By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
When church bells become a nuisance
A disturbed reader sent us a question on whether the loud ringing of church bells and the sound blasted from the church amplifiers have violated any law.
The question involves religious freedom under the Constitution, on one hand, and the community’s right to the enjoyment of life and property, on the other hand.
Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator. The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one’s belief. 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 (Roel Ebralinag, et.al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R. No. G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993).
Based on the foregoing, any act done in pursuit of one’s religious belief may be the subject of state regulations. While a person may have a very literal interpretation of the command in the Bible to “go forth and multiply”, this is not a license for him to enter into several marriages as this would contravene our laws against bigamy.
Although the reader did not mention that the sound is made as part of the holy mass or church service, we presume that it is made to summon the faithful to a religious worship. Hence, the same is part of the freedom to act on one’s belief which may the subject of state regulations.
The reader finds the sound which is blasted using a powerful amplifier system as a violation of his right against nuisance. As defined under Art. 694 of the Civil Code, a nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property. A nuisance is one of the most serious hindrances to the enjoyment of life and property (Report of the Code Commission as cited by Paras). Nuisance which affects the community or neighbourhood or any considerable number of persons is a public nuisance which can be the subject of a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial proceedings. The other type of nuisance is private nuisance which can be the subject of a civil action or abatement without judicial proceedings.
Nuisances are of two kinds: nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens. The first is recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances, because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety, and, for that reason, may be abated summarily under the undefined law of necessity. The second is that which depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance (Rufina Salao and Lucio Lucas vs. Teofilo C. Santos, et.al., G.R. No. L-45519, April 26, 1939).
There is a dearth of Philippine jurisprudence regarding the issue of when church bells and other noise created during religious worship will become a nuisance. However, in Traetto v. Palazzo, 91 A. 3d 29 – NJ: Appellate Div. 2014 (US), to constitute a nuisance, a plaintiff must show “(1) injury to the health or comfort of ordinary people to an unreasonable extent, and (2) unreasonableness under all the circumstances, particularly after balancing the needs of the maker to the needs of the listeners.
The reader’s email shows that he resides in a somewhat urbanized residential area where occasional noisy disturbances may be considered as normal. Although he claims that the church is new, the establishment of a church building in his area can be reasonably expected as the community needs a place for religious worship. As we cannot expect the faithful to profess their faith in complete silence, the sound of the church bells and amplifiers while the church members profess their faith in songs and praises may be considered a reasonable disturbance in the community. As held in Traetto, “occasional noisy disturbances concomitant with residential living can rise to the level of nuisance if, based on proximity, magnitude, frequency, and time of day, they cause some residents “more than mere annoyance, … temporary physical pain, and more than usual anxiety and fright.”
The reader’s situation is totally different from the plaintiff in Terhune v. Trs. of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Matawan, 87 N.J. Eq. 195, 198-99, 100 A. 342 (Ch.1917) where the court held that the hourly striking of church bells until 10:00 p.m. caused sufficient “annoyance, discomfort and injury” to constitute a nuisance. The court held that this practice did not serve a public need that could outweigh the injury caused to particular residents. Local customs and practices show that the blasting of sound from the church to summon the faithful as early as 5:15 in the morning is acceptable and may not be considered as nuisance unless if he can prove in court that it causes some residents “more than mere annoyance, … temporary physical pain, and more than usual anxiety and fright” and it does not serve a public need.