Case Digest (G.R. No. 68828)
Facts:
Reli German et al. v. Gen. Santiago Barangan and Major Isabelo Lariosa, G.R. No. 68828, March 27, 1985, Supreme Court En Banc, Escolin, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (about 50 businessmen, students and office employees) sought a writ of mandamus compelling respondents (officers of the Presidential Security Command) to allow them to enter and pray inside St. Jude Chapel on J.P. Laurel Street, Manila, and a writ of injunction to prevent respondents from barring future entry for worship.
On October 2, 1984 at about 5:00 p.m., petitioners wearing yellow T‑shirts marched down J.P. Laurel Street toward St. Jude Chapel (adjacent to Malacañang). Respondent Major Isabelo Lariosa, following orders of Gen. Santiago Barangan, prevented them from proceeding on the ground that the chapel lay within the Malacañang security area. Petitioners protested, knelt and prayed at the barricade, then left after being warned any future attempt would be similarly prevented. Petitioners filed the present petition seeking mandamus/injunction; the prayer to enter on October 12, 1984 became moot by the time of hearing. The petition was heard and submitted for resolution (submitted on October 16, 1984, as reflected in the record).
At the hearing respondents denied a policy of prohibiting churchgoers and assured the Court they had never and would never restrict persons from entering St. Jude Chapel, but maintained petitioners’ ostensible purpose was political demonstration cloaked as worship. The Court reviewed the history of restrictions on access to J.P. Laurel Street since 1972, found security checks customary and unobtrusive, and considered constitutional guarantees (Art. IV, Secs. 5 & 8, 1973 Constitution), U.S. precedents (e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut) and local authority (e.g., Gerona v. Secretary of Education) in framing the limits of free exercise. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Several justices filed separate opinions: Chief Justice Fernando concurred in the result but took issue with the opinion’s failure to state that restrictions on religious exercise may be imposed only under the clear and present danger doctrine; Gutierrez, Jr. wrote a concurring opinion underscoring the primacy of religious liberty; Abad Santos, Teehankee, Makasiar, Melencio‑Herrera, and Relova filed dissenting opinions (each arguing...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for a writ of mandamus and injunction by petitioners justiciable and a proper cause of action in the circumstances presented?
- Did respondents violate petitioners’ constitutional rights to the free exercise of religious worship (Art. IV, Sec. 8, 1973 Constitution) and to liberty of abode and travel (Art. IV, Sec. 5, 1973 Constitution) by preventing them from entering St. Jude Chapel on October 2, 1984?
- If there was a restraint, was the restriction on J.P. Laurel Street and the denial of access to the chapel reasonable and constitutionally jus...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)