Aglipay v.

Ruiz,
G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937

FACTS:
The 33rd 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.
De Leon
What is guaranteed by the Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration.
 Lee v. Weisman,
505 U.S. 577 (1992)

Brief Fact Summary

The Defendant, Rachel Weisman (Defendant), alleges that a school sponsored,
non-denominational prayer offered at a public school graduation violated the Religion
Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution).

Synopsis of Rule of Law

A public school cannot sponsor clerics to conduct even a non-denominational
prayer as part of a graduation ceremony as the Constitution guarantees that government
may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise or otherwise
act in a way, which establishes a state religion, or tends to do so.
Facts
A rabbi was invited to deliver a prayer at a public school’s graduation ceremony.
The rabbi was given a copy of a pamphlet that recommended prayers at civic ceremonies
be inclusive and sensitive. The Defendant, a student at the school, challenged the
practice of having prayers at public school graduations.

Issue
Whether including clerical members who offer prayer as part of the official school
graduation ceremony is consistent with the Religions clauses of the First Amendment of
the Constitution.
Held
No, including clerical members who offer prayer as part of the official school
ceremony is not consistent with the Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the
Constitution. The fact that the principle decided that a cleric should offer a prayer at a
public school graduation, is as if a state statute decreed that the prayers must occur. The
principal’s act of giving the cleric guidelines for the prayer means the principal directed
and controlled the content of the prayer in direct violation of the Establishment Clause
of the Constitution, which prohibits the preferring one religion over another. The court
stated that the question is not the good faith of the school in attempting to make the
prayer acceptable to most persons, but the legitimacy of its undertaking that enterprise
at all, when the object is to produce a prayer to be used in a formal religious exercise,
which students, for all practical purposes, are obliged to attend.
Dissent
In holding that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits invocations
and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the Supreme Court of the
United States (Supreme Court) lays waste to a tradition that is a component of an even
more longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public
celebrations generally.
Concurrence
The government must not engage in religious practices.
Discussion
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution is a specific
prohibition concerning forms of state intervention in religious affairs. The state may not
consistent with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution place school age children
in a position of participating or protesting prayer at public graduation ceremonies. If the
government regulation contains no religious preference it is valid under the
Establishment Clause of the Constitution if it (i) has a secular purpose; (ii) has a primary
effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion and (iii) does not produce excessive
government entanglement with religion. A public school sponsoring a nonsectarian
prayer at a graduation ceremony is considered excessive government entanglement and
is invalid.