phBar.org (Bar Exams Forum-Philippines)

XV.

The principal of Jaena High School, a public school, wrote a letter to the parents and guardians of all the school's pupils, informing them that the school was willing to provide religious instruction to its Catholic students during class hours, through a Catholic priest. However, students who wish to avail of such religious instruction needed to secure the consent of their parents and guardians in writing.

a) Does the offer violate the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion? (3%)

b) The parents of evangelical Christian students, upon learning of the offer, demanded that they too be entitled to have their children instructed in their own religious faith during class hours. The principal, a devout Catholic, rejected the request. As counsel for the parents of the evangelical student, how would you argue in support of their position? (3%)

My Answer was:
a) No, it does not violate the non-establishment clause. The Constitution provides that at the option of of the parents, the school may be allowed to teach religion during class hours approved by religious authorities to which the child belongs. [this is in Art. XIV Sec. 3(3) of course i didnt cite the provision and nde verbatim pgkksulat ko ]

b) As counsel for the parents, i would argue that the Constitution recognizes the right of the parents to establish and maintain the family in accordance with their religious convictions ad demands of responsible parenthood. [e2 nman this is found in Art. XV Sec. 3(1)]

i hope i got it right..

Nice answer! Way to go ponente!

for answer b
Can't we cite the same provision to support the case of the evangelical parents?

Well, the provision states that

"At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government"

there is no mention of specific religion in that provision, my guess is they could also cite this provided they comply with the requirements.

Also, can we use as basis the equal protection clause?

for answer b
Can't we cite the same provision to support the case of the evangelical parents?

Well, the provision states that

"At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government"

there is no mention of specific religion in that provision, my guess is they could also cite this provided they comply with the requirements.

Also, can we use as basis the equal protection clause?

i believe dnpante's reliance on the same provision (Section 3[3], Article XIV, Constitution), is the better basis for answering subquestion (b).

i also think that the equal protection clause may be invoked as a supplementary argument.

Some points, however:

1. The provision (Section 3[3], Article XIV, Constitution) states:



Thus, it seems that if the parents or guardians request the giving of religious instruction to their children or wards, then the school has the duty to allow their children to have such instruction. The denial by the principal of the parents' request violates the above provision.

The principal's action also contravenes Section 5, Article III. In particular, he/she violated the non-establishment clause by showing a preference for a specific religion. He/she also breached the free exercise clause by prohibiting the giving of religious instruction to the evangelical Christian students.

2. The provision seems to provide that the initiative should come from the parents or guardians. If this reading is correct, would not the action of the principal (writing a letter to the parents thereby taking the initiative on religious matters) be invalid? Would it not constitute a violation of government neutrality on religious matters? In particular, would it not show preference for one religion over another as the offer was favorable to Catholic students only? Does this not aid religion and, worse, a single religion at that?

2. The provision seems to provide that the initiative should come from the parents or guardians. If this reading is correct, would not the action of the principal (writing a letter to the parents thereby taking the initiative on religious matters) be invalid? Would it not constitute a violation of government neutrality on religious matters? In particular, would it not show preference for one religion over another as the offer was favorable to Catholic students only? Does this not aid religion and, worse, a single religion at that?

I support the above view. Ito sagot ko eh. Selfish no...

hi taft2412!!!

paki-introduce naman sarili mo o. dun po sa GTKY, para naman makilala ka namin. as for your answer, ayoko muna basahin baka madismaya lang ako sa sagot ko hehehe.