AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY V. CITY OF MANILAThe acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila required the payment of a particularamount from petitioner.Respondent claims that petitioners Philippine agencyhaddistributed and sold bibles and/or gospel portions throughout the country; thus,conducting business of general merchandise.

Facts:1. Petitioners Philippine agency has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions throughout the country and translating the same into several Philippine dialects.2. On May 29, 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed petitioner that it was conducting the business of general merchandise since November 1945 without providing itself with necessary Mayors permit and municipal license in violation of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and further required petitioner to secure the correspondingpermit and license fees, together with compromise covering the period from 4th quarter of 1945 to 2nd quarter of 1953, within 3 days.Sum of said fees amounted to Php 5,821.45.Ruling:1. Article III, Section 1(7) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious profession and worship.It has referenceto ones views of his relations to His Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence to His being andcharacter, and obedience to HisWill.The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with itthe right to disseminatereligious information.Any restraint of such right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.2. It may be true that in the case at bar, the price asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that petitioner was engaged in the business oroccupation of selling said merchandisefor profit.To have the City Ordinance in question applied would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rightsof dissemination of religious beliefs.EBRALINAG V. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF CEBUFor refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patrioticpledge, petitioners wereexpelledfrom theirclasses bythe publicschool authorities in Cebu.Facts:1. Petitioners were expelled from their classes by the public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1264 and by Department Order No. 8 dated July 21, 1955 of the DECS making the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational institutions.2. There were a total of 68 students who were expelled from various public schools in Cebu.3. According to petitioners, while they do not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they do not engage in external acts or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their love of country through theobservance of the flagceremony.They quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who choose toparticipate in the solemn proceeding.Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion.

Ruling:

1. The idea that one may be compelled to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, during a flag ceremony on pain of being dismissed from one's job or of being expelled from school,is alien to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut their teeth on the Bill of Rights which guarantees their rights to free speech and the free exercise of religious profession and worship.2. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator.3. The Court is not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovahs Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, this religious group which admittedly comprises a small portion of the school population will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a nation untaught and uninculcated in and unimbued with reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of country and admiration for national heroes.After all, what thepetitioners seekonly is exemption from the flag ceremony, not exclusion from public schools where they may learn and be trained.Expelling or banning thepetitioners from Philippine schools will bring about the very situation that this Court had feared in Gerona case.Forcing a small religious group, throughthe iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted authorities.4. While the highest regard must be afforded their right to the free exercise of their religion, this should not be taken to mean that school authorities are powerless to discipline them if they should commit breaches of the peace by actions that offend the sensibilities, both religious and patriotic, of other persons.If they quietlystand at attentionduring the flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, the Court does not see how such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose a grave and present danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State has a right and duty to prevent.VICTORIANO V. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNIONVictoriano tendered his resignation for being a member of Iglesia ni Cristo, after theenactment of RA 3350 which directed that the agreement between employer andlabor organization is not binding to members of religious sects which prohibitaffiliation of their members toany such organization.In order to remain withtheCompany, according to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the employee shouldlikewise be a member of the Union.Facts:

1. Benjamin Victoriano was a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo and was employed by Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. since 1958.He was a member of the Workers Union, whose collective bargaining agreement with the company provided that membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for allpermanent employees.

2. Republic Act3350 wasenacted onJune 18,1961.It introduced amendment to Section 4[4(a)] of RA875.Said section of RA 875did not preclude the employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees. However, due to the amendment introduced by RA 3350, such agreement (between employer and labor organization) shall not cover members of any religious sect which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization.3. Being a member of a religious sect which prohibits affiliation of its members with any labor organization, Victoriano tendered his resignation to the Union in 1962.However, no action was taken by the Union; thus, petitioner reiterated his resignation12 years later.The Union, onthe other end, wrote a formal letter to the Company asking for the separation of Victoriano from service as he was resigning from the Union as amember.4.4. The management in turn notified Victoriano and his counsel that unless they (Victoriano) could achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company would be constrained to dismiss him from service.Ruling:1. The purpose of RA 3350 was to insure freedom of belief and religion, and to promote the general welfare by preventing discrimination against those members of religious sects which prohibit their members from joining labor unions, confirming thereby their natural, statutory and constitutional right to work, the fruits of which work are usually the only means whereby they can maintain their own life and the life of their dependents.2.2. Religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of values. Contractual rights, therefore, must yield to freedom ofreligion. It is only where unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.3. The constitutional provision prohibiting the establishment of religion only prohibits legislation for the support of any religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect, this forestalling compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship, but also assures the free exercise of ones chosen form of religion within the limits of utmost amplitude.It has been said that the religionclause of the Constitution are all designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the commongood.Any legislation whose effect or purpose isto impede the observance of one or all religions or to discriminate invidiously between religions is invalid, even though the burden may be characterized as being onlyindirect.But, if thestate regulates conduct byenacting, within its power, a general law which has for its purpose and effect to advance the States secular goals, the statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance, unless the State can accomplish its purpose without imposing such burden.4. A religious test required for the exercise of a right needs a right to be exercised.CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUTFacts of the CaseJesse Cantwell and his son were Jehovah's Witnesses; they were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. The Cantwells distributed religious materials by travelling door-to-door and by approaching people on the street. After voluntarily hearing an anti-Roman Catholic message on the Cantwells' portable phonograph, two pedestrians reacted angrily. The Cantwells were subsequently arrested for violating a local ordinance requiring a permit for solicitation and for inciting a breach of the peace.Question

Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not entail any threat of "bodily harm" and was protected religious speech.

Brief Fact Summary.A Jehovahs Witnesses was convicted on a charge of breach of the peace for playing a phonograph record sharply critical of the Catholic religion to persons he encountered on the street.Synopsis of Rule of Law.A State may proscribe speech if it amounts to a breach of the peace, which encompasses not only violent acts, but also acts and words likely to produce violence in others.Facts.Jesse Cantwell (Cantwell), a Jehovahs Witnesses, was convicted on the charge of breach of the peace for playing a phonograph record sharply critical of the Catholic religion to persons he encountered on the street. His intent was to proselytize his listeners. Prior to his arrest, there was no evidence that Cantwells deportment was noisy or offensive. Moreover, although the message on the record was offensive, it was only played to persons who voluntarily agreed to listen.

Issue.Did the arrest and conviction of Cantwell for violating the common law offense of breach of the peace violate his constitutional rights of free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution)?Held.Yes. The lower court is reversed.Justice Owen Roberts (J. Roberts) stated that while it is obvious that the principles of freedom of speech and religion do not sanction incitement to riot or violence, it is equally obvious that a State may not unduly suppress free communication of views under the guise of maintaining desirable conditions. With these considerations in mind, we note that there was no evidence of assaultive behavior or threatening of bodily harm, no truculent bearing, no profane, abusive, indecent remarks directed to the person of the hearer. Thus, it cannot be said that Cantwells actions resulted in a breach of the peace or an incitement to a breach thereof.

Discussion.By ruling that the facts of this case, speaking to an audience hostile to ones message, does not amount to a breach of the peace, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) gives insight into the degree of public disorder it requires to permit a government to regulate free expression on those grounds.