#Bar2024 #PoliLaw Suggested Answer to Q. No. 11
The members of the Barangay Council wanted to make the yuletide celebrations of their constituents more festive. Accordingly, the Barangay Council adopted a resolution authorizing the solicitation of funds from private individuals to build a seven-meter tall statue of “Rudolph the RedNosed Reindeer” in the plaza in front of the basilica. The residents from other barangays questioned the resolution for alleged violation of Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which states that “[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Is the barangay resolution invalid for violation of the non-establishment of religion clause? Explain.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
This case is about the constitutionality of four resolutions of the barangay council of Valencia, Ormoc City, regarding the acquisition of the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in the celebration of his annual feast day.
That issue was spawned by the controversy as to whether the parish priest or a layman should have the custody of the image.
It was further provided in the resolution that the image would be made available to the Catholic parish church during the celebration of the saint's feast day.
SC RULING:
There can be no question that the image in question belongs to the barangay council. Father Osmeña claim that it belongs to his church is wrong. The barangay council, as owner of the image, has the right to determine who should have custody thereof.
If it chooses to change its mind and decides to give the image to the Catholic church that action would not violate the Constitution because the image was acquired with private funds and is its private property.
Not every governmental 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, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property.
In Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201, what was involved was Act No. 4052 which appropriated sixty thousand pesos for the cost of plates and the printing of postage stamps with new designs. Under the law, the Director of Posts, with the approval of the Department Head and the President of the Philippines, issued in 1936 postage stamps to commemorate the celebration in Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress sponsored by the Catholic Church...
The purpose of the stamps was to raise revenue and advertise the Philippines. The design of the stamps showed a map of the Philippines and nothing about the Catholic Church. No religious purpose was intended.
Monsignor Gregorio Aglipay, the founder and head of the Philippine Independent Church, sought to enjoin the sale of those commemorative postage stamps.
It was held that the issuance of the stamps, while linked inseparably with an event of a religious character, was not designed as a propaganda for the Catholic Church. Aglipay's prohibition suit was dismissed.
The instant case is easily distinguishable from Verzosa vs. Fernandez, 49 Phil., 627 and 55 Phil. 307, where a religious brotherhood, La Archicofradia del Santisimo Sacramento, organized for the purpose of raising funds to meet the expenses for the annual fiesta in honor of the Most Holy Sacrament and the Virgin Lady of Guadalupe, was held accountable for the funds which it held as trustee.
Finding that the petitioners have no cause of action for the annulment of the barangay resolutions, the lower court's judgment dismissing their amended petition is affirmed. No costs.
Comments
Post a Comment