1

G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v

CITY O! MANILA
Facts:
In the course of its ministry, plaintiff's Philippine agency has been
distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof throughout
the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects.
The acting City Treasurer of the City of anila re!uired plaintiff to
obtain the necessary ayor's permit and municipal license fees, together
"ith compromise covering the period from the #th !uarter of $%#& to the
'nd !uarter of $%&(. Plaintiff paid to the defendant under protest the said
permit and license fees and !uestion the legality of the ordinances under
"hich the said fees "ere being collected.
Issue:
)hether the municipal ordinances violate the freedom of religious
profession and "orship.
*eld:
The constitutional guaranty of the free e+ercise and en,oyment of
religious profession and "orship carries "ith it the right to disseminate
religious information. -ny restraints of such right can only be ,ustified
li.e other restraints of freedom of e+pression on the grounds that there is
a clear and present danger of any substantive evil "hich the /tate has the
right to prevent.
)e have here something !uite different, for e+ample, from a ta+ on the
income of one "ho engages in religious activities or a ta+ on property
used or employed in connection "ith activities. It is one thing to impose a
ta+ on the income or property of a preacher. It is !uite another to e+act a
ta+ from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. The po"er to ta+
the e+ercise of a privilege is the po"er to control or suppress its
en,oyment.
It may be true that in the case at bar the price as.ed for the bibles and
other religious pamphlets "as in some instances a little bit higher than the
actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant "as engaged
in the business or occupation of selling said 0merchandise0 for profit. For
this reason )e believe that the provisions of City of anila 1rdinance
2o. '&'%, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it
"ould impair its free e+ercise and en,oyment of its religious profession
and "orship as "ell as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
It seems clear, therefore, that 1rdinance 2o. (333 cannot be considered
unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff /ociety. 4ut as 1rdinance
2o. '&'% of the City of anila, as amended, is not applicable to plaintiff5
appellant and defendant5appellee is po"erless to license or ta+ the
business of plaintiff /ociety involved herein for, as stated before, it "ould
impair plaintiff's right to the free e+ercise and en,oyment of its religious
profession and "orship, as "ell as its rights of dissemination of religious
beliefs, )e find that 1rdinance 2o. (333, as amended is also inapplicable
to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff.