Gregorio Aglipay V.
Juan Ruiz the manner indicated and as deemed advantageous to the
G.R. No. 45459, March 13, 1937
Prepared by: Maria C. Mancilla for Consti. I, Assign #4
DOCTRINE: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious
liberty, not mere religious toleration. Religious freedom,
however, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of
profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its
influence in human affairs.
FACTS:
Petitioner Gregorio Aglipay, head of Philippine Independent
Church sought issuance of writ of prohibition against
respondent Juan Ruiz, Director of Posts for issuing postage
stamps commemorating the 33rd Eucharistic Congress held in
1936, contending that it is against Section 13, Article VI of the
Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the production and sale of said stamps
violates the Philippine Constitution.
HELD:
1. Answer: No, the production and sale of stamps
commemorating the 33rd Eucharistic Congress in
Manila did not violate the Constitution.
2. Legal basis: Act. No. 4052, Section 13, Article VI of the
Constitution, and Religious freedom as guaranteed by
the Constitution
3. Application: Act No. 4052 appropriated P60,000 for the
plates and printing of stamps and authorized the Director
of Posts to dispose the whole or portion of the amount in
Government. Act 4052 granted the Director of Posts, with
the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, the discretion to issue postage stamps
with new designs “as often as may be deemed
advantageous to the Government.”
Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution: prohibits
that money or property be appropriated for any religion or
priest, minister or teacher except when those are assigned
to the armed forces, penal institution, orphanage or
leprosarium. The stamps were not issued and sold for the
benefit of the Catholic Church.
Religious Freedom: The prohibition in Section 13,
Article VI of the Constitution is a direct corollary of the
principle of separation of church and state. It should be
stated that what is guaranteed by our Constitution is
religious liberty, not mere religious toleration. Religious
freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not
inhibition of profound reverence for religion and not
denial of its influence in human affairs. When the Filipino
people, in the preamble of their constitution, implored
“the aid of Almighty God”, they thereby manifested their
intense religious nature and placed unfaltering reliance
upon Him who guides the destinies of men and nations.
The elevating influence of religion in human society is
recognized here as elsewhere.
4. Conclusion: Upon the Court’s serious reflection,
examination of Act No. 4052, and scrutiny of attending
circumstances, they reached the conclusion that there had
been no constitutional infraction in the case at bar. The
petition for a writ of prohibition was denied.