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. (Art. III, Sec. 5)

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Art. II, Sec. 6)

No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. [Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3)]

Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. [Art. VI, Sec. 28(3)]

Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968)Facts

An amendment to the New York's Education Law requires local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grades seven to twelve, including those in private and parochial schools.

The Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 and other school boards subsequently filed a suit against the state commissioner of education

-to have the law declared unconstitutional because it constitutes the use of public funds to aid religious schools- to bar the commissioner from firing those who refused to comply with the law-to stop state funds from being used to purchase textbooks that would be lent to students in religious schools.

Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968)Issue

Is the amendment a violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment?

HeldThe justices held that the primary purpose of the statute was the improvement of education for all children. Books are furnished at the request of the pupil and ownership remains, at least technically, in the State. Thus, No funds or books are furnished to parochial schools, and the financial benefit is to parents and children, not to schools.

It further ruled that the school boards had presented no evidence that the law coerces them in any way in the practice of religion, and thereby it dismissed the free-exercise claims.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1968)Facts

Pursuant to a New Jersey statute, district boards of education of are authorized to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools other than private schools operated for profit

A board passed a resolution authorizing the reimbursement of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of children attending public and Catholic schools.

A district taxpayer challenged its validity alleging that the New Jersey reimbursement statute violated both the State and the Federal Constitutions as a "law respecting an establishment of religion

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1968)IssueIs the resolution a violation of the Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment?DiscussionThe "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1968)Held

The First Amendment does not prohibits New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays the fares of pupils attending public and other schools.

The purpose the state provisions intended to guarantee free transportation of a kind which the state deems to be best for the school children's welfare.

The Supreme Court found the statute was not unconstitutional because it was designed to provide a benefit to the parents of all school children, distinct from any religious function in which the children engaged.

Garces v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-53487 May 25, 1981FactsTwo resolutions were adopted by Barangay Council ofValencia,OrmocCity:

-Resolution No. 5- Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration every fifth of April. This provided for the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. Funds for the said projects will be obtained through the selling of tickets and cash donations.

-Resolution No. 6- The chairman or hermano mayor of the fiesta would be the caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in his residence for one year and until the election of his successor. The image would be made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the saints feast day.

Garces v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-53487 May 25, 1981FactsResolutions Nos. 5 and 6 were submitted to a plebiscite and were duly ratified by the barangay general assembly . Funds were raised by means of solicitations and cash donations and the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer was acquired. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic church of Barangay Valencia so that the devotees could worship the saint during the mass for the fiesta.

A controversy arose after the mass when the parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea refused to return that image to the barangay council on the pretext that it was the property of the church because church funds were used for its acquisition.

A replevin case was filed against Father Osmea for the recovery of the image. ln his answer to the complaint for replevin, he assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions.

Garces v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-53487 May 25, 1981Facts

The contention of the petitioner is that the resolutions contravene the constitutional provisions that

-"no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion"

- "no public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such. except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium .

(Sec. 8, Article IV and sec. 18[2], Article VIII, Constitution)

Garces v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-53487 May 25, 1981IssueWhether the barangay council's resolution providing for purchase of saint's image in connection with barangay fiesta, constitutional.HeldThe questioned resolutions do not directly or indirectly establish any religion, nor abridge religious liberty, nor appropriate public money or property for the benefit of any sect, priest or clergyman. The image was purchased with private funds, not with tax money.The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents.the barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its celebration is an ingrained tradition in rural communities. The fiesta relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of the masses