SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

concurring and dissenting opinion

MELO, J,:

The enjoyment of the freedom of religion is always coupled with the freedom of expression. For the profession of faith inevitably carries with it, as a necessary appendage, the prerogative of propagation. The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship thus denotes the right to disseminate religious information (American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386 [1957]). Any prior restriction upon a religious expression would be a restriction on the right of religion. We recognize the role and the deep influence that religion plays in our community. No less than the fundamental law of the land acknowledges the elevating influence of religion by imploring the aid of almighty God to build a just and humane society. Any restriction that is to be placed upon this right must be applied with greatest caution.

Judicial notice must be taken of the fact that the Iglesia ni Cristo as an established religious organization has been well with us for almost a century, with several millions of following, quite a number of imposing and elegantly constructed cathedrals and hundreds of chapels spread in many parts of the country, injecting profound influence not only in the social and political aspect of the community but upon its moral values as well. Respect must be afforded a well-established church, especially on matters concerning morality and decency lest no concept of morality could ever be accepted with deference. Such pre-eminence in the community deserves no less than the confident expectation that it will act in accordance with its avowed mission of promoting religious guidance and enlightenment. Its religious programs must be accorded the presumption that the same will instill moral values that would be beneficial to its adherents and followers, and perhaps to the community in general. The contrary must not be presumed. Its television programs, therefore should not be equated with ordinary movies and television shows which MTRCB is bound by the law to monitor for possible abuse. One must recognize the power of State to protect its citizenry from the danger of immorality and indecency motivated by the selfish desire of media entrepreneurs to accumulate more wealth, or of bogus religious groups, for that matter, to mislead and beguile the unlettered and uninformed. But considering all these circumstances, I see no cogent reason for the application of such power to the present case.

Freedom of religion and expression is the rule and its restriction, the exception. Any prior restriction on the exercise of the freedom to profess religious faith and the propagation thereof will unduly diminish that religions authority to spread what it believes to be the sacred truth. The State can exercise no power to restrict such right until the exercise thereof traverses the point that will endanger the order of civil society. Thus we have ruled in the case of Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (219 SCRA 270 [1993]):

The sole justification for a given restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest that the state has the right and duty to prevent.

Correspondingly, the MTRCB has no authority to use as standard, the dangerous tendency rule, which we have long abandoned, and for which reason, the dangerous tendency standard under Subparagraph C, Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1986 has no place in our statute books.

I, therefore, vote to grant the petition.