CASE DIGEST
Facts: Plaintiff-appellant is a foreign,
non-stock, non-profit, religious, missionary corporation duly registered and
doing business in the Philippines through its Philippine agency established in
Manila in November, 1898. The defendant appellee is a municipal corporation
with powers that are to be exercised in conformity with the provisions of
Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila.
During
the course of its ministry, plaintiff sold bibles and other religious materials
at a very minimal profit.
On
May 29 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed plaintiff
that it was conducting the business of general merchandise since November,
1945, without providing itself with the necessary Mayor's permit and municipal
license, in violation of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos.
2529, 3028 and 3364, and required plaintiff to secure, within three days, the
corresponding permit and license fees, together with compromise covering the
period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, in the total
sum of P5,821.45 (Annex A).
Plaintiff
now questions the imposition of such fees.
Issue: Whether or not the said
ordinances are constitutional and valid (contention: it restrains the free
exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of appellant).
Held: Section 1, subsection (7) of
Article III of the Constitution, provides that:
(7)
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights. The provision aforequoted is a constitutional guaranty of the
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, which carries
with it the right to disseminate religious information.
It
may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the bibles and other
religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual
cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant was engaged in the
business or occupation of selling said "merchandise" for profit. For
this reason. The Court believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance
No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it would
impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship
as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
With
respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, the Court do not find that it
imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution,
nor tax the exercise of religious practices.
It
seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered
unconstitutional, however inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of
the plaintiff. As to Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila, as amended, is
also not applicable, so defendant is powerless to license or tax the business
of plaintiff Society.
No comments:
Post a Comment