[No. 45459.
March 13, 1937]
GREGORIO AGLIPAY, petitioner, vs. JUAN Ruiz, respondent,
1
1.
PROHIBITION; ISSUANCE OF WRIT FOR ACTS PERFORMED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
While, generally, prohibition as an extraordinary legal writ will not issue to restrain or
control the performance of other than judicial or quasi-judicial functions (50 C. J.,
658), its issuance and enforcement are regulated by statute and in this jurisdiction
may issue to "* * * inferior tribunals, corporations, boards, or persons, whether
exercising functions judicial or ministerial, which are without or in excess of the
jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person * * *." (Secs. 516 and 226,
Code of Civil Procedure.)
1
2.
ID.; ID.; DIRECTOR OF POSTS.The terms "judicial" and "ministerial" used with
reference to "functions" in the statute are undoubtedly comprehensive and include
the challenged act of the respondent Director of Posts in the present case, which act
because alleged to be violative of the Constitution is a fortiori "without or in excess of
* * * jurisdiction."
1
3.
ID.; ID.; WRIT NOT CONFINED EXCLUSIVELY TO COURTS OR TRIBUNALS.The
statutory rule, therefore, in this jurisdiction is that the writ of prohibition is not
confined exclusively to courts or tribunals to keep them within the limits of their own
jurisdiction and to prevent them from encroaching upon the jurisdiction of other
tribunals, but will issue, in appropriate cases, to an officer or person whose acts are
without or in excess of his authority. Not infrequently, "the writ is granted, where it is
202
202
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
1
necessary for the orderly administration of justice, or to prevent the use of the strong
arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or a multiplicity of actions."
(Dimayuga and Fajardo vs. Fernandez [1922], 43 Phil., 304, 307.)
1
4.
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES; RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.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. Religion as a profession
of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized.
And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its
influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated.
1
5.
ID.; ID.; POSTAGE STAMPS ISSUED UNDER ACT No. 4052.The respondent Director of
Posts issued the postage stamps in question under the provisions of Act No. 4052 of
the Philippine Legislature which appropriates the sum of sixty thousand pesos for the
cost of plates and' printing of postage stamps with new designs and other expenses
incident thereto, and 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."
1
6.
ID.; ID.; ID.Act No. 4052 contemplates no religious purpose in view. What it gives
the Director of Posts is the discretionary power to determine when the issuance of
special postage stamps would be "advantageous to the Government." Of course, the
phrase "advantageous to the Government" does not authorize the violation of the
Constitution. It does not authorize the appropriation, use or application of public
money or property for the use, benefit or support of a particular sect or church. In the
present case, however, the issuance of the postage stamps in question by the
Director of Posts and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications was not
inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor a particular church or religious
denomination. The stamps were not issued and sold for the benefit of the Roman
Catholic Church. Nor were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that
church.
1
7.
ID.; ID.; ID.The only purpose in issuing and selling the stamps was "to advertise the
Philippines and attract more tourists to this country." The officials concerned merely
took advantage of an event considered of international importance "to give publicity
to the Philippines and its people." The stamps as actually
203
VOL. 64, MARCH 13, 1937
203
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
1
designed and printed (Exhibit 2), instead of showing a Catholic Church chalice as
originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of the City of
Manila, and an inscription as follows: "Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress,
Feb. 3-7, 1937." What is emphasized is not the Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila,
the capital of the Philippines, as the seat of that congress.
1
8.
ID.; ID.; ID.While 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 subordination to mere incidental results
not contemplated. (Vide Bradfield vs. Roberts, 175 U. S., 295; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep., 121;
44 Law. ed., 168.)
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Vicente Sotto for petitioner.
Solicitor-General Tuason for respondent.
LAUREL, J.:
The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church,
seeks the issuance from this court of a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent Director
of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty-third
International Eucharistic Congress.
In May, 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he would order
the issuance -of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the
Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The
petitioner, in the fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto,
Esq., member of the Philip204
204
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
pine Bar, to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of
the petitioner's attorney, the respondent publicly announced having sent to the United
States the designs of the postage stamps for printing as follows:
"In the center is a chalice, with grape vine and stalks of wheat as border design. The stamps
are blue, green, brown, cardinal red, violet and orange, 1 inch by 1.094 inches. The
denominations are for 2, 6, 16, 20, 36 and 50 centavos." The said stamps were actually
issued and sold though the greater part thereof, to this day, remains unsold. The further sale
of the stamps is sought to be prevented by the petitioner herein.
The Solicitor-General contends that the writ of prohibition is not the proper legal remedy in
the instant case, although he admits that the writ may properly restrain ministerial
functions. While, generally, prohibition as an extraordinary legal writ will not issue to restrain
or control the performance of other than judicial or quasi-judicial functions (50 C. J., 658), its
issuance and enforcement are regulated by statute and in this jurisdiction may issue to "* * *
inferior tribunals, corporations, boards, or persons, whether exercising functions judicial or
ministerial, which are without of in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation,
board, or person * * *." (Secs. 516 and 226, Code of Civil Procedure.) The terms "judicial"
and "ministerial" used with reference to "functions" in the statute are undoubtedly
comprehensive and include the challenged act of the respondent Director of Posts in the
present case, which act because alleged to be violative of the Constitution is a fortiori
"without or in excess of * * * jurisdiction." The statutory rule, therefore, in this jurisdiction is
that the writ of prohibition is not confined exclusively to courts or tribunals to keep them
within the limits of their own jurisdiction and to prevent them from encroaching upon the
jurisdiction of other tribunals,
205
VOL. 64, MARCH 13, 1937
205
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
but will issue, in appropriate cases, to an officer or person whose acts are without or in
excess of his authority. Not infrequently, "the writ is granted, where it is necessary for the
orderly administration of justice, or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
oppressive or vindictive manner, or a multiplicity of actions." (Dimayuga and Fajardo vs.
Fernandez [1923], 43 Phil., 304, 307.)
The more important question raised refers to the alleged violation of the Constitution by the
respondent in issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirtythird
International Eucharistic Congress. It is alleged that this action of the respondent is violative
of the provisions of section 13, subsection 3, Article VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines,
which provides as follows:
"No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher,
minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage,
or leprosarium."
The prohibition herein expressed is a direct corollary of the principle of separation of church
and state. Without the necessity of adverting to the historical background of this principle in
our country, it is sufficient to say that our history, not to speak of the history of mankind, has
taught us that the union of church and state is prejudicial to both, for occasions might arise
when the state will use the church, and the church the state, as a weapon in the furtherance
of their respective ends and aims. The Malolos Constitution recognized this principle of
separation of church and state in the early stages of our constitutional development; it was
inserted in the Treaty of Paris between the United States and Spain of December 10, 1898,
reiterated in Pres206
206
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
ident McKinley's Instructions to the Philippine Commission, reaffirmed in the Philippine Bill of
1902 and in the Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, and finally embodied in the Constitution
of the Philippines as the supreme expression of the Filipino people. It is almost trite to say
now that in this country we enjoy both religious and civil freedom. All the officers of the
Government, from the highest to the lowest, in taking their oath to support and defend the
Constitution, bind themselves to recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of
religious freedom, with its inherent limitations and recognized implications. 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 is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a
profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is
recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its
influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. When the Filipino people, in the preamble of
their Constitution, implored "the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government
that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote
the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of
independence under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy," 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. In fact, certain general concessions are indiscriminately
accorded to religious sects and denominations. Our Constitution and laws exempt from
taxation properties devoted exclusively to religious purposes (sec. 14, subsec. 3, Art. VI,
Constitution of the Philippines and sec. 1, subsec. 4, Ordinance appended thereto;
207
VOL. 64, MARCH 13, 1937
207
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
Assessment Law, sec. 344, par. [c], Adm. Code). Sectarian aid is not prohibited when a
priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher or dignitary as such is assigned to the
armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage or leprosarium (sec. 13, subsec. 3, Art.
VI, Constitution of the Philippines). Optional religious instruction in the public schools is by
constitutional mandate allowed (sec. 5, Art. XIII, Constitution of the Philippines, in relation to
sec. 928, Adm. Code). Thursday and Friday of Holy Week, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day,
and Sundays are made legal holidays (sec. 29, Adm. Code) because of the secular idea that
their observance is conducive to beneficial moral results. The law allows divorce but
punishes polygamy and bigamy; and certain crimes against religious worship are considered
crimes against the fundamental laws of the state (see arts. 132 and 133, Revised Penal
Code).
In the case at bar, it appears that the respondent Director of Posts issued the postage
stamps in question under the provisions of Act No. 4052 of the Philippine Legislature. This
Act is as follows:
"No. 4052.AN ACT APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS AND MAKING
THE SAME AVAILABLE OUT OF ANY FUNDS IN THE INSULAR TREASURY NOT OTHERWISE
APPROPRIATED FOR THE COST OF PLATES AND PRINTING OF POSTAGE STAMPS WITH NEW
DESIGNS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Legislature
assembled and by the authority of the same:
"SECTION 1. The sum of sixty thousand pesos is hereby appropriated and made immediately
available out of any funds in the Insular Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the cost of
plates and printing of postage stamps with new designs, and other expenses incident
thereto.
208
208
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
"SEC. 2. The Director of Posts, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, is hereby authorized to dispose of the whole or any portion of the amount
herein appropriated in the manner indicated and as often as may be deemed advantageous
to the Government.
"SEC. 3. This amount or any portion thereof not otherwise expended shall not revert to the
Treasury.
"SEC. 4. This act shall take effect on its approval.
"Approved, February 21, 1933."
It will be seen that the Act appropriates the sum of sixty thousand pesos for the cost of
plates and printing of postage stamps with new designs and other expenses incident
thereto, and 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 Govvernment". The printing and
issuance of the postage stamps in question appears to have been approved by authority of
the President of the Philippines in a letter dated September 1, 1936, made part of the
respondent's memorandum as Exhibit A. The respondent alleges that the Government of the
Philippines would suffer losses if the writ prayed for is granted. He estimates the revenue to
be derived from the sale of the postage stamps in question at P1,618,179.10 and states that
there still remain to be sold stamps worth P1,402,279.02.
Act No. 4052 contemplates no religious purpose in view. What it gives the Director of Posts is
the discretionary power to determine when the issuance of special postage stamps would be
"advantageous to the Government." Of course, the phrase "advantageous to the
Government" does not authorize the violation of the Constitution. It does not authorize the
appropriation, use or application of public money or property for the use, benefit or support
of a par209
VOL. 64, MARCH 13, 1937
209
Aglipay vs. Riuz
ticular sect or church. In the present case, however, the issuance of the postage stamps in
question by the Director of Posts and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications was
not inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination.
The stamps were not issued and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor were
money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church. On the contrary, it appears
from the letter of the Director of Posts of June 5, 1936, incorporated on page 2 of the
petitioner's complaint, that the only purpose in issuing and selling the stamps was "to
advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists to this country." The officials concerned
merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance "to give publicity
to the Philippines and its people" (Letter of the Undersecretary of Public Works and
Communications to the President of the Philippines, June 9, 1936; p. 3, petitioner's
complaint). It is significant to note that the stamps' as actually designed and printed (Exhibit
2), instead of showing a Catholic Church chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the
Philippines and the location of the City of Manila, and an inscription as follows: "Seat XXXIII
International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937." What is emphasized is not the
Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila, the capital of the Philippines, as the seat of that
congress. It is obvious that while 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. We are of the opinion that 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
210
210
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
undertaken by appropriate legislation. The main purpose should not be frustrated by its
subordination to mere incidental results not contemplated. (Vide Bradfield vs. Roberts, 175
U. S., 295; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep., 121; 44 Law. ed., 168.)
We are much impressed with the vehement appeal of counsel for the petitioner to maintain
inviolate the complete separation of church and state and curb any attempt to infringe by
indirection a constitutional inhibition. Indeed, in the Philippines, once the scene of religious
intolerance and persecution, care should be taken that at this stage of our political
development nothing is done by the Government or its officials that may lead to the belief
that the Government is taking sides or favoring a particular religious sect or institution, But,
upon very serious reflection, examination of Act No. 4052, and scrutiny of the attending
circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that there has been no constitutional
infraction in the case at bar. Act No. 4052 grants the Director of Posts, with the approval of
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, discretion to issue postage stamps with
new designs "as often as may be deemed advantageous to the Government." Even if we
were to assume that these officials made use of a poor judgment in issuing and selling the
postage stamps in question still, the case of the petitioner would fail to take in weight.
Between the exercise of a poor judgment and the unconstitutionality of the step taken, a
gap. exists which is yet to be filled to justify the court in setting aside the official act assailed
as coming within a constitutional inhibition.
The petition for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied, without pronouncement as to
costs. So ordered.
Avancea, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
211
VOL. 64, MARCH 18, 1937
211
Santos vs. Castillo
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
