a threat to the national safety and public welfare. But, this ruling was later
overturned in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette. With the same
issue of compulsory pledge of allegiance to the American flag to inculcate in the students
patriotism, various parents, educators, and associations expressed the view that this kind of
compulsory pledge is similar to what Hitler did when he terrorized Germany.

Furthermore, it is in violation of their rights protected under the First and Fourteenth
Amendment. The Court is inclined towards the view that free public education, if to remain
faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, must not be a partisan or enemy
of any class, creed, party or faction, and observance of Constitutional limitations will not weaken
the government in that particular field. The existence of a Bill of Rights is what assures the
people that they can verily exercise their rights to life, liberty, property, free speech, and of
course the freedom of worship and assembly without fear of being subjected to political
controversies asserting government authority over those rights.

Gaps and Holes to be fillled

Lack of regulations when it comes to CHED

Is mandatory theology subject in secular universities and colleges violates the

Conclusion

Based on the information provided, such freedom of religion accorded to every student is
a continuing process that the government tries to balance. Discussion of religion had been
controversial enough; its attachment with freedom had even created wider debates and partiality
that needed a thorough examination. The consideration for Muslim students when it comes to
hijab and exclusion from wearing shorts in P.E are one of the manifestations that debatable as it
may seem, freedom of religion had been and continuously being accorded to students.

It is true that the Constitution secured the freedom of every Filipino, especially students,
to exercise whatever religion they want. However, just like in every freedom granted by the
Constitution, it is not unlimited nor boundless. When a belief poses a threat in the national
security and impedes other people constitutional rights, upholding such freedom should be
limited. It is also to be noted that beliefs and corresponding exercise of religion should not be
used as an excuse to obstruct person in fulfilling his/her responsibility as a citizen of the country.
Freedom of religion is not a privilege to be exempt from the inherent responsibility attached in
being part of a society.

As seen in the different cases around the globe, the issue at hand has always been
about the balance between the freedoms enjoyed by the people, guaranteed by the laws of their
land, as opposed to the government authority that keeps the law of the land. It might be fair to
say that under this issue, there must always exist a distinction, to be distinguished by the
interpreters of the law, that identifies to what extent a certain act may be called for as a mere
exercise of religious freedom, or a transgression already against the very same law that protects
them.
 An Assessment of Student’s Freedom of Religion

Submitted by:

Aum, Rosch Van

Gorospe, Amor

Runes, Jason

Salapare, Jed
Villanueva, Christine Joy

Ydulzura, Hera Marie