Aglipay v. Ruiz
G.R. No. L-45459
March 13, 1937
Laurel, J.
Facts:
Mons.
Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, seeks the issuance
from the Supreme Court of a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent Director
of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty-third
International Eucharistic Congress.
In May, 1936, the
Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he would order the issues
of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the Thirty-third
international Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The
petitioner, in the fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty, requested
Vicente Sotto, Esq., member of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the
President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of the petitioner’s attorney,
the respondent publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of
the postage stamps for printing.
Issue:
whether
the action of the respondent is violative of the provisions of section 23, subsection
3, Article VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines, which provides as follows:
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any
sect, church, denomination, secretarian, institution, or system of religion, or
for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary
is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.
Held:
No.
Religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence
for religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a
profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator
is recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles
of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. When the Filipino
people, in the preamble of their Constitution, implored “the aid of Divine Providence,
in order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and
develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to
themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of justice,
liberty and democracy,” they thereby manifested reliance upon Him who guides the
destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in human society
is recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain general concessions are indiscriminately
accorded to religious sects and denominations. Our Constitution and laws exempt
from taxation properties devoted exclusively to religious purposes. Sectarian aid
is not prohibited when a priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher or
dignitary as such is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage
or leprosarium. Optional religious instruction in the public schools is by constitutional
mandate allowed. Thursday and Friday of Holy Week, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day,
and Sundays and made legal holidays because of the secular idea that their observance
is conclusive to beneficial moral results. The law allows divorce but punishes polygamy
and bigamy; and certain crimes against religious worship are considered crimes against
the fundamental laws of the state.
Act
No. 4052 contemplates no religious purpose in view. What it gives the Director of
Posts is the discretionary power to determine when the issuance of special postage
stamps would be “advantageous to the Government.” Of course, the phrase “advantageous
to the Government” does not authorize the violation of the Constitution. It does
not authorize the appropriation, use or application of public money or property
for the use, benefit or support of a particular sect or church. In the present case,
however, the issuance of the postage stamps in question by the Director of Posts
and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications was not inspired by any sectarian
denomination. The stamps were not issue and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic
Church. Nor were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church.
On the contrary, it appears from the latter of the Director of Posts of June 5,
1936, incorporated on page 2 of the petitioner’s complaint, that the only purpose
in issuing and selling the stamps was “to advertise the Philippines and attract
more tourist to this country.” The officials concerned merely, took advantage of
an event considered of international importance “to give publicity to the Philippines
and its people”. It is significant to note that the stamps as actually designed
and printed, instead of showing a Catholic Church chalice as originally planned,
contains a map of the Philippines and the location of the City of Manila, and an
inscription as follows: “Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7,1937.”
What is emphasized is not the Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila, the capital
of the Philippines, as the seat of that congress. It is obvious that while the issuance
and sale of the stamps in question may be said to be inseparably linked with an
event of a religious character, the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the
Roman Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment