Scribd
Upload
73 views1 page

Religion - Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510

The barangay council passed two resolutions to hire a lawyer to recover a religious image from a priest after a dispute over ownership. The image was purchased with barangay funds for community celebrations and made available to residents, not for any religious favoritism. The court found no violation of freedom of religion clauses, as using public funds for the image's acquisition and determining its custody did not interfere with residents' beliefs or favor any religion, since the image was intended for community use rather than exclusively for the church. Not every government action involving public money that has religious aspects violates separation of church and state.

Uploaded by

Andre Ates
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
73 views1 page

Religion - Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510

The barangay council passed two resolutions to hire a lawyer to recover a religious image from a priest after a dispute over ownership. The image was purchased with barangay funds for community celebrations and made available to residents, not for any religious favoritism. The court found no violation of freedom of religion clauses, as using public funds for the image's acquisition and determining its custody did not interfere with residents' beliefs or favor any religion, since the image was intended for community use rather than exclusively for the church. Not every government action involving public money that has religious aspects violates separation of church and state.

Uploaded by

Andre Ates
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Garces v.

Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510


Facts:
There are two (2) resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City.
These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and said projects were
implemented. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of
the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio Marilao Osmeña refused to return
the image to the barangay council, as it was the church’s property since church funds
were used in its acquisition.
Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the
replevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image. Resolution No. 12
appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case. The priest, in his
answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest with Andres
Garces, a member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that Sec. 8 Article IV (1) and Sec
18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated.
Issue:
Whether or not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated.
Ruling:
No. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the
image. The image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta
and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or
beliefs of the barrio residents. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron
saint (such as the acquisition) is not illegal. The image was placed in a layman’s
custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the
image in connection with prayers and novena. It was the council’s funds that were used
to buy the image, therefore it is their property. Right of the determination of custody is
their right, and even if they decided to give it to the Church, there is no violation of the
Constitution, since private funds were used. Not every government activity which
involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of
the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of
worship and banning the use of public money or property.
Principle:
Not every governmental activity which involves the expenditure of public funds
and which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding
separation of church and state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public
money or property.

You might also like