6 yes the court held that even though the tarpaulin

This preview shows page 633 - 636 out of 809 pages.

We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 6 / Exercise 10
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Mann/Roberts
Expert Verified
6. Yes. The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily seen by the public, the tarpaulin remains the private property of petitioners. Their right to use their property is likewise protected by the Constitution. Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal protection of the laws. The Court in Adiong case held that a restriction that regulates where decals and stickers should be posted is “so broad that it encompasses even the citizen’s private property.” Consequently, it violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. 7. No. The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon by petitioners are not binding upon this court. The position of the Catholic religion in the Philippines as regards the RH Law does not suffice to qualify the posting by one of its members of a tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such basis. The enumeration of candidates on the face of the tarpaulin precludes any doubt as to its nature as speech with political consequences and not religious speech. With religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Accommodations are government policies that tak e religion specifically into account not to promote the government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. Their purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the e xercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion. As Justice Brennan explained, the “government may take religion into account . . . to exempt, when possible, from generally applicable governmental regulation individuals whose religious beliefs and practices would otherwise thereby be infringed, or to create without state involvement an atmosphere in which voluntary religious exercise may flourish.”
We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 6 / Exercise 10
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Mann/Roberts
Expert Verified
633
634 HON. RAMON JESUS P. PAJE, et al v. HON. TEODORO A. CASIÑO, et al. G.R. Nos. 207257, 207257, 207276, 207282 and 207366, February 03, 2015, EN BANC (Del Castillo, J.) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate for a proposed coal-fired power plant at Subic, Zambales to be implemented by RP Energy. Hon. Teodoro Casino and a number of legislators filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan against RP energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR secretary on the ground that actual environmental damage will occur if the power plant project is implemented and that the respondents failed to comply with certain laws and rules governing or relating to the issuance of an ECC and amendments thereto.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture