You are on page 1of 1

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

GERMAN VS. BARANGAN

G.R. No. L-68828 March 27, 1985

FACTS:

Pets seek issuance of writ of mandamus compelling respondents


HELD:
to allow them to enter and pray inside St. Jude Chapel located at

J.P Laurel Street and Writ of injunction to enjoin respondents


Art. 19 of the civil code admonishes: “Every person must in
from preventing them from getting into and praying in said
exercise his rights and in performance of his duties observes
church.
honesty and good faith”

Even if petitioner’s claim to free exercise of religion is genuine


Pets composed of abut 50 businessmen, students and office
and valid, respondent’s action against pets cannot be
employees converged at J.P Laurel Street for the purpose of
characterized as violative of the freedom of religious worship. The
hearing mass at St. Jude Chapel which adjoins the
need to secure the safety of heads of the state and other
Malacanang grounds located in the same street. They were
government officials cannot be overemphasized. Said restriction
wearing the now familiar inscribed yellow T-Shirts and
is moreover intended to secure the several executive offices
started to march down said street with clenched fists with
within the Malacanang grounds from possible external attacks
shouts of anti-government invectives.
and disturbances. Restriction imposed is necessary to maintain

the smooth functioning of the executive branch of the

government which pet’s amass action would certainly disrupt.


Along the way, they were barred by respondent from proceeding

on the ground that St. Jude chapel was located within the
Freedom of religious worship embraces 2 concept, freedom to
Malacanang security area. Petitioners left but because of the
believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the
warning from respondent that future attempts to get into the
nature of things, the second cannot be.
church would be prevented, this petition arouse.

If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with the established

institutions of society and with the law, then the former must
Pets say their purpose is to pray and hear mass at St. Jude yield and give way to the latter.
church.

Pets invoke their freedom of locomotion which provides:

”The liverty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except


Respondents say pets intention is not to perform an act of upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest
religious worship but to conduct anti- government of national security, public safety, or public health”.
demonstration at a place close to the very offices of the

President of the Republic. Furthermore, they say that pets WHEREFORE, instant petition dismissed

attempt to disguise their true motive with a ritual as

sacred as the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

ISSUE:

WON petitioners were unlawfully deprived of their Free exercise

of religion