This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
45459; 13 MAR 1937] Saturday, February 07, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner contends that such act is a violation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any church, system of religion, etc. This provision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church, or vice versa, as a weapon to further their ends and aims. Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government. Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion. Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration. It is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. The phrase in Act No. 4052 “advantageous to the government” does not authorize violation of the Constitution. The issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. They were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. The postage stamps, instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila, with the words “Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress.” The focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of
This provided for the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. GARCES VS. after a mass. However. February 07. 5. 12 appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case. Political Law Facts: Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia. in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions.Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration every fifth of April. The priest with Andres Garces. as it was the church’s property since church funds were used in its acquisition. Resolution No. G. any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the Government. Resolution No.” the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance. Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image. Funds for the said projects will be obtained through the selling of tickets and cash donations. This was to “to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists. and said projects were implemented. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. The priest. ESTENZO [104 SCRA 510. b. 6. These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters. L-53487. Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church.R. 25 MAY 1981] Saturday. Ormoc City were passed: a. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. being the seat of that congress. Resolution No.Manila. a member of the .The chairman or hermano mayor of the fiesta would be the caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in his residence for one year and until the election of his successor. Father Sergio Marilao Osmeña refused to return the image to the barangay council. The image would be made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the saint’s feast day.
It was the council’s funds that were used to buy the image. freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property. there is no violation of the Constitution. especially to Muslim communities. 9 JUL 2003] Saturday.Aglipayan Church. since private funds were used.GR 153888. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint(such as the acquisition) is not illegal. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. February 07. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the image. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [405 SCRA 497. Not every government activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state. Right of the determination of custody is their right. Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated. It claims to be a federation of national Islamic . (IDCP) is a corporation that operates under Department of Social Welfare and Development. ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. 8 Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated. contends that Sec. and even if they decided to give it to the Church. Practically. Political Law Facts: Petitioner Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines. The image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or beliefs of the barrio residents. the image was placed in a layman’s custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. Inc. Held: No. therefore it is their property. a non-governmental organization that extends voluntary services to the Filipino people.
petitioner began to issue. Under the EO.organizations and an active member of international organizations such as the Regional Islamic Da'wah Council of Southeast Asia and the Pacific (RISEAP) and The World Assembly of Muslim Youth. inspection thereof and issuance of halal certifications. classifying a . respondent Office of the Executive Secretary issued EO 465 creating the Philippine Halal Certification Scheme and designating respondent OMA to oversee its implementation. Without doubt. respondent OMA has the exclusive authority to issue halal certificates and perform other related regulatory activities. certifications to qualified products and food manufacturers. only practicing Muslims are qualified to slaughter animals for food. among the functions petitioner carries out is to conduct seminars. entity or scholars can lawfully and validly perform for the Muslims. Held: It is unconstitutional for the government to formulate policies and guidelines on the halal certification scheme because said scheme is a function only religious organizations. Petitioner alleges that. Issue: Whether or Not EO violates the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State. the actual need to certify food products as halal and also due to halal food producers' request. for a fee. a food product becomes halal only after the performance of Islamic religious ritual and prayer. Petitioner even adopted for use on its halal certificates a distinct sign or logo registered in the Philippine Patent Office. Thus. A government agency like herein respondent OMA cannot therefore perform a religious function like certifying qualified food products as halal. Thus. petitioner formulated in 1995 internal rules and procedures based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah for the analysis of food. orient manufacturers on halal food and issue halal certifications to qualified products and manufacturers. The RISEAP accredited petitioner to issue halal certifications in the Philippines. On 2001. According to petitioner. In that same year.
even on the premise that the health of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively protected by assigning to OMA the exclusive power to issue halal certifications. Ilocos Norte. Provincial Board.955 square .624 square meters. Ilocos Norte [GR 27588. we find no compelling justification for the government to deprive Muslim organizations. 31 December 1927] Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. possesses and is the owner of a parcel of land in the municipality of San Nicolas. these laws do not encroach on the religious freedom of Muslims. in which there is a stable and a well for the use of the convent.Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. properly labeled and safe. by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications. and a portion where formerly stood a tower.Book 2005 . of their religious right to classify a product as halal. the convent and an adjacent lot used for a vegetable garden. 31 December 1927] En Banc. the base of which may still be seen. On the south side is a part of the church yard. Constitutional Law II . On the north side is an old cemetery with two of its walls still standing. represented by the Bishop of Nueva Segovia. Avancena (J): 5 concur Facts: The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. the State has in effect forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah on halal food. like herein petitioner. all four sides of which face on public streets. containing an area of 1. The protection and promotion of the muslim Filipinos' right to health are already provided for in existing laws and ministered to by government agencies charged with ensuring that food products released in the market are fit for human consumption. containing a total area of 8. In the center is the remainder of the churchyard and the church. In the case at bar. Ilocos Norte [GR 27588.food product as halal is a religious function because the standards used are drawn from the Qur'an and Islamic beliefs. Unlike EO 46. Also. EO 46 encroached on the religious freedom of Muslim organizations like herein petitioner to interpret for Filipino Muslims what food products are fit for Muslim consumption. Provincial Board. By giving OMA the exclusive power to classify food products as halal.
and the old cemetery. but also the adjacent ground destined to the ordinary incidental uses of man. It cannot be taxed according to its former use (cemetery). land used as a lodging house by the people who participate in religious festivities. which formerly was the cemetery and on the portion where the tower stood. Except in large cities where the density of the population and the development of commerce require the use of larger tracts of land for buildings. in the case of a convent. 344 [c] Administrative Code) refers to the home of the priest who presides over the church and who has to take care of himself in order to discharge his duties. comes within the exemption. . besides the church and the convent. under protest. was illegal. a vegetable garden belongs to a house and. in this sense. not for commercial purposes. The Church filed an action for the recovery of the sum paid by it to Board by way of land tax. which constitutes an incidental use in religious functions. alleging that the collection of this tax is illegal. It therefore must. which comes under the exemption. the land tax on the lot adjoining the convent and the lot which formerly was the cemetery with the portion where the tower stood. the Church paid on 3 July 1925. include not only the land actually occupied by the church. Both parties appealed from this judgment. its use is limited to the necessities of the priest. The lower court absolved the Board from the complaint in regard to the lot adjoining the convent and declared that the tax collected on the lot. Held: The exemption in favor of the convent in the payment of the land tax (sec. the adjacent lot used for a vegetable garden.meters. Issue: Whether the churchyard. are exempt from land taxes. Also. As required by the provincial board.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.