Victoriano v Elizalde

Facts: Victoriano, an Iglesia ni Cristo member, was employed by the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc.
He was also a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union which had a collective bargaining
agreement with the ERF containing a ‘closed shop provision’ saying that membership in the
union shall be required as a condition of employment for all permanent employees workers
covered by this agreement. The CBA expired on March 3,1964 but was renewed on the
following day.

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 the representative 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".

Being a member of the INC, appelle presented his resignation to the union. The union then
wrote a letter asking the company to separate the appelle from service in view of the fact that he
was resigning from the union as a member. However, the company notified that appelle that
unless the appelle could achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the union, the company would
be constrained to dismiss him from the service. This prompt appelle to file an action for
injunction. The Union, in its answer, invoked the union security clause of the CBA and assailed
the constitutionality of RA 3350.

The CFI ruled in favor of Appellee enjoining the Elizalde Rope from dismissing the plaintiff from
his present employment and sentencing the same to pay the plaintiff P500 for cost of suit.

ISSUE:
1. WON RA 3350 is unconstitutional
2. WON RA 3350 infringes the right to form lawful associations when it prohibited all the
members of a given religious sect from joining any union if such sect prohibits affiliations
of their members.

Ruling:
1. RA 3350 IS CONSTITUTIONAL. The exercise of religious profession is superior to
contract rights. In case of conflict, the latter must yield to the former.
2. RA 3350 DOES NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHT TO FORM LAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS.
The exception provides that members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or
coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with
the employers; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious
sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground
that they are not members of the collective bargaining union.
 If, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the members of said religious sects prefer to
sign up with the labor union, they can do so. If in deference and fealty to their religious
faith, they refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does not coerce them to join; neither
does the law prohibit them from joining; and neither may the employer or labor union
compel them to join. Republic Act No. 3350, therefore, does not violate the constitutional
provision on freedom of association.

Stone v. Graham
Facts: A Kentucky statute was enacted requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten
Commandments, which was purchased using private funds, on a wall in every public classroom.
In addition to the posting of the Commandments, the Kentucky statute (1978) required that this
notation was to be placed, in small print, at the bottom of each display: “The secular application
of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of
Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.” Opponents of the statute
claimed that it violated the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
Sydell Stone, among others, sued, and James B. Graham, the state’s superintendent of
education, was named as the respondent. A trial court upheld the statute, ruling that its purpose
was secular.

The case was brought to the US supreme court. The court used the Lemon test to evaluate
whether the statute was permissible under the establishment clause. In Lemon v. Kurtzman
(1971), the Supreme Court held that (a) a “statute must have a secular legislative purpose”; (b)
“its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion”; and (c)
the statute cannot promote “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” If any of the
points are violated, the statute must be ruled unconstitutional.

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the Kentucky statute violated the first part of the so-called
Lemon test. The court rejected arguments that the notation on the bottom of the Ten
Commandments was sufficient to indicate the secular purpose of the posting.

Moreover, the court was of the opinion that the posting of the Ten Commandments was clearly
religious and not educational. The Commandments were not part of the curriculum, and the
court maintained that the state was instead encouraging students “to read, meditate upon, and
perhaps venerate and obey” the Commandments, which is a violation of the establishment
clause.

The court considered it to be irrelevant that the copies were bought with private funds, because
displaying the Commandments demonstrated official state support of their message.

Silverio vs CA
Facts: On 14 October 1985, Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 20 (4) of the
Revised Securities Act in Criminal Case No. CBU-6304 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. In
due time, he posted bail for his provisional liberty.

On 26 January 1988, or more than two (2) years after the filing of the Information, respondent
People of the Philippines filed an Urgent ex parte Motion to cancel the passport of and to issue
a hold-departure Order against accused-petitioner on the ground that he had gone abroad
several times without the necessary Court approval resulting in postponements of the
arraignment and scheduled hearings.

The RTC overruled the opposition of the petitioner, and it issued an order directing the DFA to
cancel the petitioner’s passport or deny its application and the Commission on Immigration to
prevent the petitioner from leaving the country.

The case was brought to the CA but it met a similar fate.

Issue: WON the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful order of the Court, even on grounds
other than the interest of national security, public safety or public health

Ruling: The bail bond posted by petitioner has been cancelled and warrant of arrest has been
issued by reason that he failed to appear at his arraignments. There is a valid restriction on the
right to travel, it is imposed that the accused must make himself available whenever the court
requires his presence. A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the Court from
leaving the country or, if abroad, compelled to return.

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no means be construed as delimiting the
inherent power of the Courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in
criminal cases pending before them. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a Court or judicial
officer, all auxiliary writs, process and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be
employed by such Court or officer.

Petitioner is facing a criminal charge. He has posted bail but has violated the conditions thereof
by failing to appear before the Court when required. Warrants for his arrest have been issued.
Those orders and processes would be rendered nugatory if an accused were to be allowed to
leave or to remain, at his pleasure, outside the territorial confines of the country. Holding an
accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the
Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be
dealt with in accordance with law. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People
of the Philippines. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course
and proceed to finality without undue delay, with an accused holding himself amenable at all
times to Court Orders and processes. JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED
Arizala vs CA

Facts: