LIMITATIONS ON RELIGION MUST BE IMPOSED WHEN IT INTERFERES WITH

SECULAR MATTERS DEALING WITH THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE

A. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 recognizes the
right of religious freedom as stated in Article 18.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 Universal
Declaration states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance. 1
B. Under International Law, freedom of religion can be curtailed by
limitations prescribed by law.
As stated in Paragraph 1.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR): Freedom to manifest ones religion or belief
may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and
are necessary to protect the public order, health, morals or the
fundamental rights or freedom of others. 2
B.1 Religious liberty can be limited when raises to Public
Health concerns:
Fordham Law Review, Volume 18, p. 231 cited examples of when the
state stressed the limitations of religion when it affects the interest of
society in public health:
1. Compulsory vaccine statutes upheld in spite of claims that such
violated religious liberty;
2. Compulsory education law required school attendance for children
even if their parents entertained religious beliefs against
vaccination;
3. Requirement for children to submit to physical examination - does
not violate religious freedom.

1 The Universal Declaration on Human Rights,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18, last accessed Sept. 10,
2012.
2 ICCPR, supra note 4 Article 18(3), Limitations on Religious Freedom or Belief:
International Law Perspective, Johan B. Vander Vyver,.

4. Statutory requirement of a health certificate to parties who will be

married to ensure that neither parties are afflicted with a loathsome
disease.
5. Religious liberty failed as defense in crimes committed by practicing
medicine without a license.
The above examples clearly show that if the welfare of the general
public is at stake, then the state has the right to limit freedom of
religion.

B.2. Limitation of religious liberty when it affects the safety of the

State
Religious liberty can be limited is when a person refuses to perform
military training because it is against his religious beliefs. This is
contrary to the interest of society and the safety of the State, thus, the
Supreme Court in 1934 ruled in the case of Hamilton v. Regents of the
University of California, ruled that such a person who refuses military
training because of his religious beliefs could not still avail for himself
the benefits of an education at a public university. 3
Justice Butler further stated, on behalf of the Court: Government,
federal and state, each in its own sphere owes a duty to the people
within its jurisdiction to preserve itself in adequate strength to
maintain peace and order and to assure the just enforcement of law.
B.3 Limitation on religious freedom when it concerns morality.
Religious freedom is limited when societys interest in freedom of
religion clashes with the interest morality. With regards to polygamy,
there are religions which allow polygamy but it is not allowed under the
constitution. Thus, the law of the land prevails. When church members
insist on its right to have polygamous relationships because it is
dictated in their religion, they are not free from prosecution on the
grounds of bigamy. This is another example of when the state was able
to limit religious freedom. Claims of religious freedom did not prevent
enforcement of prohibition laws supposedly expressive of societys
interest in morality.4
3 The Limitation of Religious Liberty, 18 Fordham L. Rev.221 (1949),
http:ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol18/iss2/3, last accessed Sept. 10, 2012.
4 The Limitation of Religious Liberty, 18 Fordham L. Rev.221 (1949),
http:ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol18/iss2/3, last accessed Sept. 10, 2012.

House Bill No. 4244, entitled The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health,
and Population and Development Act of 2011 is clearly a bill aimed to promote the
general welfare of the Filipino People. Thus, when it comes to law, it is necessary to
protect the public order, health, morals, the fundamental rights or freedom of
others, imposing limitations on freedom of religion is necessary to achieve the
greater good.