Congress passed a bill appropriating PlOO-billion. Part of the money is to be used for the purchase of a 200-hectare property in Antipolo. The rest shall be spent for the development of the area and the construction of the Universal Temple for All the World’s Faiths (UTAW-F). When completed, the site will be open, free of charge, to all religions, beliefs, and faiths, where each devotee or believer shall be accommodated and treated in a fair and equal manner, without distinction, favor, or prejudice. There will also be individual segments or zones in the area which can be used for the conduct of whatever rituals, services, sacraments, or ceremonials that may be required by the customs or practices of each particular religion. The President approved the bill, happy in the thought that this could start the healing process of our wounded country and encourage people of varied and oftenconflicting faiths to live together in harmony and in peace.
If the law is questioned on the ground that it violates Sec. 5, Article III of the Constitution that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” how will you resolve the challenge? Explain. (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
The constitutional challenge should be sustained, as the law is unconstitutional. Section 5, Article III of the Constitution mandates the non-establishment of religion, requiring strict State neutrality in religious matters. Under this clause, the State
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Does an appropriation of public funds to construct a permanent temple open to all religions violate the Non-Establishment Clause?
The Non-Establishment Clause and Article VI, Section 29(2) of the Constitution prohibit the direct appropriation or use of public funds for religious purposes, even if the funding benefits all religions equally.
Under Article VI, Section 29(2) of the 1987 Constitution, when may public money or property be validly paid to a priest, preacher, or minister?
Article VI, Section 29(2) explicitly provides an exception allowing public payment to religious ministers only when they are assigned to the armed forces, penal institutions, or government orphanages or leprosaria.
Which principle governs the constitutional prohibition against state establishment of religion in the Philippines?
The Non-Establishment Clause mandates state neutrality in religious affairs, prohibiting the government from aiding, sponsoring, or financing any or all religions.
How does constitutional law treat the temporary use of public property for religious gatherings?
Choices available with full access.
Why is an appropriation law for constructing a multi-faith sanctuary unconstitutional even if intended for national healing?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Non-Establishment Clause
The Non-Establishment Clause under Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution mandates strict State neutrality in religious matters. It prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, sponsoring or favoring any faith, or using public resources to advance religious endeavors. Even when government action benefits all religions equally without discrimination, the State cannot endorse or finance religious activities. The prohibition ensures that public power and resources remain strictly secular, preserving the wall of separation between Church and State while preventing state involvement in sectarian affairs.
2. Public Funds Prohibition
Article VI, Section 29(2) of the 1987 Constitution explicitly forbids the appropriation or application of public funds or property, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, or system of religion. Directly allocating government funds to purchase land and construct a permanent religious structure, such as a temple for religious rituals, violates this mandate. The constitutional prohibition against spending public money for religious purposes is absolute, regardless of whether the facility is open to all faiths or intended to promote national harmony.
3. Permissible Religious Accommodation
Under the principle of benevolent neutrality, the State may accommodate religious practices by allowing the temporary, incidental use of public property for religious gatherings when such property is generally available to the public. However, accommodation becomes unconstitutional when it involves the direct expenditure of public funds or the permanent dedication of government resources for religious purposes. Constructing a permanent temple using public money exceeds permissible accommodation because it directly employs state resources to foster religious practice rather than merely removing a burden on religious exercise.