G.R. No. 217453 moved from weekdays to Saturdays.

10 In one instance,

petitioner Valmores was unable to take his Risto-
DENMARK S. VALMORES,  Pathology laboratory examination held on September
Petitioner 13, 2015, a Saturday.11 Respondent Cabildo was his
vs. professor for the said subject.12 Despite his request for
DR. CRISTINA ACHACOSO, in her capacity as Dean of exemption, no accommodation was given by either of
the College of Medicine, and DR. GIOVANNI CABILDO, the respondents. As a result, petitioner Valmores
Faculty of the Mindanao State University, Respondents received a failing grade of 5 for that particular module
and was considered ineligible to retake the exam.13
DECISION
Thereafter, several pastors and officers of the Seventh-
CAGUIOA, J.: day Adventist Church sent a letter14 to respondent
Achacoso, requesting for a possible audience with the
Before the Court is a petition for mandamus1filed under members of the MSU school board. In addition, the
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Petition), seeking the church, through Pastor Hanani P. Nietes, issued a
enforcement of Commission on Higher Education Certification15 dated September 15, 2014 in connection
(CHED) Memorandum2 dated November 15, 2010 (2010 with petitioner Valmores' request for exemption.
CHED Memorandum). by herein respondents Dr.
Cristina Achacoso (Achacoso) and Dr. Giovanni Cabildo The Certification dated September 15, 2014 reads in
(Cabildo) (collectively, "respondents"). Respondents are part:
being sued in their respective capacities as Dean and
faculty member of the Mindanao State University This is to certify that DENMARK S. V ALM ORES is a bona
(MSU)-College of Medicine.3 fide member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
affiliated at Balongis, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City.
Antecedent Facts
As Seventh-day Adventists, we uphold our observance
The facts culled from the records follow. of the Saturday Sabbath as a day of worship and rest
from labor, observing the sacredness of the Lord's day
Petitioner Denmark S. Valmores (Valmores) is a member from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. We do away
of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,4 whose [with] secular activities like working in the office or
fundamental beliefs include the strict observance of the field/attending classes/participating/attending non-
Sabbath as a sacred day.5 As such, petitioner Valmores religious functions during Saturday.
joins the faithful in worshipping and resting on
Saturday, the seventh day of the week, and refrains This certification is issued to support his request for
from non-religious undertakings from sunset of Friday exemption from all his Sabbath (from sunset Friday to
to sunset of Saturday.6 sunset Saturday) classes, exams, and other non-
religious activities.16
Prior to the instant controversy, petitioner Valmores
was enrolled as a first-year student at the MSU-College On September 19, 2014, petitioner Valmores again
of Medicine for Academic Year 2014- 2015.7 To avoid wrote a letter17 to respondent Achacoso to seek
potential conflict between his academic schedule and reconsideration regarding his situation, reiterating his
his church's Saturday worship, petitioner Valmores willingness to take make-up classes or their equivalent
wrote a letter8 to respondent Achacoso, requesting that in order to complete the requirements of his course.
he be excused from attending his classes in the event
that a regular weekday session is rescheduled to a Despite the foregoing communications, petitioner
Saturday. At the same time, petitioner Valmores Valmores' requests fell on deaf ears.18
expressed his willingness to make up for any missed
activity or session due to his absence.9 Hence, aggrieved by respondents' lack of consideration,
petitioner Valmores elevated the matter before the
Between the months of June to August 2014, some of CHED.19 In an Indorsement dated January 6, 2015, the
petitioner Valmores' classes and examinations were CHED Regional Office, Region X, through Mr. Roy Roque
Page 1 of 9
U. Agcopra, Chief Administrative Officer, referred the petitioner Valmores' case was not "unique" as to merit
matter directly to the President of MSU as well as exceptional treatment.27 Respondents likewise claimed
respondent Achacoso and requested that the office be that the Certification dated September 15, 2014
advised of the action thus taken.20 submitted by petitioner Valmores was not the
certification contemplated by the 2010 CHED
In response, Dr. Macapado Abaton Muslim (Dr. Memorandum and therefore there was no
Muslim), President of MSU, instructed respondent corresponding duty on their part to enforce the
Achacoso to enforce the 2010 CHED Memorandum.21 In same.28 Lastly, respondents posited that the changes in
doing so, Dr. Muslim sent a copy of the said schedule were not unreasonable as they were due to
memorandum to respondent Achacoso with the unexpected declarations of holidays as well as
following marginal note in his own handwriting: unforeseen emergencies of the professors in their
respective hospitals.29
Urgent!
Petitioner Valmores, in his Reply,30 reiterated his prayer
For: Dean Cristina Achacoso for the issuance of a writ of mandamus  against
College of Medicine respondents and prayed for the immediate resolution
of the dispute.
You are hereby enjoined to enforce this CHED memo re
the case of MR. DENMARK S. V ALM ORES. Issue

Thanks.22 The threshold issue is simple: whether mandamus  lies

to compel respondents to enforce the 2010 CHED
Despite the foregoing correspondence, petitioner Memorandum in the case of petitioner Valmores.
Valmores' request still went unheeded. Thus, in a
Letter23 dated March 25, 2015, petitioner Valmores, this The Court's Ruling
time through his counsel on record, sought
reconsideration from respondent Achacoso for the last The Petition is impressed with merit.
time and manifested his intention to resort to
appropriate legal action should no action be taken. Strict adherence to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts is not absolute
Notwithstanding the lapse of several months, no
written or formal response was ever given by Before disposing of the substantial issue, although not
respondent Achacoso.24 raised by respondents in their Comment, a procedural
matter warrants discussion.
Hence, the present Petition.
Under Rule 65 of the Rules, a petition for mandamus  is
Petitioner Valmores brings his cause before the Court directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer
based on his constitutional right to freedom of religion, or person who unlawfully neglects the performance of
which he argues was violated by respondents when an act specifically enjoined by law or unlawfully
they refused to enforce the 2010 CHED Memorandum, excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right
as follows: (i) by refusing to excuse petitioner Valmores or office to which such other is entitled.31 If the petition
from attending classes and taking examinations on relates to an act or omission of a board, officer, or
Saturdays, and (ii) by disallowing petitioner Valmores to person, the same must be filed with the Regional Trial
take make-up examinations in order to comply with the Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as
academic requirements of his course.25 may be defined by the Court.32

Respondents, on the other hand, chiefly base their In the case at bench, petitioner Valmores questions the
defense on the fact that MSU had other students who acts of respondents in their capacities as Dean and
were able to graduate from their College of Medicine faculty member of MSU-College of Medicine. As such,
despite being members of the Seventh-day Adventist by directly filing the Petition with the Court instead of
26
Church.  On this claim, respondents argued that
Page 2 of 9
the proper regional trial court, as required by the Rules, justice in this case must take the form of a prompt and
petitioner Valmores was m error. immediate disposition if complete relief is to be
accorded.
Strict adherence to the judicial hierarchy of courts has
been a longstanding policy of the courts in determining In a related matter, the Rules also require the
the appropriate forum for initiatory actions.33 While this exhaustion of other plain, speedy, and adequate
Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the inferior remedies in the ordinary course of law before a petition
courts to issue corrective writs of certiorari, prohibition, for mandamus  is filed.40 In this case, petitioner
and mandamus,  a party's choice of forum is by no Valmores had exerted all efforts to obtain relief from
means absolute.34 respondents, as clearly evidenced by the letters and
other communications on record. Likewise, after
Needless to say, however, such rule is not without respondents' repeated failure to enforce the 2010 CHED
exception. Recently, in Maza v. Turla,35the Court Memorandum, petitioner Valmores elevated the matter
emphasized that it possesses full discretionary power to before the CHED, which in turn directly indorsed the
take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over petitions matter to the President of MSU. Thus, prior to resorting
filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling to the instant Petition, the Court finds that petitioner
reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues Valmores had satisfactorily complied with the
involved in the dispute. Citing The Diocese of Bacolod v. requirement of availing himself of other remedies under
Commission on Elections,36the Court held therein that a Rule 65.
direct resort is allowed in the following instances, inter
alia:  (i) when there are genuine issues of On these premises, the Court finds sufficient bases to
constitutionality that must be addressed at the most relax the foregoing procedural rules in the broader
immediate time; (ii) when the questions involved are interest of justice.
dictated by public welfare and the advancement of
public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of The freedom of religion vis-a-vis the
justice; and (iii) when the circumstances require an 2010 CHED Memorandum
urgent resolution.
Religion as a social institution is deeply rooted in every
The above exceptions are all availing in this case. culture; it predates laws and survives civilizations. In the
Philippines, the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions
The freedom of religion enjoys a preferred status were crafted in full acknowledgment of the
among the rights conferred to each citizen by our contributions of religion to the country through the
fundamental charter.37 In this case, no less than enactment of various benevolent provisions.41 In its
petitioner Valmores' right to religious freedom is being present incarnation, our fundamental law, by "imploring
threatened by respondents' failure to accommodate his the aid of Almighty God," makes manifest the State's
case.38 In this regard, when confronted with a potential respect and recognition of the collective spirituality of
infringement of fundamental rights, the Court will not the Filipino.42 Such recognition is embodied in Section 5,
hesitate, as it now does, to overlook procedural lapses Article III of the Constitution:
in order to fulfill its foremost duty of satisfying the
higher demands of substantial justice. SEC. 5. No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
The Court is also aware of petitioner Valmores' plea for exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
the expedient resolution of his case, as he has yet to religious profession and worship, without discrimination
enroll in the MSU-College of Medicine and continue or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test
with his studies.39 Plainly enough, to require petitioner shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
Valmores to hold his education in abeyance in the rights.
meantime that he is made to comply with the rule on
hierarchy of courts would be unduly burdensome. It is a In Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, 43the Court discussed the
known fact that education is a time-sensitive endeavor, two-fold nature of the free-exercise clause enshrined in
where premium is placed not only on its completion, the cited provision:
but also on the timeliness of its achievement. Inevitably,
Page 3 of 9
[T]he constitution embraces two concepts, that is, SUBJECT : REMEDIAL WORK FOR TEACHERS,
freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is PERSONNEL AND STUDENTS TO BE EXCUSED DUE TO
absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot COMPLIANCE WITH RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS
be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the
protection of society. The freedom to act must have DATE : November 15, 2010
appropriate definitions to preserve the enforcement of
that protection. In every case, the power to regulate xxxx
must be so exercised, in attaining a permissible end, as
not to unduly infringe on the protected freedom. Our fundamental Law explicitly provides under Section
5 of the Bill of Rights that "The free exercise and
Whence, even the exercise of religion may be regulated, enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
at some slight inconvenience, in order that the State discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed."
may protect its citizens from injury. Without doubt, a In this regard, the Commission is obligated to ensure
State may protect its citizens from fraudulent that all higher education institutions render proper
solicitation by requiring a stranger in the community, respect and compliance to this constitutional right,
before permitting him publicly to solicit funds for any while at the same time acknowledging the exercise of
purpose, to establish his identity and his authority to act their academic freedom also guaranteed under the
for the cause which he purports to represent. The State Constitution.
is likewise free to regulate the time and manner of
solicitation generally, in the interest of public safety, The Commission therefore clarifies that in
peace, comfort, or convenience.44 implementing the aforementioned policy, [higher
education institutions] shall be enjoined to: (1) excuse
In a nutshell, the Constitution guarantees the freedom students from attendance/participation in school or
to believe absolutely, while the freedom to act based on related activities if such schedule conflicts with the
belief is subject to regulation by the State when exercise of their religious obligations, and (2) allow
necessary to protect the rights of others and in the faculty, personnel and staff to forego attendance during
interest of public welfare.45 academic and related work and activities scheduled on
days which would conflict with the exercise of their
Today, religion has transcended mere rubric and has religious freedom. Instead, the affected students,
permeated into every sphere of human undertaking. As faculty, personnel and staff may be allowed to do
a result, religious freedom, to a limited extent, has remedial work to compensate for absences, within the
come under the regulatory power of the State. bounds of school rules and regulations without their
grades being affected, or with no diminution in their
In 2010, the CHED institutionalized the :framework for salaries or leave credits or performance
operationalizing Section 5, Article Ill of the 1987 evaluation/assessment, provided they submit a
Constitution vis-a-vis the academic freedom of higher certification or proof of attendance/participation duly
education institutions (HEis ), pursuant to its statutory signed by their pastor, priest, minister or religious
power to formulate policies, priorities, and programs on leader for periods of absence from classes, work or
higher education in both public and private HEIs.46 school activities.

In the 2010 CHED Memorandum, the CHED laid down For your guidance and strict compliance.47
guidelines for the exemption of teachers, personnel,
and students from participating in school or related Transposing the foregoing to this case, petitioner
activities due to compliance with religious obligations, Valmores beseeches the Court to direct respondents to
as follows: enforce the 2010 CHED Memorandum, thus allowing
him to continue taking up his medical studies at MSU.
FOR : ALL CHED REGIONAL OFFICE DIRECTORS AND
OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE

Page 4 of 9
The enforcement of the 2010 CHED The Commission therefore clarifies that in
Memorandum is compellable by writ implementing the aforementioned policy, [higher
of mandamus education institutions] shall be enjoined to: (1) excuse
students from attendance/participation in school or
Mandamus  is employed to compel the performance of related activities if such schedule conflicts with the
a ministerial duty by a tribunal, board, officer, or exercise of their religious obligations, and (2) allow
person.48 Case law requires that the petitioner should faculty, personnel and staff to forego attendance during
have a right to the thing demanded and that it must be academic and related work and activities scheduled on
the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the days which would conflict with the exercise of their
act required; such duty need not be absolutely religious freedom. Instead, the affected students,
expressed, so long as it is clear.49 In this regard, a duty is faculty, personnel and staff may be allowed to do
considered ministerial where an officer is required to remedial work to compensate for absences, within the
perform an act not requiring the exercise of official bounds of school rules and regulations without their
discretion or judgment in a given state of grades being affected, or with no diminution in their
facts.50 Conversely, if the law imposes a duty upon a salaries or leave credits or performance
public officer and gives him the right to evaluation/assessment, provided they submit a
decide how  or when  the duty shall be performed, such certification or proof of attendance/participation duly
duty is discretionary.51 signed by their pastor, priest, minister or religious
leader for periods of absence from classes, work or
MSU is an HEI created by legislative charter under school activities.
Republic Act No. 1387, as amended, and was
established "to better implement the policy of the For your guidance and strict compliance.53 (Emphasis
Government in the intensification of the education of supplied)
the Filipino youth, especially among the Muslims and
others belonging to the national minorities."52 Thus, Analyzed, the following are derived:
respondents herein, as faculty members of MSU, fall
under the policy-making authority of the CHED and (i) HEIs are enjoined to excuse students from attending
therefore bound to observe the issuances promulgated or participating in school or related activities, if such
by the latter. schedule conflicts with the students' exercise of their
religious obligations;
The crux of the dispute therefore lies in the
interpretation of the 2010 CHED Memorandum, the (ii) to compensate for absences, students may be
contents of which are again reproduced below for allowed to do remedial work, which in turn should be
closer scrutiny: within the bounds of school rules and regulations and
without affecting their grades; and
SUBJECT: REMEDIAL WORK FOR TEACHERS, PERSONNEL
AND STUDENTS TO BE EXCUSED DUE TO COMPLIANCE (iii) to be entitled to exemption, affected students must
WITH RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS submit a certification of attendance duly signed by their
respective minister.
xxxx
At once, a plain reading of the memorandum reveals
Our fundamental Law explicitly provides under Section the ministerial nature of the duty imposed upon HEIs.
5 of the Bill of Rights that "The free exercise and Its policy is crystal clear: a student's religious obligations
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without takes precedence over his academic responsibilities,
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed." consonant with the constitutional guarantee of free
In this regard, the Commission is obligated to ensure exercise and enjoyment of religious worship.
that all higher education institutions render proper Accordingly, the CHED imposed a positive duty on all
respect and compliance to this constitutional right, HEIs to exempt students, as well as faculty members,
while at the same time acknowledging the exercise of from academic activities in case such activities interfere
their academic freedom also guaranteed under the with their religious obligations.
Constitution.
Page 5 of 9
Although the said memorandum contains the phrase This certification is issued to support his request for
"within the bounds of school rules and regulations," the exemption from all his Sabbath (from sunset Friday to
same relates only to the requirement of remedial work, sunset Saturday) classes, exams, and other non-
which, based on the language used, is merely optional religious activities.57 (Emphasis in the original omitted;
on the part of the HEI. Neither can such phrase be said emphasis supplied)
to have conferred discretion as the use of the words
"shall be enjoined" and "strict compliance" denote a The cited certification needs little or no interpretation:
mandatory duty on the part of the HEI to excuse its petitioner Valmores, as a bona fide member of the
students upon submission of the certification prescribed Seventh-day Adventist Church, is expected to miss "all
in the same memorandum. his Sabbath x x x classes [and] exams" due to his
observance of the Sabbath day as a day of worship.
Clearly, under the 2010 CHED Memorandum, HEIs do There is nothing in the 2010 CHED Memorandum that
not possess absolute discretion to grant or deny prohibits the certification from being issued before  the
requests for exemption of affected students. Instead, period of absence from class. Even then, the
the memorandum only imposes minimum standards Certification dated September 15, 2014 is broad enough
should HEIs decide to require remedial work, i.e.,  that to cover both past and future Sabbath days for which
the same is within the bounds of school rules and petitioner Valmores would be absent.
regulations and that the grades of the students will not
be affected. It is likewise well to note that respondents, by placing
the sufficiency of the Certification dated September 15,
To evade liability, respondents, without delving into the 2014 in issue, in effect admitted the ministerial nature
specifics, made the blanket assertion that the of the duty imposed upon HEIs. By raising such defense,
Certification dated September 15, 2014 submitted by respondents admitted to the existence of a concomitant
petitioner Valmores was improper: duty to exempt and that such duty on their part would
have been called for had petitioner Valmores submitted
8. That the Petitioner did submit a certification of his a correct certification.
church that he is baptized as Seventh day Adventist
which is clearly not the intention by the CHED Significantly, respondents never even asserted, much
memorandum (sic).54 less mentioned, their right to academic freedom in any
of their submissions before the Court. Neither was
Against such deficient claim, petitioner Valmores argues there any resistance to exempt petitioner Valmores
that the said certification issued by Pastor Hanani P. from the CHED Regional Office, Region X, or Dr. Muslim,
Nietes on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church the President of MSU, grounded on MSU's institutional
was sufficient to satisfy the requirement in the 2010 independence. In fact, that Dr. Muslim explicitly
CHED Memorandum.55The Court agrees. ordered respondent Achacoso to enforce the 2010
CHED Memorandum58 further underscores the
As a condition for exemption, the 2010 CHED ministerial nature of the duty of HEIs to exempt
Memorandum simply requires the submission of "a affected students.
certification or proof of attendance/participation duly
signed by their pastor, priest, minister or religious Thus, to recapitulate, once the required certification or
leader for periods of absence from classes, work or proof is submitted, the concerned HEI is enjoined to
school activities."56 Again, the salient portions of the exempt the affected student from attending or
Certification dated September 15, 2014 reads: participating in school-related activities if such activities
are in conflict with their religious obligations. As to
As Seventh-day Adventists, we uphold our observance whether HEIs will require remedial work or not, the
of the Saturday Sabbath as a day of worship and rest Court finds the same to be already within their
from labor, observing the sacredness of the Lord's day discretion, so long as the remedial work required is
from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. We do away within the bounds of school rules and regulations and
with secular activities like working in the office or that the same will not affect the grades of the
field/attending classes/participating/attending non- concerned students.
religious functions during Saturday.
Page 6 of 9
For these reasons, the Court finds that respondents We are not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovah's
were duty bound to enforce the 2010 CHED Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing the national
Memorandum insofar as it requires the exemption of anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, this religious
petitioner Valmores from academic responsibilities that group which admittedly comprises a "small portion of
conflict with the schedule of his Saturday worship. Their the school population" will shake up our part of the
failure to do so is therefore correctible by mandamus. globe and suddenly produce a nation "untaught and
uninculcated in and unimbued with reverence for the
Respondents violated Petitioner flag, patriotism, love of country and admiration for
Valmores' right to freedom of religion national heroes" (Gerona vs. Sec. of Education, 106 Phil.
2, 24 ). After all, what the petitioners seek only is
The importance of education cannot be overstated. The exemption from the flag ceremony, not exclusion from
Court has, on many occasions, ruled that institutions of the public schools where they may study the
higher learning are bound to afford its students a fair Constitution, the democratic way of life and form of
opportunity to complete the course they seek to government, and learn not only the arts, sciences,
pursue, barring any violation of school rules by the Philippine history and culture but also receive training
students concerned.59 In erudite fashion, the Court, for a vocation or profession and be taught the virtues of
in Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and "patriotism, respect for human rights, appreciation for
Technology,60 discussed: national heroes, the rights and duties of citizenship, and
moral and spiritual values["] (Sec. 3 [2], Art. XIV, 1987
Education is not a measurable commodity. It is not Constitution) as part of the curricula. Expelling or
possible to determine who is "better educated" than banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will
another. Nevertheless, a student's grades are an bring about the very situation that this court had feared
accepted approximation of what would otherwise be an in Gerona.  Forcing a small religious group, through the
intangible product of countless hours of study. The iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that
importance of grades cannot be discounted in a setting violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive
where education is generally the gate pass to to love of country or respect for duly constituted
employment opportunities and better life; such grades authorities.
are often the means by which a prospective employer
measures whether a job applicant has acquired the xxxx
necessary tools or skills for a particular profession or
trade. Moreover, the expulsion of members of Jehovah's
Witnesses from the schools where they are enrolled will
Thus, students expect that upon their payment of violate their right as Philippine citizens, under the 1987
tuition fees, satisfaction of the set academic standards, Constitution, to receive free education, for it is the duty
completion of academic requirements and observance of the State to "protect and promote the right of all
of school rules and regulations, the school would citizens to quality education x x x and to make such
reward them by recognizing their "completion" of the education accessible to all" (Sec. 1, Art. XIV).
course enrolled in.61
In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA
In the landmark case of Ebralinag v. The Division 54, 72- 75, we upheld the exemption of members of the
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 62 the Court gave Iglesia ni Cristo, from the coverage of a closed shop
weight to the religious convictions of students who agreement between their employer and a union
were members of Jehovah's Witnesses that refused to because it would violate the teaching of their church
participate in their school's flag ceremony. Therein, the not to join any labor group:
Court held that the expulsion of the affected students
based on their religious beliefs would run against the "x x x It is certain that not every conscience can be
State's duty to protect and promote the right of all its accommodated by all the laws of the land; but when
citizens to quality education and to make such general laws conflict with scruples of conscience,
education accessible to all: exemptions ought to be granted unless some
'compelling state interests' intervenes." (Sherbert vs.

Page 7 of 9
Bemer, 374 U.S. 398, 10 L. Ed. 2d 965, 970, 83 S. Ct. duty-bound to protect and preserve petitioner
1790.)" Valmores' religious freedom.

We hold that a similar exemption may be accorded to Even worse, respondents suggest that the "sacrifices" of
the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance other students of the common faith justified their
of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious refusal to give petitioner Valmores exceptional
beliefs, however "bizarre" those beliefs may seem to treatment. This is non-sequitur.  Respondents brush
others. x x x If they quietly stand at attention during the aside petitioner Valmores' religious beliefs as if it were
flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers subject of compromise; one man's convictions and
salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the another man's transgressions are theirs alone to bear.
patriotic pledge, we do not see how such conduct may That other fellow believers have chosen to violate their
possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave and present creed is irrelevant to the case at hand, for in religious
danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, discipline, adherence is always the general rule, and
public health or any other legitimate public interest that compromise, the exception.
the State has a right (and duty) to prevent" (German vs.
Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 517).63 While in some cases the Court has sustained
government regulation of religious rights, the Court fails
Here, in seeking relief, petitioner Valmores argues that to see in the present case how public order and safety
he is bound by his religious convictions to refrain from will be served by the denial of petitioner Valmores'
all secular activities on Saturdays, a day that is deemed request for exemption. Neither is there any showing
holy by his church. that petitioner Valmores' absence from Saturday classes
would be injurious to the rights of others. Precisely, the
On the other hand, respondents' refusal to excuse 2010 CHED Memorandum was issued to address such
petitioner Valmores from Saturday classes and conflicts and prescribes the action to be taken by HEIs
examinations fundamentally rests only on the fact that should such circumstance arise.
there were other Seventh-day Adventists who had
successfully completed their studies at the MSU-College What is certain, as gathered from the foregoing, is that
of Medicine.64 Respondents, in their Comment, stated respondents' concerted refusal to accommodate
thus: petitioner Valmores rests mainly on extralegal grounds,
which cannot, by no stretch of legal verbiage, defeat the
14. That there are many successful doctors who are latter's constitutionally-enshrined rights. That petitioner
members of the Seventh day Adventist and surely they Valmores is being made by respondents to choose
have sacrificed before they succeeded in their calling as between honoring his religious obligations and finishing
many Filipinos who shone in their respective fields of his education is a patent infringement of his religious
study. freedoms. As the final bulwark of fundamental rights,
this Court will not allow such violation to perpetuate
15. That we ask ourselves, is the case of Mr. Valmores any further.
unique in (sic) its own? Certainly it is not because we
have had students who are member (sic) of the Conclusion
Seventh-Day Adventist and our College did not have a
problem with them. x x x65 Every person is free to tread the far territories of their
conscience, no matter where they may lead - for the
Without more, respondents' bare arguments crumble freedom to believe and act on one's own convictions
against constitutional standards. As discussed above, and the protection of such freedom extends to all
the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the freedom to act people, from the theistic to the godless. The State must,
on their individual beliefs and proscribes government as a matter of duty rather than consequence, guarantee
intervention unless necessary to protect its citizens that such pursuit remains unfettered.
from injury or when public safety, peace, comfort, or
convenience requires it.66 Thus, as faculty members of As representatives of the State, educational institutions
the MSU-College of Medicine, respondents herein were are bound to safeguard the religious freedom of their
students. Thus, to such end, our schools carry the
Page 8 of 9
responsibility to restrict its own academic liberties,
should they collide with constitutionally preferred
rights.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents Dr.

Cristina Achacoso and Dr. Giovanni Cabildo
are DIRECTED to enforce the Commission on Higher
Education Memorandum dated November 15, 2010 in
the case of petitioner Denmark S. Valmores.

SO ORDERED.

ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA

Associate Justice

Page 9 of 9