Case Summary (G.R. No. 68828)
Petitioners
Reli German, Ramon Pedrosa, Tirso Santillan Jr., Ma. Luisa Andal, Nieva Malinis, Ricardo Lavina, Cesar Cortes, Danilo Reyes, Jose Reyes, Josefina Mate, Lourdes Calma, Mildred Juan, Olive Guanzon, Fernando Cochico, Sherman Cid, Nazareno Bentulan, Roslina Donaire, Mario Martinez, Beatriz Teylan, Angelina Lapid, Rosemarie Flores, Daniel Van Soto, Edgardo Mercader, Nelly Agustin, Marily Magcalas, David Chan, Arsenio Salansang, Nelson De Guzman, Marciano Araneta, Cesar Meneses, Dionisio Rellosa, Mario Santiago, Severino Santos, Leonora Santos, Nimfa Doronilla, Florence Guinto, Rosalina Manansala, Percival Ostonal, Tommy Macaranas, and Roger Nicandro.
Respondents
General Santiago Barangan, Commander of the Presidential Security Command, and Major Isabelo Lariosa, officer on the ground.
Key Dates
• October 2, 1984: Petitioners assemble and attempt to march to St. Jude Chapel.
• October 16, 1984: Petition submitted and heard by the Supreme Court.
• March 27, 1985: En banc decision rendered.
Applicable Law
• 1973 Constitution (pre-1990 decision)
– Article IV, Section 8: Guarantee of freedom of religious profession and worship, “without discrimination or preference.”
– Article IV, Section 5: Liberty of abode and travel, subject only to court order or when necessary for national security, public safety, or public health.
• Civil Code, Article 19: Requirement that every person observe honesty and good faith in exercising rights.
• U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296) on the dual aspects of religious freedom (freedom to believe and freedom to act).
• Philippine precedent in Gerona v. Secretary of Education (106 Phil. 2) on limits to exercise of religious belief when conflicting with public order and law.
Facts of the Case
On October 2, 1984, at about 5 p.m., petitioners in yellow T-shirts began marching along J.P. Laurel Street toward St. Jude Chapel to pray and hear Mass. Respondent Major Lariosa, under orders from General Barangan, physically barred them from proceeding further on the ground that St. Jude Chapel lies within the Malacañang security area. Petitioners knelt and prayed on the street, chanted antigovernment slogans, and then dispersed after warning that any future attempt would be prevented.
Legal Issues
- Whether respondents’ prevention of petitioners from entering St. Jude Chapel violated petitioners’ constitutional freedom of religious worship.
- Whether the same prevention infringed petitioners’ freedom of locomotion.
Majority Decision (Chief Justice Escolin)
• Freedom of Religious Worship: While the freedom to believe is absolute, its exercise may be regulated where it conflicts with public order or law. Here, petitioners’ claimed purpose to pray was clouded by antigovernment slogans, raised fists, and a known history of demonstrations at Malacañang. The Court found reasonable a security restriction in the interest of protecting the President and executive offices, including communications facilities, from possible external disturbances.
• Freedom of Locomotion: The limited restriction on J.P. Laurel Street—security checks and prevention of large gatherings—was deemed lawful under the Constitution’s allowance for restraints in the interest of national security.
• Conclusion: The writ of mandamus/injunction must be
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 68828)
Procedural History
- Petition for writs of mandamus and injunction filed after petitioners were barred from entering St. Jude Chapel on October 2, 1984.
- Petition heard and submitted on October 16, 1984.
- Decision rendered by the Supreme Court En Banc on March 27, 1985 (G.R. No. 68828, 220 Phil. 189).
Facts of the Case
- Around 5:00 p.m. on October 2, 1984, some 50 businessmen, students and office employees converged at J.P. Laurel Street, Manila to attend Mass at St. Jude Chapel adjacent to Malacañang.
- Many wore yellow T-shirts, marched with raised clenched fists and chanted antigovernment slogans.
- Respondent Major Isabelo Lariosa, under orders of Gen. Barangan, blocked their entry on grounds that the chapel lay within the Malacañang security zone.
- Petitioners knelt and prayed at the barricade, sang patriotic hymns, then dispersed peacefully.
- They were warned any future attempt to enter would likewise be prevented, prompting the present petition.
Reliefs Sought
- A writ of mandamus to compel respondents to allow petitioners to enter and pray inside St. Jude Chapel.
- A writ of injunction to enjoin respondents from preventing petitioners’ future entry and worship at the chapel.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Their convergence at J.P. Laurel Street was a legitimate exercise of the constitutional freedom of religious worship and locomotion.
- They merely intended to pray, hear Mass and were willing to submit to security checks.
- Any attempt to bar them from church entry was a prior restraint on fundamental rights.
Respondents’ Contentions
- St. Jude Chapel lies within a restricted security area established since 1972 to protect the President, government offices and diplomatic missions.
- The petitioners’ yellow T-shirts, raised fists and antigovernment chants indicated an attempt to stage a protest, not a purely religious act.
- Restrictions on travel and assembly in the vicinity are reasonable and permissible in the interest of