8/6/2019 MVRS Publications vs Islamic Dawah Council
9/9
society is the possibility that it may encourage the frequency
of suitsamong religious fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim,
Hindu,Buddhist, Jewish, or others. This would unnecessarily make
the civil
courts a battleground to assert their spiritual ideas, and
advance theirrespective religious agenda.
It need not be stressed that this Court has no power todetermine
which is proper religious conduct or belief; neither does ithave
the authority to rule on the merits of one religion over
another,nor declare which belief to uphold or cast asunder, for the
validity ofreligious beliefs or values are outside the sphere of
the
judiciary. Such matters are better left for the religious
authorities toaddress what is rightfully within their doctrine and
realm of
influence. Courts must be viewpoint-neutral when it comes
toreligious matters if only to affirm the neutrality principle of
freespeech rights under modern jurisprudence where "[a]ll ideas
aretreated equal in the eyes of the First Amendment - even those
ideasthat are universally condemned and run counter to
constitutionalprinciples."
[52]Under the right to free speech, "there is no such thing
as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem,
wedepend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and
juriesbut on the competition of other ideas."
[53]Denying certiorariand
affirming the appellate court decision would surely create a
chillingeffect on the constitutional guarantees of freedom of
speech, ofexpression, and of the press.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailedDecision of the
Court of Appeals dated 27 August 1998 isREVERSED and SET ASIDE, and
the Decision of the RTC-Br. 4,Manila, dismissing the complaint for
lack of merit, is REINSTATEDand AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.Vitug,
J., see concurring opinion.Mendoza, J., in the result.Carpio, and
Austria-Martinez, JJ., see dissenting opinion.Panganiban,and
Carpio-Morales, JJ., joins the dissent of J.
Carpio.Azcuna, J.,joins the dissent of Justice
Austria-Martinez.
