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
Consti2-Digests for Cases After Midterms

Consti2-Digests for Cases After Midterms

Ratings: (0)|Views: 579|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





Art II sec 6.
The separation of Church and Stateshall be inviolable.
Art III sec 5.
No law shall be made respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, withoutdiscrimination or preference, shall forever beallowed. No religious test shall be required for theexercise of civil or political rights.
Art VI sec 29(2).
No public money or property shallbe appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directlyor indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of anysect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, orsystem of religion, or of any priest, preacher,minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary assuch, except when such priest, preacher, minister,or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or toany penal institution, or government orphanage orleprosarium.
Establishment Clause
Justice Laurel1937FACTS:
On May 1936, respondent announced in thenewspapers that he would order of postagestamps commemorating the 33
International Eucharistic Congress under
Act No. 4052
(cited below)
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 postagestamps violated the Constitutionalprovision on the principle oseparation of church and state,specifically section 13, subsection 3,Art. VI which says:
“No publicmoney or property shall ever beappropriated, applied, or used,directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,church, denominationorsystem 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.
 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 XXXIII
Batch 2008A
International EucharisticCongress, Feb. 3-7, 1937.”
What is emphasizedis not the Congressbut Manila, thecapital of thePhilippines, as the
of thatcongress.
 The propaganda resulting from theissuance and sale of the staff mightredound to the benefit of the RomanCatholic Church but this was notthe intention and is only incidentalto the original purpose.
“We are of the opinion thatthe Government should notbe embarrassed in itsactivities simply because of incidental results, more orless religious in character, if the purpose had in view isone which could legitimatelybe undertaken byappropriate legislation.”
 There may have peen poor judgmentin issuing and selling the stamp buta gap still exists between that andthe unconstitutionality of theissuance and sale which was notfilled by the petitioner.
1. On March 23, 1976, the said barangay counciladopted Resolution No. 5, "reviving the traditionalsocio-religious celebration" every fifth day of April "of the feast day of Señor San Vicente Ferrer, the patronsaint of Valencia". lt provided for (1) the acquisitionof the image of San Vicente Ferrer and (2) theconstruction of a waiting shed as the barangay'sprojects. Funds for the two projects would beobtained through the selling of tickets and cashdonations "2. On March 26, 1976, the barangay council passedResolution No. 6 which specified that, in accordance with the practice in Eastern Leyte, Councilman Tomas Cabatingan, the Chairman or
hermano mayor 
of the fiesta, would be the caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remainin his residence for one year and until the election of his successor as chairman of the next feast day. It was further provided in the resolution that the image would be made available to the Catholic parishchurch during the celebration of the saint's feastday. It was ratified in a plebiscite.3. Funds were raised by means of solicitations andcash donations of the barangay residents and thoseof the neighboring places of Valencia. With thosefunds, the waiting shed was constructed and the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer was acquired inCebu City by the barangay council for four hundredpesos4. 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!> )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
Batch 2008A
In this case, Mañago, the barangay youth chairman, was notified of the sessions of the barangay councilto be held on March 23 and 26, 1976 but he was notable to attend those sessions because he was working with a construction company based at Ipil,Ormoc City. Mañago's absence from the sessions of the barangay council did not render the saidresolutions void. There was a quorum when the saidresolutions were passed.2)WON the resolutions contravene theconstitutional provisions that "no law shallbe made respecting an establishment of religion" and that "no public money orproperty shall ever be appropriated, applied,paid, or used, directly or indirectly, for theuse, benefit, or support of any sect, church,denomination, sectarian institution, orsystem of religion, or for the use, benefit, orsupport of any priest, preacher, minister, orother 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, or governmentorphanage or leprosarium? (haba, hehe) NO
 The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring thepatron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for thepurpose of favoring any religion nor interfering withreligious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrioresidents. One of the highlights of the fiesta was themass. Consequently, the image of the patron sainthad to be placed in the church when the mass wascelebrated.If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal inholding a fiesta and having a patron saint for thebarrio, then any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as the acquisitionand display of his image) cannot be branded asillegal. The barangay council designated a layman as thecustodian of the wooden image in order to forestallany suspicion that it is favoring the Catholic church.A more practical reason for that arrangement wouldbe that the image, if placed in a layman's custody,could easily be made available to any family desiringto borrow the image in connection with prayers andnovenas. This case is a petty quarrel over the custody of asaint's image. lt would never have arisen if theparties had been more diplomatic and tactful and if Father Osmeña had taken the trouble of causingcontributions to be solicited from his ownparishioners 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 Osmeñaclaim that it belongs to his church is wrong. Thebarangay council, 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 thesubsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing statesurveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisionsof the laws would inevitably entangle the state inreligious affairs. The Court also noted the presence of anunhealthy "divisive political potential" concerninglegislation which appropriates support to religiousschools.
Batch 2008A

Activity (21)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Marilen Reyes liked this
dudekie14344 liked this
anorith88 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)//-->