TOPIC Non-establishment of Religion

CASE NO. L – 45459

CASE NAME Aglipay v Ruiz
PONENTE Laurel
PETITIONER Gregorio Aglipay
RESPONDENT Juan Ruiz
TYPE OF CASE Writ of prohibition
MEMBER Pierre Macalino

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Aglipay v Ruiz is a case which tackles the separation of Church and State. Petitioner Aglipay is assailing
the Director of Posts’ action of issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International
Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner alleged that these particular stamps were religious in nature due to their
design donning a Catholic Church chalice in the middle, with grape vines and stalks of wheat as border
design. He argues that this is in direct contravention of the Constitution because the Constitution prohibits
the use of public money to support any system of religion. The issue here is whether issuance of seemingly
religious-related postage stamps violate the non-establishment clause. The Supreme Court ruled that it
doesn’t and said that the Director of Posts’ intention in issuing the stamps was to generate revenue and
attract tourists. It was not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. It was also noted by the Court
that the final design of the stamp did not don the Catholic Church anymore but instead had the map of the
Philippines. While the stamps may be said to be of religious character, the resulting propaganda for the
Church was not the aim or purpose of the Government. The Director merely took advantage of an
international event to give publicity to the Philippines.

DOCTRINE
1. A law which contemplates no religious purpose in view, while it may have links to religion, is not
prohibited by the Constitution.
2. (Obiter in the case, but it relates to the topic) The Philippines should take care of the separation of
the Church and the State in our political development so that there will be no notion that the
Government is taking sides in favoring a particular religious sect or institution.
3. Poor judgement alone is not enough to make unconstitutional a discretionary power, especially
when it requires further validation from another official. (not in the case, but evident)

FACTS
• Petitioner is the head of a Philippine Independent Church. Respondent is the Director of Posts, which
means that he is a public officer.
• Respondent announced in the newspaper that he would start issuing postage stamps commemorating
the celebration of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress which was organized by the Roman
Catholic Church.
o The stamps were initially supposed to have a sigil of the Church, with grapevines and stalks
of wheat as border design. Basically, it would look like affiliated with the Roman Catholic
Church.
o Later, it was found that the design was changed from the Church to the map of the Philippines.
• The stamps never really found traction as most of them were left unsold.
Petitioner’s contends that this would be unconstitutional
• Petitioner opposes this supposed issuance since it would violate the non-establishment clause of the
Constitution. The Constitution states that:
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly
or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination,

1
 sectarian institution,, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any
priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when
such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any
penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium
Respondent defends that he had no intention of promoting any religion
• Respondent says that he only would have done it because it would generate revenue and attract
tourists – considering that the event was an international one.
• He is authorized by law (Act. 4052) to issue new designs with approval of the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications (in this case, he was indeed authorized)

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the Director of Posts’ issuance of postage stamps commemorating a supposedly religious
event is violative of the non-establishment clause? NO
RATIO
• The Director of Posts is granted discretion in using special postage stamps that would be
advantageous to the government.
o In this case, the advantage would have been the purported increased revenue and tourism. The
only real purpose of the Director in issuing the stamps was to advertise the Philippines and
attract more tourists
o The phrase “advantageous to the government” does not authorize the Director or the Secretary
to appropriate public money for the use, benefit, or support of a religious institution. In fact,
the Roman Catholic Church does not profit at all.
o Even if the Director made use of ‘poor judgement’ in issuing the stamps, the petitioner would
still have to fill the huge gap between poor judgement and unconstitutionality.
• The assailed design was eventually redone anyways. What transpired was a design with the map of
the Philippines and the City of Manila in it – thereby proving the main intent of the Director: giving
publicity to the Philippines (note that this case was in 1937 kasi, so maybe they needed it)

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
Wherefore, the petition for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied.

NOTES:
The case also touched on the importance of the separation of the Church and State. It went back to the
history of the Philippines as having a predominantly ‘religious’ government. It recognized the value of
religion in our country by showing that even in the Constitution it is evident through tax exemptions. It also
stated that what is guaranteed by our Constitution is not only religious toleration, but religious liberty.