Freedom of religion and the legal problems of Apollo Quiboloy
The manner by which the self-proclaimed chosen son of God, so-called Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, is behaving deridingly in relation to the Senate's persistent invitation, summon, and subpoena to appear, can show a shade of semblance to the characteristic grotesque, abrasive, and confrontational attitude of citizen Donald Trump vis-avis the many US courts and the grand juries which ruled against him. The difference in Quiboloy's case is that he can always use the hallowed mantle of religious freedom. What is religious freedom?
In the case of Roel Ebralinag et al vs. DepEd Division Superintendent of Cebu, case number GR 95770, decided by the full Supreme Court of fifteen Justices on March 1, 1993, the ponente, Madam Carolina Grino-Aquino, a Bar topnotcher from Iloilo, and married to a former chief justice, held for the highest court: "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 (Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando's separate opinion in German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 530-531)" Does this mean that Quiboloy can refuse to obey Senate subpoena in the name of religious freedom? With due respect, I do not think so.
The High Court then continued to elaborate on the importance of religious freedom, thus: "The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. 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 (J. Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1991 Ed., pp. 176-177)". It is then our submission that Quiboloy is not immune to state regulation in all matters pertaining to the practices of his Kingdom of Jesus Christ religious group or cult. The separation between church and state does not prohibit state police power in the protection of women, children, workers in relation to, among others, labor laws, and social legislation.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Cruz declared: "The democratic system provides for the accommodation of diverse ideas, including the unconventional and even the bizarre or eccentric. The will of the majority prevails, but it cannot regiment thought by prescribing the recitation by rote of its opinions or proscribing the assertion of unorthodox or unpopular views as in this case. The conscientious objections of the petitioners, no less than the impatience of those who disagree with them, are protected by the Constitution. The State cannot make the individual speak when the soul within rebels." This opinion however cannot justify Quiboloy's disobedience to the due processes of a duly-constituted authority performing an official and legal function.
In the case of Reli German et al vs. General Santiago Barangan, GR No. L-68828, decided by Justice Escolin for the Supreme Court En Banc on March 27, 1985, the Court prefaced its ruling: “Invoking their constitutional freedom to religious worship and locomotion, petitioners seek the issuance of [1] a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to allow them to enter and pray inside St. Jude Chapel located at J.P. Laurel Street, Manila; and [2] a writ of injunction to enjoin respondents from preventing them from getting into and praying in said church." J.P. Laurel Street is where Malacañang is. Justice Escolin dismissed the petition declaring that the state did not infringe the petitioners' freedom of religion when it prohibited entry into the high-security area near Malacañang Palace at certain hours.
Thus, it is our considered opinion that the Senate inquiry into some allegedly questionable practices of Quiboloy's religious group does not infringe on his freedom of religion.