Defining the Undefinable: Treating Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secular Humanism as Religion for Conscientious Objection, Tax Exemption, and Party-List Registration Purposes/ by Carlos S. Hernandez Jr.

Religion is undefined in the Constitution and in the statutes. Definitions of religion that can be found in cases decided by the Philippine Supreme Court, aside from being mere obiter dicta, are highly theistic. In Aglipay v. Ruiz, the Court defined religion as "a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator". In American Bible Society v. City of Manila, religion was defined as "having reference to one's views of his relations to His Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence to His being and character, and obedience to His Will."

Mere reliance on these theistic definitions of religion would make the protection afforded by the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the Constitution, inaccessible to those whose beliefs can hardly be characterized as theistic. The only way, then, for atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists (hereinafter collectively referred to as nonbelievers) to access the protection of the Religion Clauses is to have their beliefs in matters that deny, or are oblivious to, or that have nothing to do with the existence of God be considered religious as well. This would necessitate the expansion of the definition of religion to include the "beliefs" of those who reject the existence of a Supreme Being, those who are oblivious to the same, and those who have intense faith in something else. These beliefs have to be "sincerely held" and "meaningful" in compliance with the Seeger test. Only then would nonbelievers be able to invoke the Free Exercise Clause, and legitimately register conscientous objection to seek exemption from compliance with a legal duty.

This Note also proposes that atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism be considered as religions for the purpose of real property tax exemption. Real properties used actually, directly, and exclusively for religious purpose are exempt from real property tax. Atheistic, agnostic, and secular humanist organizations in the Philippines would only be able to avail of this tax exemption if their use of their real properties were treated by the local governments as "religious". This note recommends the adoption of Judge Richard's Posner's formulation in Reed v. Great Lakes Companies of religion as "taking a position on divinity.; Adoption of this definition would be in conformity with the purpose of the Establishment Clause, which forbids state endorsement of a particular belief. The tax exemption should be available not only to those who believe in the existence of God but also to those who believe or in something else.

The necessary consequence of characterizing atheistic, agnostic, and secular humanist organizations as religious groups is that they become part of the religious sector. Since the religious sector is excluded from the party-list system, the Commission on Elections should deny registration of these organization's as party-list groups.