Aglipay Vs.

Ruiz
64Phil 201:206
GR# L-45459
March 13, 1937
FACTS:
The 33rd International Eucharistic Congress Organized by the Roman Catholic Church took
place sometimes in 1936, In commemoration thereof, then Director of posts Juan Ruiz inniated
the production of certain stamps that the sign of which would have in their center a chalice with
grape and stalks of wheat as boarder design. eventually the stamps were produced and some
were sold pursuant to act no. 4052 which provides for appropriation.
Gregorio Aglipay, the head of the church assailed the production and sale of such stamps.
Aglipay contends that the funding of said stamps commemorative to a particular religious event
is in violation of Sec-13 Article 6 of the Philippine Constitution which prohibits the appropriation
or usage of public money for the use or benefit of any church denomination.

ISSUE:
Wether the production of the said stamps violate the constitution particularly Sec. 13 Article 6

RULING:
No. the sale of stamps is not in violation of the Constitution. In fact, what was emphasized on
the stamp was not the religious event itself but rather the city of Manila as being the seat of
such event. Act No. 4052 on the other hand did not appropriate any public money to a religious
event. Act No. 4052 appropriated the cost of plate and printing of postage stamps with new
design and other expenses incident thereof and merely authorizes the Director of posts with the
approval of the secretary of public works and Communication to dispose of the amount
appropriated in the manner indicated and as open as maybe deemed advantageous to the
government. The fact that the fund is being used for such is only incidental to the function of
director of post and under his discretion.
The Supreme Court noted however that the elevating influence of religion is recognized here as
else where. Evidence would be our Preamble when we implored the aid of divine providence to
establish an ideal government. It should also be further noted that the religious freedom as a
Constitutional mandate is not an inhibition of profound revence to religion.