This case involved a challenge to postage stamps commemorating a Roman Catholic religious event that featured religious symbols. [Gregorio Aglipay, head of the Philippine Independent Church, claimed producing and selling the stamps violated the Philippine Constitution's prohibition on using public funds for any church.] The Supreme Court held that the stamps did not violate the Constitution. It found the stamps emphasized Manila hosting the event, not the religious event itself. The appropriation law also did not allocate funds to a religious event, but rather authorized the Director of Posts to use funds for stamp production. The Court noted religious freedom allows recognition of religion's positive role and does not prohibit showing profound reverence to religion.
This case involved a challenge to postage stamps commemorating a Roman Catholic religious event that featured religious symbols. [Gregorio Aglipay, head of the Philippine Independent Church, claimed producing and selling the stamps violated the Philippine Constitution's prohibition on using public funds for any church.] The Supreme Court held that the stamps did not violate the Constitution. It found the stamps emphasized Manila hosting the event, not the religious event itself. The appropriation law also did not allocate funds to a religious event, but rather authorized the Director of Posts to use funds for stamp production. The Court noted religious freedom allows recognition of religion's positive role and does not prohibit showing profound reverence to religion.
This case involved a challenge to postage stamps commemorating a Roman Catholic religious event that featured religious symbols. [Gregorio Aglipay, head of the Philippine Independent Church, claimed producing and selling the stamps violated the Philippine Constitution's prohibition on using public funds for any church.] The Supreme Court held that the stamps did not violate the Constitution. It found the stamps emphasized Manila hosting the event, not the religious event itself. The appropriation law also did not allocate funds to a religious event, but rather authorized the Director of Posts to use funds for stamp production. The Court noted religious freedom allows recognition of religion's positive role and does not prohibit showing profound reverence to religion.
64 Phil. 201 Political Law Appropriation Religious Sect Religious Freedom
The 33 rd International Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic Church took place sometime in 1936. In commemoration thereof. then Director of Posts, Juan Ruiz, initiated the production of certain stamps the design of which would have in their center a chalice, with grape and stalks of wheat as border design. Eventually, the stamps were produced and some were sold pursuant to Act No. 4052, which provides for appropriation. Gregorio Aglipay, the head of the Philippine Independent Church, assailed the production and sale of such stamps. Aglipay contends that the funding of said stamps commemorative to a particular religious event is in violation of Sec 13, Article 6 of the Philippine Constitution which prohibits the appropriation or usage of public money for the use or benefit of any church or denomination.
ISSUE: Whether or not the production of the said stamps violate the Constitution.
HELD: No. The sale of stamps is not in violation of the Constitution. In fact, what was emphasized on the stamps was not the religious event itself but rather the City of Manila as being the seat of such event. Act No. 4052 on the other hand did not appropriate any public money to a religious event. Act No. 4052 appropriated the sum of P60,000.00 for the cost of plates and printing of postage stamps with new designs and other expenses incident thereto, and merely authorizes the Director of Posts, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, to dispose of the amount appropriated in the manner indicated and as often as may be deemed advantageous to the Government. The fact that the fund is being used for such is only incidental to the function of Director of Posts and under his discretion.
On religious freedom The Supreme Court noted however that the elevating influence of religion is recognized here as elsewhere. Evidence would be our preamble where we implored the aid of divine providence to establish an ideal government. If should also be further noted that religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not an inhibition of profound reverence to religion.