Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Courts in Iligan City (Re: Office Hours)

The free exercise of religion protects the absolute freedom to believe, but the freedom to act on one’s beliefs is subject to state regulation when external acts affect the public welfare; accordingly, a government employee’s request for religious accommodation that would diminish the prescribed working hours and impair continuous public service cannot be granted absent specific statutory authorization.

Several Muslim employees in the courts of Iligan City sought two accommodations grounded on Islamic religious observance: a compressed work schedule during the fasting month of Ramadan, and a weekly four-hour block of time off every Friday for the Muslim Prayer Day. The employees invoked Presidential Decree No. 291 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 322, which recognizes Muslim holidays and mandates the Ramadan office hours, as well as Civil Service Commission resolutions that interpreted the law to permit the Friday exemption subject to a flexible schedule. The Executive Judge endorsed the Ramadan adjustment but expressed misgivings about the Friday absence, prompting the matter’s elevation to the Supreme Court for resolution.

• The Request: Muslim employees in the different courts of Iligan City requested two accommodations: (1) office hours from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. without lunch or coffee breaks during the month of Ramadan; and (2) to be excused from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every Friday (Muslim Prayer Day) for the entire calendar year.
• Statutory Framework Invoked: The employees relied on Presidential Decree No. 291 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 322, which recognizes six Muslim holidays and, under Section 3(a), mandates that during the fasting season of Ramadan, all Muslim government employees shall observe office hours from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. without break and without salary diminution. They also cited Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 81-1277, which states that on Friday, the Muslim prayer day, Muslims are excused from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and CSC Resolution No. 00-0227, which clarified that “Friday” refers to all Fridays of the calendar year and prescribed a flexible working schedule to comply with the eight-hour workday rule.
• Prevailing Civil Service Rule: Section 5, Rule XVII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 requires all civil servants to render not less than eight hours of work a day for five days a week, or a total of forty hours a week.
• OCA and Judicial Recommendations: Judge Salazar endorsed the Ramadan hours but expressed concern that excusing employees for four hours every Friday would hamper court service. The Court Administrator nevertheless recommended granting both requests, proposing a flexible Friday schedule to maintain the forty-hour work week.
• No Statutory Basis for Friday Exemption: P.D. No. 291 and its amendatory decree enumerate specific Muslim holidays but do not include the Friday Muslim Prayer Day as a recognized holiday or grant any exemption from work for it.

• Ramadan Office Hours: The Muslim employees argued that Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 291, as amended, categorically mandates that during Ramadan they observe the 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. schedule without break and without salary diminution.
• Friday Prayer Day Exemption: They maintained that CSC Resolution No. 81-1277 and Resolution No. 00-0227 validly interpreted the law to allow the Friday exemption, subject to a flexible work arrangement that still satisfies the forty-hour requirement. They further contended that the exemption is a necessary accommodation of their right to free exercise of religion under Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution.

N/A — No formal adverse party existed. The matter was resolved by the Court in its administrative supervision capacity; the Court Administrator’s recommendation supported both requests, while the Court itself identified the legal impediments to the Friday exemption.

• Ramadan Office Hours: Whether the request for Muslim employees in the Judiciary to hold office hours from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. without break during the month of Ramadan should be granted.
• Friday Prayer Day Exemption: Whether the request to excuse Muslim employees from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every Friday, the Muslim Prayer Day, during the entire calendar year should be granted.

• Ramadan Office Hours: The request was granted. Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 291, as amended by P.D. No. 322, unambiguously provides that during the fasting season of Ramadan, all Muslim employees in the national government and its instrumentalities shall observe the 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. schedule without break and without salary diminution. The statute left no room for discretion.
• Friday Prayer Day Exemption: The request was denied for lack of legal basis. P.D. No. 291 and P.D. No. 322 identify specific Muslim holidays but do not list the Friday Muslim Prayer Day as a holiday or authorize an exemption from work for it. The CSC resolutions that purported to allow the exemption were issued beyond the CSC’s rule-making authority and could not supply the missing statutory basis. The free exercise clause of the Constitution did not compel a different result. Under the two-fold aspect of religious freedom, the freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act on one’s beliefs is subject to regulation when external acts affect public welfare. The State has a compelling interest in prescribing uniform government working hours to ensure continuous service to the public. Granting the exemption would result in a twelve-hour monthly work reduction and could invite similar requests from other denominations, prejudicing the courts and the public. The remedy lies with Congress, which alone may enact legislation expressly exempting Muslim employees from the prescribed working hours.

• Two-Fold Aspect of Religious Freedom — The constitutional guarantee of religious freedom has two distinct dimensions: the freedom to believe, which is absolute as long as it remains within the realm of thought; and the freedom to act on one’s beliefs, which is subject to regulation by the State when belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. Religious liberty does not confer civil immunity from compliance with reasonable laws.
• No Religious Exemption from Civil Service Laws — The exercise of religious freedom does not exempt any person from compliance with reasonable requirements of the law, including civil service laws that prescribe uniform government office hours. The State’s interest in maintaining continuous public service is sufficient to override a claimed religious accommodation that would reduce the statutorily mandated working hours.

• “The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one’s beliefs. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.”
• “The constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges. It gave religious liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma.” (quoting Justice Frankfurter)
• “To allow the Muslim employees in the Judiciary to be excused from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every Friday … would mean a diminution of the prescribed government working hours. … Further, this would encourage other religious denominations to request for similar treatment. … The exercise of religious freedom does not exempt anyone from compliance with reasonable requirements of the law, including civil service laws.”

• Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 529 (1996) — Cited for the principle that religious freedom has a two-fold aspect and that the freedom to act on one’s beliefs is subject to state regulation for the public welfare.
• Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (cited as supra) — Referred to as additional authority for the same two-fold framework and the proposition that religious liberty does not override generally applicable laws.
• Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) — The origin of the two-fold distinction between freedom to believe and freedom to act, foundational to the Court’s free exercise analysis.

• Article III, Section 5, 1987 Constitution — The non-establishment and free exercise clauses. Applied to delineate the scope of religious liberty and to emphasize that while belief is absolutely protected, external acts based on belief may be regulated when they affect public welfare.
• Presidential Decree No. 291, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 322 — Section 2 enumerates the recognized Muslim holidays; Section 3(a) mandates the modified Ramadan office hours. The decree provided the statutory authority for granting the Ramadan schedule but contained no provision for the Friday prayer day exemption, thus foreclosing the second request.
• Section 5, Rule XVII, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Mandates that civil servants render at least eight hours of work a day or forty hours a week. The rule embodied the state interest in continuous public service that the requested Friday exemption would undermine.

Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Artemio V. Panganiban, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, and Cancio C. Garcia. No separate concurring opinions were registered.

None. The resolution was unanimous.