In Re: Request of Muslim Employees 2005 (Case Digest)

 

In Re: Request of Muslim Employees 2005

A.M. No. 02-2-10-SC

 

Facts:

                In their Letter dated November 19, 2001 addressed to Executive Judge Valerio M. Salazar, Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, several Muslim employees in the different courts in the said city request that they be allowed to enjoy the following privileges:

1. to hold office hours from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. without lunch break or coffee breaks during the month of Ramadan;

2. to be excused from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every Friday (Muslim Prayer Day) during the entire calendar year.

Judge Salazar forwarded the said letter-request to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Judge Salazar expressed his conformity with the first request, i.e., allowing them to hold office from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. without any break during the month of Ramadan. However, he expressed some misgivings about the second request, i.e., excusing them from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every Friday during the entire calendar year.

In support of their requests, the Muslim employees invoke Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 2911 as amended by P.D. No. 3222 enacted by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. The avowed purpose of P.D. No. 291 was to reinforce national unity by recognizing Muslim holidays and making them part of our national holidays.

 

Issue:

                Whether or not the court should excuse the Muslim employee from work from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. every Friday.

 

Held:

                NO. The Court, however, is constrained to deny for lack of statutory basis the request of the Muslim employees to be excused from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every Friday to allow them to attend the Muslim Prayer Day. As correctly observed by Atty. Edna Diño, Chief, Office of the Court Attorney, in her Report dated May 13, 2005, the CSC exceeded its authority insofar as it declared in Resolution No. 81-1277 and Resolution No. 00-0227 that Muslim employees are excused from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every Friday subject to certain conditions. CSC Resolution No. 81-1277 was purportedly issued pursuant to Sections 2 and 5 of P.D. No. 291, as amended by P.D. No 322, but neither  of the two decrees mention "Friday, the Muslim Prayer Day" as one of the recognized holidays.

                The Court is not unmindful that the subject requests are grounded on Section 5, Article III of the Constitution:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights.

 

This provision contains two aspects: (1) the non-establishment clause; and (2) the free exercise clause. The subject requests are based on the latter and in interpreting this clause (the free exercise clause) embodied in the Constitution, the Court has consistently adhered to the doctrine that:

 

The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's beliefs. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.

                Justice Isagani A. Cruz explained these two concepts in this wise:

 

(1) Freedom to Believe

 

The individual is free to believe (or disbelieve) as he pleases concerning the hereafter. He may indulge his own theories about life and death; worship any god he chooses, or none at all; embrace or reject any religion; acknowledge the divinity of God or of any being that appeals to his reverence; recognize or deny the immortality of his soul - in fact, cherish any religious conviction as he and he alone sees fit. However absurd his beliefs may be to others, even if they be hostile and heretical to the majority, he has full freedom to believe as he pleases. He may not be required to prove his beliefs. He may not be punished for his inability to do so. Religion, after all, is a matter of faith. "Men may believe what they cannot prove." Every one has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove what he believes.

 

(2) Freedom to Act on One's Beliefs

 

But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the State. As great as this liberty may be, religious freedom, like all other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, can be enjoyed only with a proper regard for the rights of others. It is error to think that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare. The inherent police power can be exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society. And this is true even if such practices are pursued out of sincere religious conviction and not merely for the purpose of evading the reasonable requirements or prohibitions of the law.