BALANCE OR BIASED?

REACTION ON THE ENACTMENT OF VARIOUS

RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS IN THE PHILIPPINES
By Mark Kevin A. Arroco
Juris Doctor – 1st Year

In recent years, our government leaders have approved several laws declaring
various holidays in our country. Most of these holidays are intended to commemorate
major religious events/ activities that are commonly observed by the Filipino
constituency.

The Catholics, having the largest percentage of the religious constituency in the
Philippines, has the most number of celebrated holidays based on these enacted slews
of new laws. The approval of Republic Act Number 10966 has added to the number of
regular Christian holidays in the Philippines, by which it has declared the
commemoration of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception every 8th day of December
as Special Non-Working Holiday. Also, Republic Act Number 11163 makes the
celebration of the National Bible Day a Working Holiday in the country recognizing the
value of the Holy Bible as the core of Christian faith. Aside from these, there are also
local festivities that are Christian by origin and that has been approved as local
holidays.

The list of Philippine Legal holidays has also included Muslim celebrations such
as the Eid’l Fitr and Eid’l Adha as non-working days following the issuance of
Presidential Proclamation Nos. 729 and 789 in 2019. The declaration was made
purposely to honor one of the most significant events that are being observed by the
Muslim community.

Primarily, these laws are established to recognize the cultural and religious
significance of the above-mentioned religious observances in the growth of our Filipino
tradition. It is just right for the government to give proper recognition and due respect on
the observance of such practices as it is truly undeniable that religion and the different
practices and beliefs that surround thereof has contributed a lot in flourishing our rich
and distinct culture as Filipinos. However, the enactment of these laws recommending
the general observance of a particular religious belief or practice is something that is
difficult to accept, especially to those who are members of other existing religious
organization or sects in the Philippines.

A limit on freedom of religion which recognizes the freedom of some members of

the group but not of other members of the same group cannot be reasonable and
justified in a free and democratic society. The effect of the disparate treatment is that
the religious freedom of some is respected by the legislation while the religious freedom
of others continues to be violated. (1)

Any government institution for that matter shall abide on their constitutional
commitment of observing religious neutrality at all times. There is a constitutional
prohibition to the government on promoting religious ideas as stated under article 3
section 5 of the Philippine Constitution: 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..”

There have been several court cases on this and related issues that tackled the
resolution of cases concerning the observance of religious holidays. Most of this cases
are foreign cases which include the case of Metzl v. Leininger (1994), Everson vs. the
Board of Education. All of these cases uphold that religious holidays are deemed
unconstitutional.

In the case of Metzl v. Leininger, the court held that an Illinois law closing all
public schools on Good Friday was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The
Seventh Circuit's reformulation of a standard for evaluating Establishment Clause
cases, however, fails in its delicate but critical task "to distinguish between the real
threat and mere shadow." The court instead designed a test in which every shadow
becomes a threat, prompting a heightened sensitivity to the religious promotion and a
nearly insurmountable burden of proof. Application of a more reasonable standard
would have led the court to agree with the Ninth Circuit that the listing of the Good
Friday Holy Day as a holiday for all students is constitutional.

Andrea Metzl is a Chicago public school teacher. In July of 1993, she brought
suit against Robert Leininger, the Illinois Superintendent of Education, claiming that the
portion of Section 24-2 of the Illinois School Code that designates Good Friday as one
of twelve state-mandated paid school holidays violates the Establishment Clause.
Illinois passed the Good Friday law in 1941 without any legislative history.The only
contemporary indication of legislative intent is a proclamation by the Governor issued in
1942. The proclamation stated that Good Friday was a day "charged with special
meaning . . . throughout the Christian world" that had been given "appropriate statutory
recognition" by the legislature. The proclamation explained further to the "churchgoers
and believers". (2)

In 1947, the case of Everson vs. the Board of Education was about the tax-
funded school district that provided reimbursement to parents of both public and private
schooled people taking the public transportation system to school. The taxpayer
contended reimbursement given for children attending private religious schools violated
the constitutional prohibition against state support of religion, and the use of taxpayer
funds to do so violate the Due Process Clause. The Justices were split over the
question whether the New Jersey policy constituted support of religion, with the majority
concluding these reimbursements were "separate and so indisputably marked off from
the religious function" that they did not violate the constitution. Both affirming and
dissenting Justices, however, were decisive that the Constitution required a sharp
separation between government and religion and their strongly worded opinions paved
the way to a series of later court decisions that taken together brought about profound
changes in legislation, public education, and other policies involving matters of religion.
Both Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge's dissent defined
the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a "wall of separation between church
and state. (3)

Foreign and local jurisprudence has a lot to say about the government’s
responsibility in upholding the rights and beliefs of the religious minority and this could
probably help our good legislators in pursuing other legislative agenda concerning
religious holidays. Since religion is a sensitive matter to talk about, it shall be
sensitively and carefully handled also by the government in order to avoid conflicts and
discrimination to people who are widely observing it.

-End-

(1) http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/book/export/html/16406

(2) https://search.proquest.com/openview/ec0f2e5f81366f642d5ca726775d803a/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=36614

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education