Aglipay v.

Ruiz
GR 45459, 13 March 1937 (64 Phil 201) First Division, Laurel (p): 5 concur.

Facts:
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 33rd International
Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio
Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, in the fulfillment of what he considers
to be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto, Esq., member of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter
to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of the petitioners attorney, the Director of
Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of the postage for printing. The
said stamps were actually issued and sold though the greater part thereof remained unsold. The further
sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner.

Issue:
Whether the issuance of the postage stamps was in violation of the Constitution.

Held:
Religious freedom 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. Act 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; i.e.
to appropriate, use or apply of public money or property for the use, benefit or support of a particular
sect or church. In the case at bar, the issuance of the postage stamps was not inspired by any sectarian
feeling to favor a particular church or religious denominations. 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. The purpose of the issuing of the stamps was to take advantage of an event considered
of international importance to give publicity to the Philippines and its people and attract more tourists
to the country. Thus, instead of showing a Catholic chalice, the stamp contained a map of the
Philippines, the location of the City of Manila, and an inscription that reads Seat XXXIII International
Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition, without pronouncement as to costs

Page 1 of 3
Aglipay v Ruiz 64 PHIL 201 (1937)
Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts from
issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress.
Petitioner contends that such act is a violation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public
funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any church, system of religion, etc. This provision
is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for the purpose of avoiding the occasion
wherein the state will use the church, or vice versa, as a weapon to further their ends and aims.
Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for the
appropriation funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be
advantageous to the government.

Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion.

Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration. It
is however not an 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. The phrase in Act No. 4052 advantageous to the
government does not authorize violation of the Constitution. The issuance of the stamps was not
inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. They were not sold for
the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. The postage stamps, instead of showing a Catholic chalice
as originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila, with the words Seat
XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress. The focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress
but the city of Manila, being the seat of that congress. This was to to advertise the Philippines and
attract more tourists, the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international
importance. Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic
Church, any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the
Government.

Aglipay v. Ruiz, GR No. L-45459, March 13, 1937

Facts:

Petitioner Aglipay, the head of Phil. Independent Church, filed a writ of prohibition against
respondent Ruiz, the Director of Post, enjoining the latter from issuing and selling postage stamps
commemorative of the 33rd Intl Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic. The
petitioner invokes that such issuance and selling, as authorized by Act 4052 by the Phil. Legislature,
contemplates religious purpose for the benefit of a particular sect or church. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps is constitutional?

Held/Reason:

The Court said YES, the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps by the respondent does not
contemplate any favor upon a particular sect or church, but the purpose was only to advertise the
Philippines and attract more tourist and the government just took advantage of an event considered of
international importance, thus, not violating the Constitution on its provision on the separation of the
Church and State. Moreover, the Court stressed that Religious freedom, as a constitutional mandate is
not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs.

Page 2 of 3
Emphasizing that, when the Filipino people implored the aid of Divine Providence, they thereby
manifested 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.

Case DIgest: Aglipay vs Ruiz

Facts of the Case:

The Director of Posts announced on May 1936 in Manila newspapers that he would order the issuance
of postage stamps for the commemoration of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress celebration
in the City of Manila. The said event was organized by the Roman Catholic Church. Monsignor
Gregorio Aglipay, the petitioner, is the Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church,
requested Vicente Sotto who is a member of the Philippine Bar to raise the matter to the President.
The said stamps in consideration were actually issued already and sold though the greater part thereof
remained unsold. The further sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated the Constitution in issuing and selling postage stamps
commemorative of the Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress

Held:

No, the respondent did not violate the Constitution by issuing and selling the commemorative postage
stamps. Ruiz acted under the provision of Act No. 4052, which contemplates no religious purpose in
view, giving the Director of Posts the discretion to determine when the issuance of new postage
stamps would be advantageous to the Government. Of course, the phrase advantageous to the
Government does not authorize the violation of the Constitution. In the case at bar, the issuance of
the postage stamps was not intended by Ruiz to favor a particular church or denomination. The stamps
did not benefit the Roman Catholic Church, nor were money derived from the sale of the stamps
given to that church. The purpose of issuing of the stamps was to actually take advantage of an
international event considered to be a great opportunity to give publicity to the Philippines and as a
result attract more tourists to the country. In evaluating the design made for the stamp, it showed the
map of the Philippines instead of showing a Catholic chalice. The focus was on the location of the
City of Manila, and it also bore the inscription that reads Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic
Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937. In considering these, it is evident that there is no violation of the
Constitution therefore the act of the issuing of the stamps is constitutional.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition, without pronouncement as to costs.

Page 3 of 3