Dismissed

Philippine court dismisses case against bishop involved in mining dispute #Catholic A court in the northern Philippines has dismissed a forcible entry case against a Catholic bishop, a priest, and several community leaders involved in a dispute over a mining exploration project in Nueva Vizcaya province.Bishop Jose Elmer Mangalinao of Bayombong welcomed the June 24 ruling, which dismissed a complaint linked to barricades established by residents in Kasibu town against exploration activities by North Luzon Mineral Resources Corporation (NLMRC).“This outcome is not only a legal victory. It is a victory for truth, justice, and the collective efforts of communities who courageously stand to protect our land, water, and future generations,” Mangalinao said in a statement.The complaint named Mangalinao, Father Christian Dumangeng, and several community leaders allegedly involved in maintaining the barricades. The case drew national attention after a Catholic bishop and priest were included among the defendants.The dispute stems from opposition to a 4,456-hectare (11,011 acres) mining exploration project being undertaken by NLMRC in several villages in Kasibu, a municipality in Nueva Vizcaya, a mountainous province on the island of Luzon north of Manila.Residents, church groups, and some Indigenous leaders have raised concerns about the project’s potential effects on watersheds, local livelihoods, and nearby communities.Residents established barricades in May to block the movement of fuel, equipment, and mineral samples linked to NLMRC’s exploration activities, according to community groups.The complaint was filed by Rosario Camma, who identified himself as the overall chieftain of the Bugkalot-Ilongot Indigenous Cultural Communities. Some members of the Bugkalot-Ilongot Indigenous communities have joined opposition to the project, citing concerns about its possible effects on their communities and surrounding resources.In a nine-page decision obtained by EWTN News, the local court said the plaintiff failed to establish a clear legal right warranting injunctive relief and ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the action. The court found that the relief sought was more consistent with an injunction case than a forcible entry action.The decision also cited a certification from the Philippine government’s Indigenous affairs agency stating that the exploration permit area falls outside officially recognized ancestral domain lands. Opponents of the project, however, have argued that the controversy extends beyond ancestral domain claims and includes concerns over environmental impacts and consultation requirements.The court further held that the complaint sought to stop activities related to the barricades rather than recover possession of property, a key element in forcible entry cases.Mangalinao has defended his involvement in the issue, saying his presence at the barricades was part of his pastoral responsibility. Earlier this week, he said he visited the communities to celebrate Mass and accompany residents concerned about the future of their land and water sources.“I went as their bishop to offer the Holy Mass, to pray with them, and to remind them that their concern for the land, the water, and their children’s future is one the Church shares and blesses,” he said.In his homily on June 21, the prelate said the dispute is an issue of environmental stewardship and concern for communities affected by development projects.“I could have chosen not to speak up, but if I do not speak up, my sin would be great before God,” he said.The bishop said the ruling would strengthen continuing efforts to defend the environment and communities affected by extractive projects.“Let this moment remind us that defending our watersheds, our environment, and our people’s livelihood is not a crime: it is a shared moral responsibility,” he said.“We believe, as the Church has always taught, that the earth is not ours to exhaust but ours to steward,” he added.
Read More

Philippine court dismisses case against bishop involved in mining dispute #Catholic A court in the northern Philippines has dismissed a forcible entry case against a Catholic bishop, a priest, and several community leaders involved in a dispute over a mining exploration project in Nueva Vizcaya province.Bishop Jose Elmer Mangalinao of Bayombong welcomed the June 24 ruling, which dismissed a complaint linked to barricades established by residents in Kasibu town against exploration activities by North Luzon Mineral Resources Corporation (NLMRC).“This outcome is not only a legal victory. It is a victory for truth, justice, and the collective efforts of communities who courageously stand to protect our land, water, and future generations,” Mangalinao said in a statement.The complaint named Mangalinao, Father Christian Dumangeng, and several community leaders allegedly involved in maintaining the barricades. The case drew national attention after a Catholic bishop and priest were included among the defendants.The dispute stems from opposition to a 4,456-hectare (11,011 acres) mining exploration project being undertaken by NLMRC in several villages in Kasibu, a municipality in Nueva Vizcaya, a mountainous province on the island of Luzon north of Manila.Residents, church groups, and some Indigenous leaders have raised concerns about the project’s potential effects on watersheds, local livelihoods, and nearby communities.Residents established barricades in May to block the movement of fuel, equipment, and mineral samples linked to NLMRC’s exploration activities, according to community groups.The complaint was filed by Rosario Camma, who identified himself as the overall chieftain of the Bugkalot-Ilongot Indigenous Cultural Communities. Some members of the Bugkalot-Ilongot Indigenous communities have joined opposition to the project, citing concerns about its possible effects on their communities and surrounding resources.In a nine-page decision obtained by EWTN News, the local court said the plaintiff failed to establish a clear legal right warranting injunctive relief and ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the action. The court found that the relief sought was more consistent with an injunction case than a forcible entry action.The decision also cited a certification from the Philippine government’s Indigenous affairs agency stating that the exploration permit area falls outside officially recognized ancestral domain lands. Opponents of the project, however, have argued that the controversy extends beyond ancestral domain claims and includes concerns over environmental impacts and consultation requirements.The court further held that the complaint sought to stop activities related to the barricades rather than recover possession of property, a key element in forcible entry cases.Mangalinao has defended his involvement in the issue, saying his presence at the barricades was part of his pastoral responsibility. Earlier this week, he said he visited the communities to celebrate Mass and accompany residents concerned about the future of their land and water sources.“I went as their bishop to offer the Holy Mass, to pray with them, and to remind them that their concern for the land, the water, and their children’s future is one the Church shares and blesses,” he said.In his homily on June 21, the prelate said the dispute is an issue of environmental stewardship and concern for communities affected by development projects.“I could have chosen not to speak up, but if I do not speak up, my sin would be great before God,” he said.The bishop said the ruling would strengthen continuing efforts to defend the environment and communities affected by extractive projects.“Let this moment remind us that defending our watersheds, our environment, and our people’s livelihood is not a crime: it is a shared moral responsibility,” he said.“We believe, as the Church has always taught, that the earth is not ours to exhaust but ours to steward,” he added.

unitedyam

Bishop Jose Elmer Mangalinao of Bayombong welcomed the June 24 ruling, which dismissed a complaint against him, another priest, and community leaders related to a mining exploration project.

Read More
Supreme Court declines to intervene in federal lawsuit over Peter’s Pence papal collection #Catholic The U.S. bishops will continue to face a lawsuit over millions of dollars in contested papal donations after the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26 refused to weigh in on the case. The decision represents a blow for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on religious liberty grounds. The high court did not explain its reason for rejecting the petition from the U.S. bishops, issuing the decision as part of a larger order list.Rhode Island resident David OʼConnell filed the class action suit against the bishops in January 2020, alleging that the prelates had misled Catholics about the nature of the annual Peterʼs Pence papal collection.OʼConnell claimed he had been led to believe that the offering — which dates back centuries and which is used to help fund the popeʼs charitable initiatives — was strictly for emergency assistance to victims of war and poverty; OʼConnell said he subsequently found out it was used in part to “defray Vatican administrative expenses.”The U.S. bishops argued in court that the suit should be dismissed on the grounds of the “church autonomy doctrine,” a long-standing principle in U.S. case law that bars the government from exercising control over internal church decisions. Both a federal district court and an appeals court ruled against the bishops. The Supreme Courtʼs refusal to consider the case means it will continue to work its way through the lower courts. In a statement on May 26, Daniel Blomberg — a senior attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the bishops — said the decision was “disappointing.” But he said the USCCB is “evaluating all of its options moving forward” and “remains committed to protecting the Church from unconstitutional government entanglement.” Multiple religious advocates have come out in favor of the bishops in the dispute. A coalition of organizations including the Thomas More Society, the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, and several other groups filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in January arguing that their respective religious beliefs involve “matters of internal governance that must be protected from government entwinement.”In their petition to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, the bishops alleged that OʼConnell was "leveraging civil power for religious ends," claiming the plaintiff was “essentially seek[ing] the structural reform of a religious institution."Such disputes “are beyond the ken of civil courts,” the bishops argued, claiming that the suit includes “demands for lists of papal donors, accounting for the pope’s use of Peter’s Pence, and disclosure of the bishops’ internal communications with the Holy See about Peter’s Pence.”The suit threatens to “thrust civil courts into church pulpits and pews … pit millions of parishioners against their Church, and second-guess the meaning of an offering given to the head of a foreign religious sovereign for over 1,000 years,” the bishops said.
Read More

Supreme Court declines to intervene in federal lawsuit over Peter’s Pence papal collection #Catholic The U.S. bishops will continue to face a lawsuit over millions of dollars in contested papal donations after the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26 refused to weigh in on the case. The decision represents a blow for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on religious liberty grounds. The high court did not explain its reason for rejecting the petition from the U.S. bishops, issuing the decision as part of a larger order list.Rhode Island resident David OʼConnell filed the class action suit against the bishops in January 2020, alleging that the prelates had misled Catholics about the nature of the annual Peterʼs Pence papal collection.OʼConnell claimed he had been led to believe that the offering — which dates back centuries and which is used to help fund the popeʼs charitable initiatives — was strictly for emergency assistance to victims of war and poverty; OʼConnell said he subsequently found out it was used in part to “defray Vatican administrative expenses.”The U.S. bishops argued in court that the suit should be dismissed on the grounds of the “church autonomy doctrine,” a long-standing principle in U.S. case law that bars the government from exercising control over internal church decisions. Both a federal district court and an appeals court ruled against the bishops. The Supreme Courtʼs refusal to consider the case means it will continue to work its way through the lower courts. In a statement on May 26, Daniel Blomberg — a senior attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the bishops — said the decision was “disappointing.” But he said the USCCB is “evaluating all of its options moving forward” and “remains committed to protecting the Church from unconstitutional government entanglement.” Multiple religious advocates have come out in favor of the bishops in the dispute. A coalition of organizations including the Thomas More Society, the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, and several other groups filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in January arguing that their respective religious beliefs involve “matters of internal governance that must be protected from government entwinement.”In their petition to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, the bishops alleged that OʼConnell was "leveraging civil power for religious ends," claiming the plaintiff was “essentially seek[ing] the structural reform of a religious institution."Such disputes “are beyond the ken of civil courts,” the bishops argued, claiming that the suit includes “demands for lists of papal donors, accounting for the pope’s use of Peter’s Pence, and disclosure of the bishops’ internal communications with the Holy See about Peter’s Pence.”The suit threatens to “thrust civil courts into church pulpits and pews … pit millions of parishioners against their Church, and second-guess the meaning of an offering given to the head of a foreign religious sovereign for over 1,000 years,” the bishops said.

unitedyam

The lawsuit will continue in the federal courts after the Supreme Court refused to consider a religious liberty objection by the U.S. bishops.

Read More
Alabama cannot execute convicted murderer with low IQ after Supreme Court ruling #Catholic The Supreme Court on May 21 rejected an attempt by the state of Alabama to execute a convicted murderer whose low IQ may render him intellectually disabled and thus protected from capital punishment by the U.S. Constitution. The court in an unsigned order dismissed an appeal from Alabama after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Joseph Clifton Smith, with the appeals court holding that Smithʼs low-70s IQ put him close enough to the threshold of an intellectually disability to render his death sentence unconstitutional. The court heard oral arguments in the case in December 2025. The case had followed a twisting path through the federal court system; the 11th Circuit first ruled in Smithʼs favor in 2023, after which the Supreme Court in 2024 vacated that decision and ordered the appeals court to consider it again. A second review by the lower court, with another favorable ruling for Smith, again brought the case before the Supreme Court last year; the high courtʼs May 21 ruling brought the case to an end.The latest ruling represents a potential precedent in how the Supreme Court considers certain cases of capital punishment. The court ruled in the 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with intellectual disabilities violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment." The justices did not define “intellectual disability” in that case, though it cited expert opinion that “an IQ between 70 and 75 or lower” is “typically considered the cutoff” in some definitions. Theresa Farnan, philosopher on the Ethics and Public Policy Committee of the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, told EWTN News in April that Smithʼs death sentence was “clearly a borderline case.” Smith was convicted in the brutal 1997 slaying of Durk Van Dam. “It’s obvious to me he could not grasp the gravity of his crimes,“ Farnan said of Smith. ”In cases like these, the burden on us as a society is even more pronounced to be radically pro-life.”The Catholic Church in recent decades has come out increasingly against the death penalty, with multiple popes arguing that modern penal systems have rendered capital punishment inadmissible in many if not most cases.Pope Leo XIV in particular has spoken out several times against the death penalty in just the first year of his pontificate, arguing that “human life is to be respected” and that support for capital punishment is incompatible with a pro-life philosophy.
Read More

Alabama cannot execute convicted murderer with low IQ after Supreme Court ruling #Catholic The Supreme Court on May 21 rejected an attempt by the state of Alabama to execute a convicted murderer whose low IQ may render him intellectually disabled and thus protected from capital punishment by the U.S. Constitution. The court in an unsigned order dismissed an appeal from Alabama after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Joseph Clifton Smith, with the appeals court holding that Smithʼs low-70s IQ put him close enough to the threshold of an intellectually disability to render his death sentence unconstitutional. The court heard oral arguments in the case in December 2025. The case had followed a twisting path through the federal court system; the 11th Circuit first ruled in Smithʼs favor in 2023, after which the Supreme Court in 2024 vacated that decision and ordered the appeals court to consider it again. A second review by the lower court, with another favorable ruling for Smith, again brought the case before the Supreme Court last year; the high courtʼs May 21 ruling brought the case to an end.The latest ruling represents a potential precedent in how the Supreme Court considers certain cases of capital punishment. The court ruled in the 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with intellectual disabilities violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment." The justices did not define “intellectual disability” in that case, though it cited expert opinion that “an IQ between 70 and 75 or lower” is “typically considered the cutoff” in some definitions. Theresa Farnan, philosopher on the Ethics and Public Policy Committee of the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, told EWTN News in April that Smithʼs death sentence was “clearly a borderline case.” Smith was convicted in the brutal 1997 slaying of Durk Van Dam. “It’s obvious to me he could not grasp the gravity of his crimes,“ Farnan said of Smith. ”In cases like these, the burden on us as a society is even more pronounced to be radically pro-life.”The Catholic Church in recent decades has come out increasingly against the death penalty, with multiple popes arguing that modern penal systems have rendered capital punishment inadmissible in many if not most cases.Pope Leo XIV in particular has spoken out several times against the death penalty in just the first year of his pontificate, arguing that “human life is to be respected” and that support for capital punishment is incompatible with a pro-life philosophy.

unitedyam

The court has previously held that people with intellectual disabilities may not be executed under the U.S. Constitution.

Read More