CASE DIGEST
FACTS: 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.
FACTS: 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 issues 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 Philippine 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
ISSUE
: Whether or not
the selling of stamps in commemorating the Thirty-third International Eucharistic
Congress does not violate the freedom of religion in the constitution?
HELD: YES .The stamps were not issue 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 latter 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 tourist 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. Any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a religious
institution, as long as such benefit was only incidental to a legitimate
secular objective would violate the prohibition.
No comments:
Post a Comment