BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY-ACCOMODATION (Re: Freedom of Religion)
Con!i!"!ion The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares: Philippines declares: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article inviolable. (Article II, Section 6), and, No and, No law shall be made respecting respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, preference, shall forever forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required required for the exercise e xercise of civil or political rights. (Article rights. (Article III, Section )!!!!!
Bene#olen! ne"!r$li!%-$&&ommod$!ion The Supre"e Court of the Philippines, Philippines, rulin# in $%%&'1 and $%%6'$ in the land"ar case of strada vs. scritor , esta*lished the doctrine of *ene+olent neutralit-acco""odation! The $%%6 rulin#, penned * for"er Chief .ustice Puno Puno,, e/plained *ene+olent-neutralit in the conte/t of 0!S! urisprudence as urisprudence as follo2s: 0nder the *ene+olent-neutralit theor, the principle un derlin# the 3irst A"end"ent is that freedo" to carr out one4s duties to a Supre"e 5ein# is an inaliena*le ri#ht, not one dependent on the #race of le#islature! eli#ious freedo" is seen as a su*stanti+e ri#ht and not "erel a pri+ile#e a#ainst discri"inator le#islation! le#islation! ith ith reli#ion looed upon 2ith *ene+olence and not hostilit, hostilit, *ene+olent neutralit allo2s acco""odation of reli#ion under u nder certain circu"stances!'$ The rulin# 2ent on to cite a 0!S! Supre"e Court decision Court decision 2hich had held that if prohi*itin# the e/ercise of reli#ion is "erel the incidental effect of a #enerall applica*le and other2ise +alid pro+ision, the 3irst A"end"ent A"end"ent has not *een offended!'& Thou#h concurrin# in the decision, .ustice Connor dissented dissented stron#l fro" the rationale, ar#uin# that a co"pellin# state interest test should ha+e *een applied!' ;choin# .ustice Connors point fro" the 0!S! case, the rulin# in strada in strada vs. scritor 2ent 2ent on to ichael ! >cConnell as >cConnell as follo2s: If the plaintiff can sho2 that a la2 or #o+ern"ent practice inhi*its the free e/ercise of his reli#ious *eliefs, the *urden shifts to the #o+ern"ent to de"onstrate that the la2 or practice is
necessar to the acco"plish"ent of so"e i"portant (or ?co"pellin#4) secular o*ecti+e and that it is the least restricti+e "eans of achie+in# that o*ecti+e! If the plaintiff "eets this *urden and the #o+ern"ent does not, the plaintiff is entitled to e/e"ption fro" the la2 or practice at issue! In order to *e protected, the clai"ant4s *eliefs "ust *e ?sincere4, *ut the need not necessaril *e consistent, coherent, clearl articulated, or con#ruent 2ith those of the clai"ant4s reli#ious deno"ination! ?nl *eliefs rooted in reli#ion are protected * the 3ree ;/ercise Clause4@ secular *eliefs, ho2e+er sincere and conscientious, do not suffice!' The rulin# noted that the then-current pre+ailin# +ie2 under 0!S! la2 is that there are no re
;"plo"ent Bi+ision +! S"ith see 3indla2!co" As .ustice Sandra Ba Connor insisted in her stron# dissent fro" the rationale in S"ith, the 3irst A"end"ent 2as enacted precisel to protect the ri#hts of those 2hose reli#ious practices are not shared * the "aorit and "a *e +ie2ed 2ith hostilit!!!! The co"pellin# interest test reflects the 3irst A"end"ents "andate of preser+in# reli#ious li*ert to the fullest e/tent possi*le in a pluralistic societ! 3or the Court to dee" this co""and a lu/ur, is to deni#rate 'the +er purpose of a 5ill of i#hts!, 3lo2ers $%%7, p! 161
