percentage of the senior citizens’ discount. In effect, part of the subsidy is accordingly
borne by the seller. The drugstores assailed it as the taking of private property without
just compensation.
The court held that the state, to promote the health of senior citizens as a
“special group of citizens,” can impose the “burden of partly subsidizing a govern-
ment program.” Property rights bear a “social dimension” and must accede to
“general welfare” and “public good.” Finally, the court held that the seller was
anyway free to raise prices to cover the cost of the subsidy.
Protection of religious minorities
Philippine constitutional law has historically secured the secular state, and pre-
serves church–state separation through its free-exercise and establishment clauses.
However, consistent with the views of the dominant Roman Catholic majority,
divorce is not allowed in Philippine law.
In a disciplinary case, the court was asked to dismiss one of its employees for
immoral conduct. She had been estranged from her husband and had lived for the
past twenty years in a stable, loving union with a man, and their union had been
solemnized by their church, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. She claimed that their conjugal
arrangement was in conformity with her religious beliefs, which allowed a man and a
woman to execute a “declaration of pledging faithfulness,” which makes their rela-
tionship “validated by God.” The court threw out the disciplinary case, saying that the
court cannot judge non-believers by the moral standards of another religion.^68
Finally, a Manila trial court confronted the practice by minority religions of “block
voting” during elections, wherein they “endorse” candidates to maximize the influence
of their flock. A group of law professors, styling themselves the Social Justice
Society, asked the court to declare this practice a violation of the constitutional
principle that “the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” The trial
court upheld the Social Justice Society, but the case was eventually dismissed by the
Supreme Court on the ground that it raised merely a “hypothetical question” and
failed to allege the “ultimate facts” that would constitute an actual case or controversy.^69
Public health, public order, and free speech
In a case involving infant formula, health authorities required the makers of breast
milk substitutes to carry the label that “there is no substitute for breast milk.”
70
(^68) Estradav.Escritor, A.M. No P- 02 - 1651 (August 4 , 2003 ) (Puno J). See also F.T. Hilbay,
“The Constitutional Status of Disbelief” ( 2010 ) 84 Philippine Law Journal 579.
(^69) Velardev.Social Justice Society, G.R. No 159357 (April 24 , 2004 ).
(^70) Department of Health Adm. Order No 2006 - 012 § 26 (Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Exec. Order No 51 , The “Milk Code,” Relevant International Agreements,
Penalizing Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes) (May 15 , 2006 ).