Islamic Da’wah Council of the
Philippines, Inc. vs. Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 153888. July 9, 2003.
Facts:
Petitioner is a non-governmental
organization that extends voluntary services to the Filipino people, especially
to Muslim Communities. Petitioner began to issue, for a fee, halal
certifications to qualified products and food manufacturers on account of the
actual need to certify food products as halal and also due to halal food
producers' request. Subsequently, Executive Order (EO) 46 was issued creating
the Philippine Halal Certification Scheme and designating respondent Office of
Muslim Affairs (OMA) to oversee its implementation. In this petition for
prohibition, petitioner alleged, among others, that the subject EO violates the
constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State.
In granting the petition, the
Supreme Court ruled that freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by
the framers of the fundamental law and it has consistently affirmed this
preferred status. Without doubt, classifying a food product as halal is a
religious function because the standards used are drawn from the Qur'an and
Islamic beliefs. By giving the OMA the exclusive power to classify food
products as halal, EO 46 encroached on the religious freedom of Muslim
organizations like herein petitioner to interpret for Filipino Muslims what
food products are fit for Muslim consumption. Also, by arrogating to itself the
task of issuing halal certifications, the State has in effect forced Muslims to
accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah on halal food.
The Court further ruled that only
the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of
the community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. In the case at
bar, the Court found no compelling justification for the government to deprive
Muslim organizations, like herein petitioner, of their religious right to
classify a product as halal, even on the premise that the health of Muslim
Filipinos can be effectively protected by assigning to OMA the exclusive power
to issue halal certificates.
Issue:
Whether or not Eexecutive Order 46
violates the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State.
Held:
No. In granting the petition, the
Supreme Court ruled that freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by
the framers of the fundamental law and it has consistently affirmed this
preferred status. Without doubt, classifying a food product as halal is a
religious function because the standards used are drawn from the Qur'an and
Islamic beliefs. By giving the OMA the exclusive power to classify food
products as halal, Executive Order 46 encroached on the religious freedom of
Muslim organizations like herein petitioner to interpret for Filipino Muslims
what food products are fit for Muslim consumption. Also, by arrogating to
itself the task of issuing halal certifications, the State has in effect forced
Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah on halal
food.
The Court further ruled that only
the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of
the community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. In the case at
bar, the Court found no compelling justification for the government to deprive
Muslim organizations, like herein petitioner, of their religious right to
classify a product as halal, even on the premise that the health of Muslim
Filipinos can be effectively protected by assigning to OMA the exclusive power
to issue halal certificates.
Only the prevention of an
immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community can
justify the infringement of religious freedom. If the government fails to show
the seriousness and immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is
constitutionally unacceptable. In a society with a democratic framework like
ours, the State must minimize its interference with the affairs of its citizens
and instead allow them to exercise reasonable freedom of personal and religious
activity. In the case at bar, we find no compelling justification for the
government to deprive Muslim organizations, like herein petitioner, of their
religious right to classify a product as halal, even on the premise that the
health of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively protected by assigning to OMA the
exclusive power to issue halal certifications. The protection and promotion of
the Muslim Filipinos' right to health are already provided for in existing laws
and ministered to by government agencies charged with ensuring that food
products released in the market are fit for human consumption, properly labeled
and safe. Unlike EO 46, these laws do
not encroach on the religious freedom of Muslims.
No comments:
Post a Comment