Aglipay v Ruiz Re: Constitutional Rules on the General Appropriations Law Constitutional Law 1 (Nachura)

FACTS:
In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that
he would order the issues of postage stamps commemorating the
celebration in the City of Manila of the Thirty-third international
Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The
petitioner, Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent
Church, seeks the issuance from this court of a writ of prohibition to
prevent the respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage
stamps commemorative of the Thirty-third International Eucharistic
Congress.
In 21 February 1933, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 4052 which
authorized the respondent to issue the postage stamps in question. Act
No. 4052 appropriates the sum of sixty thousand pesos for the costs of
plates and printing of postage stamps with new designs and other
expenses incident thereto, and authorizes the Director of Posts, with the
approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, to dispose
of the amount appropriated in the manner indicated and "as often as may
be deemed advantageous to the Government".
The said stamps were actually issued and sold though the greater part
thereof, to this day, remains unsold. The further sale of the stamps is
sought to be prevented by the petitioner herein.
The petitioner alleged this action of the respondent violates the provisions
of Sec. 23 (3), Art.VI, of the 1935 Constitution that no public money shall
ever be appropriated to xxx any sect, church xxx and the principle of
separation of church and state.
ISSUE:
Whether the issuance and selling of commemorative postage stamp of the
33
rd
International Eucharistic Congress violates the provisions of Sec. 23
(3), Art.VI, of the 1935 Constitution and the principle of separation of
church and state.
HELD:
The court held that it was not.
Act No. 4052 contemplates no religious purpose in view. It gives the
Director of Posts the discretionary power to determine when the issuance
of special postage stamps would be "advantageous to the Government." It
does not authorize the appropriation, use or application of public money
or property for the use, benefit or support of a particular sect or church.
The stamps were not issue and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic
Church. Nor were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that
church.
The commemorative stamps were used "to advertise the Philippines and
attract more tourists to this country." The petitioner concerned merely,
took advantage of an event considered of international importance "to
give publicity to the Philippines and its people". Likewise, the issuance and
selling of the stamps were to generate revenues for the government. The
main purpose should not be frustrated by its subordinate to mere
incidental results not contemplated.