AGLIPAY V. RUIZ 64 Phil. 201 G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, 1937

 “Any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a religious institution, as long as such benefit was only incidental to a legitimate secular objective, would not violate the prohibition.”

AGLIPAY V. RUIZ 64 Phil. 201 G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, 1937

Constitutional Law | Freedom of Religion | Separation of Church and State

Ponente: J. Laurel

 

FACTS:

The government had authorized a special stamp issue on the occasion of the observance in Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress under the sponsorship of the Catholic Church. The petitioner, as head of the Philippine Independent Church, assailed the measure, contending that it violated the Constitution because it benefited a particular religion; thus he sought to prohibit the issuance and selling of the stamps commemorative of the event.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the authorized stamp issue be declared invalid for violating the principle of separation of Church and State.

 

RULING:

No.

The Supreme Court, on examining the background facts, discovered that although the original design of the stamp featured a Catholic chalice, this was later rejected in favor a map of the Philippines under which appeared the caption, “”Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7,1937.” What was emphasized, therefore, is not the Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila, as the seat of that congress. The issuance of the postage stamps in question was not inspired by any sectarian denomination. The only purpose was “to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourist to this country.” 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. The officials concerned merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance “to give publicity to the Philippines and its people”.

While it is obvious that 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. The Government should not be embarrassed in its activities simply because of incidental results, more or less religious in character, if the purpose had in view is one which could legitimately be undertaken by appropriate legislation. The main purpose should not be frustrated by its subordinate to mere incidental results not contemplated.

 Therefore, the stamp issue was held to be not invalid.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617)

Executive Construction ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617) FACTS Asturias Sugar Central, Inc., a domestic company engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for exert, was using jute bags as container for sugar. Consequently, the company made two importations of jute bags, both of which entered free of customs duties and special import tax upon the petitioner's filing of Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bonds, under the condition that the bags shall be exported within 1 year from the date of importation. However, not all the bags were exported within the 1 year period. Petitioner asked for an extension, but it was denied. The Collector of Customs assessed customs duties and special import tax. Issues:   a.) Whether or not the Commissioner of Customs is vested with discretion to extend the period of one year provided for in section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.   b.) Whether or not interpretation or construction of...
Read more