Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Church and State - Establishment Clause

Church and State - Establishment Clause



|Views: 281|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 10, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





consti part 9: the church & the state
Art II sec 6.
The separation of Church and State shallbe inviolable.
Art III sec 5.
No law shall be made respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercisethereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religiousprofession and worship, without discrimination orpreference, shall forever be allowed. No religious testshall be required for the exercise of civil or politicalrights.
Art VI sec 29(2).
No public money or property shall beappropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly orindirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,church, denomination, sectarian institution, or systemof religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, otherreligious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when suchpriest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to thearmed forces, or to any penal institution, or governmentorphanage or leprosarium.
Establishment Clause
Justice Laurel1937FACTS:
On May 1936, respondent announced in thenewspapers that he would order of postagestamps commemorating the 33
InternationalEucharistic Congress under
Act No. 4052
Petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, SupremeHead of the Phil. Independent Church(Aglipayan), seeks a writ of prohibition toprevent respondent Director of Posts fromissuing and selling postage stampscommemorative of the said Congress.
Petitioner alleges that respondent inissuing and selling the postage stampsviolated the Constitutional provision onthe principle of separation of churchand state, specifically section 13,subsection 3, Art. VI which says:
“Nopublic money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used,directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,church, denomination… or system of religion…”
WON respondent violated the Constitution inissuing and selling the postage stamps.
No constitutional infraction.
History of Separation of Church and State:
“… our history, not to speak of the history of mankind, has taught us that the union of church and state is prejudicial to both, foroccasions might arise when the state will use thechurch, and the church the state, as a weaponin the furtherance of their respective ends andaims.”
 This principle was recognized in the MalolosConstitution, inserted in the Treaty of Paris, inthe instructions of McKinley to the Phil.Commission… and finally embodied in theConstitution as the supreme expression of theFilipino people.
Filipino’s enjoy both civil and religious freedom
guaranteed in the Consti
What is guaranteed by our Constitutionis religious liberty, not merely religioustoleration.
Religious Freedom:
Religious Freedom as a constitutional mandateis not inhibition of profound reverence forreligion and is not a denial of its influence inhuman affairs.
Imploring “the aid of 
Divine Providence 
,in order to establish a gov’t that shallembody their ideals…” in the preambleof the Constitution.
General Concessions indiscriminately accordedto religious sects:
 Tax exemptions properties devotedexclusively to religious purposes
Sectarian aid is not prohibited when apriest, preacher, etc. is assigned to thearmed forces, penal institution,orphanage or leprosarium.
Optional religious instruction in publicschools is allowed by constitutionalmandate, etc.
Act No. 4052
, from which draws authority toissue and sell the stamps contemplates noreligious purpose, but gives the Director of thePosts the discretionary power to determine whenthe issuance of special postage stamps would be“advantageous to the Government.”
 The present case was not inspired by anysectarian feeling to favor a particular religiousdenomination.
 The stamps were not issued for thebenefit of the Roman Catholic Church,nor were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to the church.
Purpose of the stamps was “to advertisethe Philippines and attract more touriststo the country
officials tookadvantage of an internationallyimportant event to give publicity to thePhilippines and its people.
consti 2 all stars1
consti part 9: the church & the state
 The stamp as actually printedinstead of showing a CatholicChurch chalice as originallyplanned, contains a map of thePhilippines and the location of the City of Manila with theinscription Seat XXXIIIInternational EucharisticCongress, Feb. 3-7, 1937.”
What is emphasized isnot the Congress butManila, the capital of the Philippines, as the
of that congress.
 The propaganda resulting from theissuance and sale of the staff mightredound to the benefit of the RomanCatholic Church but this was not theintention and is only incidental to theoriginal purpose.
“We are of the opinion that theGovernment should not beembarrassed in its activitiessimply because of incidentalresults, more or less religious incharacter, if the purpose had inview is one which couldlegitimately be undertaken byappropriate legislation.”
 There may have peen poor judgment inissuing and selling the stamp but a gapstill exists between that and theunconstitutionality of the issuance andsale which was not filled by thepetitioner.
1. On March 23, 1976, the said barangay counciladopted Resolution No. 5, "reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration" every fifth day of April "of the feastday of Señor San Vicente Ferrer, the patron saint of Valencia". lt provided for (1) the acquisition of the imageof San Vicente Ferrer and (2) the construction of a waiting shed as the barangay's projects. Funds for thetwo projects would be obtained through the selling of tickets and cash donations "2. On March 26, 1976, the barangay council passedResolution No. 6 which specified that, in accordance with the practice in Eastern Leyte, Councilman TomasCabatingan, the Chairman or
hermano mayor 
of thefiesta, would be the caretaker of the image of SanVicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in hisresidence for one year and until the election of hissuccessor as chairman of the next feast day. It wasfurther provided in the resolution that the image wouldbe made available to the Catholic parish church duringthe celebration of the saint's feast day. It was ratified ina plebiscite.3. Funds were raised by means of solicitations and cashdonations of the barangay residents and those of theneighboring places of Valencia. With those funds, the waiting shed was constructed and the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer was acquired in Cebu City by thebarangay council for four hundred pesos4. On April 5, 1976, the image was temporarily placed inthe altar of the Catholic church of Barangay Valencia sothat the devotees could worship the saint during themass for the fiesta. A controversy arose after the mass when the parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao Osmeñarefused to return that image to the barangay council onthe pretext that it was the property of the churchbecause church funds were used for its acquisition.5. Several days after the fiesta or on April 11, 1976, onthe occasion of his sermon during a mass, FatherOsmeña allegedly uttered defamatory remarks againstthe barangay captain, Manuel C. Veloso, apparently inconnection with the disputed image. That incidentprovoked Veloso to file against Father Osmeña in the citycourt of Ormoc City a charge for grave oral defamation.6. Father Osmeña retaliated by filing administrativecomplaints against Veloso with the city mayor's officeand the Department of Local Government andCommunity Development on the grounds of immorality,grave abuse of authority, acts unbecoming a publicofficial and ignorance of the law.7. Meanwhile, the image of San Vicente Ferrer remainedin the Catholic church of Valencia. Because FatherOsmeña did not accede to the request of Cabatingan tohave custody of the image and "maliciously ignored" thecouncil's Resolution No. 6, the council enacted on May12, 1976 Resolution No. 10, authorizing the hiring of alawyer to file a replevin case against Father Osmeña forthe recovery of the image8. The replevin case was filed in the city court of OrmocCity against Father Osmeña and Bishop Cipriano Urgel.After the barangay council had posted a cash bond of eight hundred pesos, Father Osmeña turned over theimage to the council ln his answer to the complaint forreplevin, he assailed the constitutionality of the saidresolutions.9. Later, he and three other persons, Andres Garces, amember of the Aglipayan Church, and two Catholiclaymen, Jesus Edullantes and Nicetas Dagar, filedagainst the barangay council and its members (excludingtwo members) a complaint in the Court of First Instanceat Ormoc City, praying for the annulment of the saidresolutions (Their main argument was it prejudicedmembers of the Catholic Church because they could seethe image in the church only once a year or during thefiesta. <Labo dud!> )
consti 2 all stars2
consti part 9: the church & the state
10. Lower Court dismissed the complaints.
1)WON that the barangay council was not dulyconstituted because lsidoro M. Mañago, Jr., thechairman of the kabataang barangay, was notallowed to participate in its sessions? NO
In this case, Mañago, the barangay youth chairman, wasnotified of the sessions of the barangay council to beheld on March 23 and 26, 1976 but he was not able toattend those sessions because he was working with aconstruction company based at Ipil, Ormoc City.Mañago's absence from the sessions of the barangaycouncil did not render the said resolutions void. There was a quorum when the said resolutions were passed.2)WON the resolutions contravene theconstitutional provisions that "no law shall bemade respecting an establishment of religion"and that "no public money or property shall everbe appropriated, applied, paid, or used, directlyor indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarianinstitution, or system of religion, or for the use,benefit, or support of any priest, preacher,minister, or other religious teacher or dignitaryas such. except when such priest, preacher,minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armedforces, or to any penal institution, orgovernment orphanage or leprosarium? (haba,hehe) NO
 The wooden image was purchased in connection with thecelebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint,San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoringany religion nor interfering with religious matters or thereligious beliefs of the barrio residents. One of thehighlights of the fiesta was the mass. Consequently, theimage of the patron saint had to be placed in the church when the mass was celebrated.If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding afiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, then anyactivity intended to facilitate the worship of the patronsaint (such as the acquisition and display of his image)cannot be branded as illegal. The barangay council designated a layman as thecustodian of the wooden image in order to forestall anysuspicion that it is favoring the Catholic church. A morepractical reason for that arrangement would be that theimage, if placed in a layman's custody, could easily bemade available to any family desiring to borrow theimage in connection with prayers and novenas. This case is a petty quarrel over the custody of a saint'simage. lt would never have arisen if the parties had beenmore diplomatic and tactful and if Father Osmeña hadtaken the trouble of causing contributions to be solicitedfrom his own parishioners for the purchase of 
another image 
of San Vicente Ferrer to be installed in his church. There can be no question that the image in questionbelongs to the barangay council. Father Osmeña claimthat it belongs to his church is wrong. The barangaycouncil, as owner of the image, has the right todetermine who should have custody thereof.If it chooses to change its mind and decides to give theimage to the Catholic church, that action would notviolate the Constitution because the image was acquired with
 private funds 
and is its private property. The council has the right to take measures to recoverpossession of the image by enacting Resolutions Nos. 10and 12.Not every governmental activity which involves theexpenditure of public funds and which has somereligious tint is violative of the constitutional provisionsregarding separation of church and state, freedom of  worship and banning the use of public money orproperty.(Lower Court’s decision affirmed)
 This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earlyv. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). Thecases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvaniaand Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute providedfinancial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, andinstructional materials for secular subjects to non-publicschools. The Rhode Island statute provided directsupplemental salary payments to teachers in non-publicelementary schools. Each statute made aid available to"church-related educational institutions."
Question Presented 
Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violatethe First Amendment's Establishment Clause by makingstate financial aid available to "church-relatededucational institutions"?
Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burgerarticulated a three-part test for laws dealing withreligious establishment. To be constitutional, a statutemust have "a secular legislative purpose," it must haveprincipal effects which neither advance nor inhibitreligion, and it must not foster "an excessive governmententanglement with religion." The Court found that the
consti 2 all stars3

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
giabang_py liked this
giabang_py liked this
malayachechi liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->