Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, 1937
GREGORIO AGLIPAY, petitioner,
vs.
JUAN RUI, respondent.
Vicente Sotto for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor-General Tuason for respondent.
LAUREL, J.:
The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipa, !upre"e #ead of the Philippine $ndependent Church, see%s
the issuance fro" this court of a &rit of prohibition to prevent the respondent 'irector of Posts fro"
issuing and selling postage sta"ps co""e"orative of the Thirt(third $nternational Eucharistic
Congress.
$n Ma, )*+,, the 'irector of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he &ould order the issues
of postage sta"ps co""e"orating the celebration in the Cit of Manila of the Thirt(third
international Eucharistic Congress, organi-ed b the Ro"an Catholic Church. The petitioner, in the
fulfill"ent of &hat he considers to be a civic dut, re.uested /icente !otto, Es.., "e"ber of the
Philippine Bar, to denounce the "atter to the President of the Philippines. $n spite of the protest of
the petitioner0s attorne, the respondent publicl announced having sent to the 1nited !tates the
designs of the postage sta"ps for printing as follo&s2
3$n the center is chalice, &ith grape vine and stal%s of &heat as border design. The sta"ps are blue,
green, bro&n, cardinal red, violet and orange, ) inch b ),4*5 inches. The deno"inations are for 6,
,, ),, 64, +, and 74 centavos.3 The said sta"ps &ere actuall issued and sold though the greater
part thereof, to this da, re"ains unsold. The further sale of the sta"ps is sought to be prevented b
the petitioner herein.
The !olicitor(General contends that the &rit of prohibition is not the proper legal re"ed in the
instant case, although he ad"its that the &rit "a properl restrain "inisterial functions. 8hile,
generall, prohibition as an e9traordinar legal &rit &ill not issue to restrain or control the
perfor"ance of other than :udicial or .uasi(:udicial functions ;74 C. <., ,7=4, its issuance and
enforce"ent are regulated b statute and in this :urisdiction "a issue to . . . inferior tribunals,
corporations, boards, or persons, &hether e9cercising functions :udicial or "inisterial, &hich are
&ithout or in e9cess of the :urisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person, . . . .3 ;!ecs.
7), and 66,, Code of Civil Procedure.> The ter"s 3:udicial3 and 3"inisterial3 used &ith reference to
3functions3 in the statute are undoubtedl co"prehensive and include the challenged act of the
respondent 'irector of Posts in the present case, &hich act because alleged to be violative of the
Constitution is a fortiorari 3&ithout or in e9cess of . . . :urisdiction.3 The statutor rule, therefore, in the
:urisdiction is that the &rit of prohibition is not confined e9clusivel to courts or tribunals to %eep the"
&ithin the li"its of their o&n :urisdiction and to prevent the" fro" encroaching upon the :urisdiction
of other tribunals, but &ill issue, in appropriate cases, to an officer or person &hose acts are &ithout
or in e9cess of his authorit. Not infre.uentl, 3the &rit is granted, &here it is necessar for the
orderl ad"inistration of :ustice, or to prevent the use of the strong ar" of the la& in an oppressive
or vindictive "anner, or a "ultiplicit of actions.3 ;'i"auga and ?a:ardo vs. ?ernande- @)*6+A, 5+
Phil., +45, +4B.>
The "ore i"portant .uestion raised refers to the alleged violation of the Constitution b the
respondent in issuing and selling postage sta"ps co""e"orative of the Thirt(third $nternational
Eucharistic Congress. $t is alleged that this action of the respondent is violative of the provisions of
section 6+, subsection +, Article /$, of the Constitution of the Philippines, &hich provides as follo&s2
No public "one or propert shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directl or
indirectl, for the use, benefit, or support of an sect, church, deno"ination, secretarian,
institution, or sste" of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of an priest, preacher,
"inister, or other religious teacher or dignitar as such, e9cept &hen such priest, preacher,
"inister, or dignitar is assigned to the ar"ed forces or to an penal institution, orphanage,
or leprosariu".
The prohibition herein e9pressed is a direct corollar of the principle of separation of church and
state. 8ithout the necessit of adverting to the historical bac%ground of this principle in our countr, it
is sufficient to sa that our histor, not to spea% of the histor of "an%ind, has taught us that the
union of church and state is pre:udicial to both, for ocassions "ight arise &hen the estate &ill use the
church, and the church the state, as a &eapon in the furtherance of their recogni-ed this principle of
separation of church and state in the earl stages of our constitutional develop"entC it &as inserted
in the Treat of Paris bet&een the 1nited !tates and !pain of 'ece"ber )4, )=*=, reiterated in
President McDinle0s $nstructions of the Philippine Co""ission, reaffir"ed in the Philippine Bill of
)*46 and in the autono" Act of August 6*, )*),, and finall e"bodied in the constitution of the
Philippines as the supre"e e9pression of the ?ilipino people. $t is al"ost trite to sa no& that in this
countr &e en:o both religious and civil freedo". All the officers of the Govern"ent, fro" the
highest to the lo&est, in ta%ing their oath to support and defend the constitution, bind the"selves to
recogni-e and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedo", &ith its inherent li"itations
and recogni-ed i"plications. $t should be stated that &hat is guaranteed b our Constitution is
religious libert, not "ere religious toleration.
Religious freedo", ho&ever, as a constitutional "andate is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not denial of its influence in hu"an affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an
active po&er that binds and elevates "an to his Creator is recogni-ed. And, in so far as it instills into
the "inds the purest principles of "oralit, its influence is deepl felt and highl appreciated. 8hen
the ?ilipino people, in the prea"ble of their Constitution, i"plored 3the aid of Divine Providence, in
order to establish a govern"ent that shall e"bod their ideals, conserve and develop the patri"on
of the nation, pro"ote the general &elfare, and secure to the"selves and their posterit the
blessings of independence under a regi"e of :ustice, libert and de"ocrac,3 the thereb
"anifested reliance upon #i" &ho guides the destinies of "en and nations. The elevating influence
of religion in hu"an societ is recogni-ed here as else&here. $n fact, certain general concessions
are indiscri"inatel accorded to religious sects and deno"inations. Eur Constitution and la&s
e9e"pt fro" ta9ation properties devoted e9clusivel to religious purposes ;sec. )5, subsec. +, Art.
/$, Constitution of the Philippines and sec. ), subsec. 5, Erdinance appended theretoC Assess"ent
Fa&, sec. +55, par. @cA. Ad". Code>. !ectarian aid is not prohibited &hen a priest, preacher, "inister
or other religious teacher or dignitar as such is assigned to the ar"ed forces or to an penal
institution, orphanage or leprosariu" * sec. )+, subsec. +, Art. /$, Constitution of the Philippines>.
Eptional religious instruction in the public schools is b constitutional "andate allo&ed ;sec. 7, Art.
G$$$, Constitution of the Philippines, in relation to sec. *6=, Ad". Code>. Thursda and ?rida of #ol
8ee%, Than%sgiving 'a, Christ"as 'a, and !undas and "ade legal holidas ;sec. 6*, Ad".
Code> because of the secular idea that their observance is conclusive to beneficial "oral results.
The la& allo&s divorce but punishes polga" and biga"C and certain cri"es against religious
&orship are considered cri"es against the funda"ental la&s of the state ;see arts. )+6 and )++,
Revised Penal Code>.
$n the case at bar, it appears that the respondent 'irector of Posts issued the postage sta"ps in
.uestion under the provisions of Act No. 5476 of the Philippine Fegislature. This Act is as follo&s2
No. 5476. H AN ACT APPREPR$AT$NG T#E !1M E? !$GTI T#E1!AN' PE!E! AN'
MAD$NG T#E !AME A/A$FABFE E1T E? ANI ?1N'! $N T#E $N!1FAR TREA!1RI NET
ET#ER8$!E APPREPR$ATE' ?ER T#E CE!T E? PFATE! AN' PR$NT$NG E?
PE!TAGE !TAMP! 8$T# NE8 'E!$GN!, AN' ?ER ET#ER P1RPE!E!.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in e!islature
asse"bled and by the authority of the sa"e2
!ECT$EN ). The su" of si9t thousand pesos is hereb appropriated and "ade i""ediatel
available out of an funds in the $nsular Treasur not other&ise appropriated, for the costs of plates
and printing of postage sta"ps &ith ne& designs, and other e9penses incident thereto.
!EC. 6. The 'irector of Posts, &ith the approval of the !ecretar of Public 8or%s and
Co""unications, is hereb authori-ed to dispose of the &hole or an portion of the a"ount herein
appropriated in the "anner indicated and as often as "a be dee"ed advantageous to the
Govern"ent.
!EC. +. This a"ount or an portion thereof not other&ise e9pended shall not revert to the Treasur.
!EC. 5. This act shall ta%e effect on its approval.
Approved, ?ebruar 6), )*++.
$t &ill be seen that the Act appropriates the su" of si9t thousand pesos for the costs of plates and
printing of postage sta"ps &ith ne& designs and other e9penses incident thereto, and authori-es
the 'irector of Posts, &ith the approval of the !ecretar of Public 8or%s and Co""unications, to
dispose of the a"ount appropriated in the "anner indicated and 3as often as "a be dee"ed
advantageous to the Govern"ent3. The printing and issuance of the postage sta"ps in .uestion
appears to have been approved b authorit of the President of the Philippines in a letter dated
!epte"ber ), )*+,, "ade part of the respondent0s "e"orandu" as E9hibit A. The respondent
alleges that the Govern"ent of the Philippines &ould suffer losses if the &rit praed for is granted.
#e esti"ates the revenue to be derived fro" the sale of the postage sta"ps in .uestion at
P),,)=,)B.)4 and states that there still re"ain to be sold sta"ps &orth P),546,6B*.46.
Act No. 5476 conte"plates no religious purpose in vie&. 8hat it gives the 'irector of Posts is the
discretionar po&er to deter"ine &hen the issuance of special postage sta"ps &ould be
3advantageous to the Govern"ent.3 Ef course, the phrase 3advantageous to the Govern"ent3 does
not authori-e the violation of the Constitution. $t does not authori-e the appropriation, use or
application of public "one or propert for the use, benefit or support of a particular sect or church.
$n the present case, ho&ever, the issuance of the postage sta"ps in .uestion b the 'irector of
Posts and the !ecretar of Public 8or%s and Co""unications &as not inspired b an sectarian
deno"ination. The sta"ps &ere not issue and sold for the benefit of the Ro"an Catholic Church.
Nor &ere "one derived fro" the sale of the sta"ps given to that church. En the contrar, it
appears fro" the latter of the 'irector of Posts of <une 7, )*+,, incorporated on page 6 of the
petitioner0s co"plaint, that the onl purpose in issuing and selling the sta"ps &as 3to advertise the
Philippines and attract "ore tourist to this countr.3 The officials concerned "erel, too% advantage
of an event considered of international i"portance 3to give publicit to the Philippines and its people3
;Fetter of the 1ndersecretar of Public 8or%s and Co""unications to the President of the
Philippines, <une *, )*+,C p. +, petitioner0s co"plaint>. $t is significant to note that the sta"ps as
actuall designed and printed ;E9hibit 6>, instead of sho&ing a Catholic Church chalice as originall
planned, contains a "ap of the Philippines and the location of the Cit of Manila, and an inscription
as follo&s2 3!eat GGG$$$ $nternational Eucharistic Congress, ?eb. +(B,)*+B.3 8hat is e"phasi-ed is
not the Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila, the capital of the Philippines, as the seat of that
congress. $t is obvious that &hile the issuance and sale of the sta"ps in .uestion "a be said to be
inseparabl lin%ed &ith an event of a religious character, the resulting propaganda, if an, received
b the Ro"an Catholic Church, &as not the ai" and purpose of the Govern"ent. 8e are of the
opinion that the Govern"ent should not be e"barassed in its activities si"pl because of incidental
results, "ore or less religious in character, if the purpose had in vie& is one &hich could legiti"atel
be underta%en b appropriate legislation. The "ain purpose should not be frustrated b its
subordinate to "ere incidental results not conte"plated. ;/ide Bradfield vs. Roberts, )B7 1. !., 6*7C
64 !up. Ct. Rep., )6)C 55 Fa&. ed., ),=.>
8e are "uch i"pressed &ith the vehe"ent appeal of counsel for the petitioner to "aintain inviolate
the co"plete separation of church and state and curb an atte"pt to infringe b indirection a
constitutional inhibition. $ndeed, in the Philippines, once the scene of religious intolerance and
prescription, care should be ta%en that at this stage of our political develop"ent nothing is done b
the Govern"ent or its officials that "a lead to the belief that the Govern"ent is ta%ing sides or
favoring a particular religious sect or institution. But, upon ver serious reflection, e9a"ination of Act
No. 5476, and scrutin of the attending circu"stances, &e have co"e to the conclusion that there
has been no constitutional infraction in the case at bar, Act No. 5476 grants the 'irector of Posts,
&ith the approval of the !ecretar of Public 8or%s and Co""unications, discretion to "isuse
postage sta"ps &ith ne& designs 3as often as "a be dee"ed advantageous to the Govern"ent.3
Even if &e &ere to assu"e that these officials "ade use of a poor :udg"ent in issuing and selling
the postage sta"ps in .uestion still, the case of the petitioner &ould fail to ta%e in &eight. Bet&een
the e9ercise of a poor :udg"ent and the unconstitutionalit of the step ta%en, a gap e9ists &hich is
et to be filled to :ustif the court in setting aside the official act assailed as co"ing &ithin a
constitutional inhibition.
The petition for a &rit of prohibition is hereb denied, &ithout pronounce"ent as to costs. !o
ordered.
#vance$a% &.'.% Villa-Real% #bad Santos% ("perial% Dia) and &oncepcion% ''.% concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation