Freedom of religion: multiple Nuances

In the Philippines today, there are multiple religious groups, sects, congregations and churches. Based on a 2020 survey reported by Wikipedia, some 85.7 million are Roman Catholics or 78.8% of the population of 108.7 million people. This is followed by 6.4% or almost 7 million who are Muslims, then 2.8 million or 2.6% belonging to the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Another 1.4 million are Aglipayan or members of the Philippine Independent Church.

All the rest are divided into more than 20 different religions, including many branches of the Protestant congregations. Freedom of religion in our country is given utmost respect and even government protection. The Philippine constitutional, statutory, and jurisprudential notions of religious freedom are principally anchored on the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which constitutes as the main model of our constitutional and political law. The 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions of the Philippines drew heavily from the US fundamental law and its many amendments including the first pertaining to religion.

The freedom of religion is usually divided into two dimensions: first the freedom to believe which is absolute and beyond the power of the state and the government to control, and second, the freedom to act based on one's belief which can be controlled and regulated by the state through the government. US jurisprudence classifies the First Amendment on Religion into two facets: the Free Exercise Clause and the Non-Establishment Clause. The first clause commands that the government should not interfere in the citizens' freedom to believe in the manner they seem appropriate. The second clause prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, and this is reinforced by the inviolability of the principle of separation between the church and the state.

In the 2022 US case of Carson vs. Makin, Chief Justice Roberts, writing the decision, held for the Supreme Court, that a state's non-sectarian requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violated the Free Exercise Clause. In Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, also a 2022 decision, the High Court speaking through Justice Neil Gorsuch, held that the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal. The Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. In 2018, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling penned by Chief Justice John Roberts in Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue, holding that a state need not subsidize private education, but once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.

A law is not generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause if it invites the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's conduct by creating a mechanism for individualized exemptions. When such a system of individual exemptions exists, the government may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship without a compelling reason. This was the holding by America's highest court in a decision also written by Chief Justice Roberts in the 2021 ruling in Fulton vs. Philadelphia. Justice Samuel Alito Jr., wrote the ruling in American Legion versus American Humanist Association in 2019, held for the court: "When time's passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol, or practice with familiarity and historical significance, removing it may no longer appear neutral, especially to the local community. The passage of time thus gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality."

Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2014, held for the court that when government agencies, including the Senate and the House, start their meetings and proceedings with an opening prayer, it does not violate the separation between the church and the state. This was in Town of Greece vs. Galloway. In the Philippines, some landmark cases include the famous Roel Ebralinag (which happened in Cebu), the case of Estrada vs. Escritor and many other cases.

When the Philippine government spends public funds when the Pope visits the country, it does not violate the separation between church and state. The Pope is not only a religious leader. He is a head of state and the head of government of the Vatican, the smallest independent nation in the whole world.