G.R. No.

L-45459 March 13, 1937

GREGORIO AGLIPAY, petitioner,
vs.
JUAN RUIZ, respondent.
Vicente Sotto for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor-General Tuason for respondent.
LAUREL, J.:
The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent
Church, sees the issuance from this court of a !rit of prohi"ition to prevent the respondent
#irector of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty$third
International %ucharistic Congress.
In May, &'(), the #irector of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he !ould order
the issues of postage stamps commemorating the cele"ration in the City of Manila of the
Thirty$third international %ucharistic Congress, organi*ed "y the +oman Catholic Church.
The petitioner, in the fulfillment of !hat he considers to "e a civic duty, re,uested -icente
Sotto, %s,., mem"er of the Philippine .ar, to denounce the matter to the President of the
Philippines. In spite of the protest of the petitioner/s attorney, the respondent pu"licly
announced having sent to the 0nited States the designs of the postage stamps for printing
as follo!s1
2In the center is chalice, !ith grape vine and stals of !heat as "order design. The stamps
are "lue, green, "ro!n, cardinal red, violet and orange, & inch "y &,3'4 inches. The
denominations are for 5, ), &), 53, () and 63 centavos.2 The said stamps !ere actually
issued and sold though the greater part thereof, to this day, remains unsold. The further sale
of the stamps is sought to "e prevented "y the petitioner herein.
The Solicitor$General contends that the !rit of prohi"ition is not the proper legal remedy in
the instant case, although he admits that the !rit may properly restrain ministerial functions.
7hile, generally, prohi"ition as an e8traordinary legal !rit !ill not issue to restrain or control
the performance of other than 9udicial or ,uasi$9udicial functions :63 C. ;., )6<3, its issuance
and enforcement are regulated "y statute and in this 9urisdiction may issue to . . . inferior
tri"unals, corporations, "oards, or persons, !hether e8cercising functions 9udicial or
ministerial, !hich are !ithout or in e8cess of the 9urisdiction of such tri"unal, corporation,
"oard, or person, . . . .2 :Secs. 6&) and 55), Code of Civil Procedure.= The terms 29udicial2
and 2ministerial2 used !ith reference to 2functions2 in the statute are undou"tedly
comprehensive and include the challenged act of the respondent #irector of Posts in the
present case, !hich act "ecause alleged to "e violative of the Constitution is a
fortiorari 2!ithout or in e8cess of . . . 9urisdiction.2 The statutory rule, therefore, in the
9urisdiction is that the !rit of prohi"ition is not confined e8clusively to courts or tri"unals to
eep them !ithin the limits of their o!n 9urisdiction and to prevent them from encroaching
upon the 9urisdiction of other tri"unals, "ut !ill issue, in appropriate cases, to an officer or
person !hose acts are !ithout or in e8cess of his authority. >ot infre,uently, 2the !rit is
granted, !here it is necessary for the orderly administration of 9ustice, or to prevent the use
of the strong arm of the la! in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or a multiplicity of
actions.2 :#imayuga and ?a9ardo vs. ?ernande* @&'5(A, 4( Phil., (34, (3B.=
The more important ,uestion raised refers to the alleged violation of the Constitution "y the
respondent in issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty$third
International %ucharistic Congress. It is alleged that this action of the respondent is violative
of the provisions of section 5(, su"section (, Article -I, of the Constitution of the Philippines,
!hich provides as follo!s1
>o pu"lic money or property shall ever "e appropriated, applied, or used, directly or
indirectly, for the use, "enefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination,
secretarian, institution, or system of religion, or for the use, "enefit, or support of any
priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, e8cept
!hen such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or
to any penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.
The prohi"ition herein e8pressed is a direct corollary of the principle of separation of church
and state. 7ithout the necessity of adverting to the historical "acground of this principle in
our country, it is sufficient to say that our history, not to spea of the history of manind, has
taught us that the union of church and state is pre9udicial to "oth, for ocassions might 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 early
stages of our constitutional developmentC it !as inserted in the Treaty of Paris "et!een the
0nited States and Spain of #ecem"er &3, &<'<, reiterated in President McDinley/s
Instructions of the Philippine Commission, reaffirmed in the Philippine .ill of &'35 and in the
autonomy Act of August 5', &'&), and finally em"odied in the constitution of the Philippines
as the supreme e8pression of the ?ilipino people. It is almost trite to say no! that in this
country !e en9oy "oth religious and civil freedom. All the officers of the Government, from
the highest to the lo!est, in taing their oath to support and defend the constitution, "ind
themselves to recogni*e and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, !ith
its inherent limitations and recogni*ed implications. It should "e stated that !hat is
guaranteed "y our Constitution is religious li"erty, not mere religious toleration.
+eligious freedom, ho!ever, as a constitutional mandate is not inhi"ition of profound
reverence for religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs. +eligion as a
profession of faith to an active po!er that "inds and elevates man to his Creator is
recogni*ed. And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its
influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. 7hen the ?ilipino people, in the pream"le of
their Constitution, implored 2the aid of Divine Providence, in order to esta"lish a government
that shall em"ody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote
the general !elfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the "lessings of
independence under a regime of 9ustice, li"erty and democracy,2 they there"y manifested
reliance upon Him !ho guides the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of
religion in human society is recogni*ed here as else!here. In fact, certain general
concessions are indiscriminately accorded to religious sects and denominations. Eur
Constitution and la!s e8empt from ta8ation properties devoted e8clusively to religious
purposes :sec. &4, su"sec. (, Art. -I, Constitution of the Philippines and sec. &, su"sec. 4,
Erdinance appended theretoC Assessment Fa!, sec. (44, par. @cA. Adm. Code=. Sectarian
aid is not prohi"ited !hen 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. &(, su"sec. (, Art. -I, Constitution of the Philippines=. Eptional religious
instruction in the pu"lic schools is "y constitutional mandate allo!ed :sec. 6, Art. GIII,
Constitution of the Philippines, in relation to sec. '5<, Adm. Code=. Thursday and ?riday of
Holy 7ee, Thansgiving #ay, Christmas #ay, and Sundays and made legal holidays :sec.
5', Adm. Code= "ecause of the secular idea that their o"servance is conclusive to "eneficial
moral results. The la! allo!s divorce "ut punishes polygamy and "igamyC and certain
crimes against religious !orship are considered crimes against the fundamental la!s of the
state :see arts. &(5 and &((, +evised Penal Code=.
In the case at "ar, it appears that the respondent #irector of Posts issued the postage
stamps in ,uestion under the provisions of Act >o. 4365 of the Philippine Fegislature. This
Act is as follo!s1
>o. 4365. H A> ACT APP+EP+IATI>G TH% S0M E? SIGTI THE0SA># P%SES
A># MADI>G TH% SAM% A-AIFA.F% E0T E? A>I ?0>#S I> TH% I>S0FA+
T+%AS0+I >ET ETH%+7IS% APP+EP+IAT%# ?E+ TH% CEST E? PFAT%S
A># P+I>TI>G E? PESTAG% STAMPS 7ITH >%7 #%SIG>S, A># ?E+ ETH%+
P0+PES%S.
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"e1
S%CTIE> &. The sum of si8ty thousand pesos is here"y appropriated and made
immediately availa"le out of any funds in the Insular Treasury not other!ise appropriated,
for the costs of plates and printing of postage stamps !ith ne! designs, and other e8penses
incident thereto.
S%C. 5. The #irector of Posts, !ith the approval of the Secretary of Pu"lic 7ors and
Communications, is here"y authori*ed to dispose of the !hole or any portion of the amount
herein appropriated in the manner indicated and as often as may "e deemed advantageous
to the Government.
S%C. (. This amount or any portion thereof not other!ise e8pended shall not revert to the
Treasury.
S%C. 4. This act shall tae effect on its approval.
Approved, ?e"ruary 5&, &'((.
It !ill "e seen that the Act appropriates the sum of si8ty thousand pesos for the costs of
plates and printing of postage stamps !ith ne! designs and other e8penses incident
thereto, and authori*es the #irector of Posts, !ith the approval of the Secretary of Pu"lic
7ors and Communications, to dispose of the amount appropriated in the manner indicated
and 2as often as may "e deemed advantageous to the Government2. The printing and
issuance of the postage stamps in ,uestion appears to have "een approved "y authority of
the President of the Philippines in a letter dated Septem"er &, &'(), made part of the
respondent/s memorandum as %8hi"it A. The respondent alleges that the Government of
the Philippines !ould suffer losses if the !rit prayed for is granted. He estimates the
revenue to "e derived from the sale of the postage stamps in ,uestion at P&,)&<,&B.&3 and
states that there still remain to "e sold stamps !orth P&,435,5B'.35.
Act >o. 4365 contemplates no religious purpose in vie!. 7hat it gives the #irector of Posts
is the discretionary po!er to determine !hen the issuance of special postage stamps !ould
"e 2advantageous to the Government.2 Ef course, the phrase 2advantageous to the
Government2 does not authori*e the violation of the Constitution. It does not authori*e the
appropriation, use or application of pu"lic money or property for the use, "enefit or support
of a particular sect or church. In the present case, ho!ever, the issuance of the postage
stamps in ,uestion "y the #irector of Posts and the Secretary of Pu"lic 7ors and
Communications !as not inspired "y any sectarian denomination. The stamps !ere not
issue and sold for the "enefit of the +oman Catholic Church. >or !ere money derived from
the sale of the stamps given to that church. En the contrary, it appears from the latter of the
#irector of Posts of ;une 6, &'(), incorporated on page 5 of the petitioner/s complaint, that
the only purpose in issuing and selling the stamps !as 2to advertise the Philippines and
attract more tourist to this country.2 The officials concerned merely, too advantage of an
event considered of international importance 2to give pu"licity to the Philippines and its
people2 :Fetter of the 0ndersecretary of Pu"lic 7ors and Communications to the President
of the Philippines, ;une ', &'()C p. (, petitioner/s complaint=. It is significant to note that the
stamps as actually designed and printed :%8hi"it 5=, instead of sho!ing 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 follo!s1 2Seat GGGIII International %ucharistic Congress,
?e". ($B,&'(B.2 7hat is emphasi*ed is not the %ucharistic Congress itself "ut Manila, the
capital of the Philippines, as the seat of that congress. It is o"vious that !hile the issuance
and sale of the stamps in ,uestion may "e said to "e insepara"ly lined !ith an event of a
religious character, the resulting propaganda, if any, received "y the +oman Catholic
Church, !as not the aim and purpose of the Government. 7e are of the opinion that the
Government should not "e em"arassed in its activities simply "ecause of incidental results,
more or less religious in character, if the purpose had in vie! is one !hich could legitimately
"e undertaen "y appropriate legislation. The main purpose should not "e frustrated "y its
su"ordinate to mere incidental results not contemplated. :-ide .radfield vs. +o"erts, &B6 0.
S., 5'6C 53 Sup. Ct. +ep., &5&C 44 Fa!. ed., &)<.=
7e are much impressed !ith the vehement appeal of counsel for the petitioner to maintain
inviolate the complete separation of church and state and cur" any attempt to infringe "y
indirection a constitutional inhi"ition. Indeed, in the Philippines, once the scene of religious
intolerance and prescription, care should "e taen that at this stage of our political
development nothing is done "y the Government or its officials that may lead to the "elief
that the Government is taing sides or favoring a particular religious sect or institution. .ut,
upon very serious reflection, e8amination of Act >o. 4365, and scrutiny of the attending
circumstances, !e have come to the conclusion that there has "een no constitutional
infraction in the case at "ar, Act >o. 4365 grants the #irector of Posts, !ith the approval of
the Secretary of Pu"lic 7ors and Communications, discretion to misuse postage stamps
!ith ne! designs 2as often as may "e deemed advantageous to the Government.2 %ven if
!e !ere to assume that these officials made use of a poor 9udgment in issuing and selling
the postage stamps in ,uestion still, the case of the petitioner !ould fail to tae in !eight.
.et!een the e8ercise of a poor 9udgment and the unconstitutionality of the step taen, a
gap e8ists !hich is yet to "e filled to 9ustify the court in setting aside the official act assailed
as coming !ithin a constitutional inhi"ition.
The petition for a !rit of prohi"ition is here"y denied, !ithout pronouncement as to costs.
So ordered.
#vance$a% &.'.% Villa-Real% #bad Santos% ("perial% Dia) and &oncepcion% ''.% concur.