BVR CONSULTING INC
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • SPECIAL PROJECTS
    • WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
  • BVR LAW
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
Click to set custom HTML

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer. 
this webpage is
 primarily designed to assist students of law in their studies. It is merely a tool. The use of our Services does not guarantee success in obtaining a law degree nor in passing the Bar Exams. we makes no warranties or representations of any kind, whether expressed or implied for the Services provided. The cases, laws, and other publications found in this site are of public domain, collected from public sources such as the Supreme Court online library. The content however have been heavily modified, formatted, and optimized for better user experience, and are no longer perfect copies of their original. we gives no warranty for the accuracy or the completeness of the materials. This site also contains materials published by the students, professors, lawyers, and other users of the our Services. 


Islamic Da'Wah Council of the Philippines Inc. vs Office of the Executive Secretary, GR 153888, 9 July 2003

10/30/2020

0 Comments

 
Islamic Da'Wah Council of the Philippines Inc. vs Office of the Executive Secretary, GR 153888, 9 July 2003

​
FACTS:
Petitioner is a non-governmental organization internationally accredited to issue halal certifications in the Philippines. To carry out its functions, it formulated internal rules and procedures based on the Qur’an and Sunnah for food analysis and inspection, and began to issue certifications to qualified products and food manufacturers for a fee.
Later, respondent Office issued Executive Order 46 which created the Philippine Halal Certification Scheme. Such order vested exclusive authority on the Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA) to issue halal certificates and perform other related regulatory activities. OMA then warned Muslim consumers to buy only products with its official halal certification since those without said certification had not been subjected to careful analysis and therefore could contain pork. It also began to send letters to food manufacturers asking them to secure the halal certification only from OMA lest they violate the order. As a result, the IDCP lost revenues after food manufacturers stopped securing certifications from it.
Hence, petitioner filed a petition to nullify EO 46, contending that it is unconstitutional for the government to formulate policies & guidelines on the halal certification scheme because it is a function that only religious organizations can lawfully & validly perform for the Muslims.
ISSUE: 
Whether or not EO 46 is unconstitutional for violating the non-establishment and free exercise clauses guaranteed under Art. III, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution.
 
RULING:
Classifying a food product as halal is a religious function because the standards used are drawn from the Qur’an & Islamic beliefs. By giving OMA the exclusive power to classify food products as halal, EO 46 encroached on the religious freedom of Muslim organizations to interpret for Filipino Muslims what food products are fit for Muslim consumption; 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 & Sunnah on halal food.
 
Only the prevention of an immediate & 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 & immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is constitutionally unacceptable.
 
In the case at bar, the Court finds 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.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    September 2024
    August 2024
    May 2024
    December 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Copyright Notice
Copyright © – 2025, All Rights Reserved.


Contact Us
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • SPECIAL PROJECTS
    • WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
  • BVR LAW
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG