THE Court of Appeals (CA) has declared that the use of public funds to print more than 1 million postage stamps to commemorate the 100th founding anniverary of Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) last year did not violate any provisions of the Constitution.
In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando, the Court’s Second Division junked the petition filed by taxpayer Renato Peralta seeking the reversal of the order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila City on July 25 last year.
The Manila RTC, in the said ruling, junked Peralta’s complaint for injunction seeking to enjoin the Philippine Postal Corp. (PhilPost) from paying for the printing of the commemorative stamps and to stop their distribution.
In his appeal before the CA, Peralta said that as a taxpayer he is allowed to sue when there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed.
He insisted that the printing and issuance of the INC centennial stamps violated Section 29 (2) Article VI of the Constitution, which bars the use of public funds to support a religious sect.
The commemorative stamps, he pointed out, constitute free advertisement for the INC at the expense of taxpayers’s money.
He noted that PhilPost printed a total of 1.2 million stamps, although the memorandum of agreement between INC and PhilPost covered only 50,000 pieces.
The production of the commemorative stamps was allowed by President Aquino through Presidential Proclamation 81, which declared 2014 as the INC Centennial Year, and directed the postmaster general to “cause the design, printing and issuance of a special stamp for said purpose.”
But the CA did not give weight to Peralta’s arguments in asking to set aside the Manila RTC’s ruling.
The appellate court held that what Section 29 (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution prohibits is the giving of aid to a religious institution and not the mere entering into a transaction or agreement where the State could benefit for itself.
It explained that it is not accurate to say that aid was given to INC, since it is the government which is expected to earn from the sale of the stamps not the INC.
“Defendant-appellee PhilPost merely exercised its proprietary function and entered into a business transaction intended to generate income for the state, rather than bestow any grant or aid to the INC,” the decision read.
“It is not as if the government donated these stamps to the INC…. Ultimately, it is the state which benefited from the issuance of these stamps which could be bought by anyone,” it added.
Furthermore, the CA explained that not every government activity involving use of public funds and which has some religious shade is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of the church and state.
The appellate court pointed out that under the Lemon Test, the American doctrine on the separation of the church and state, public money can be made available to religious persons or institutions if the use will be for a secular purpose; neither primarily advance nor inhibit religion; and will not involve excessive government entanglement with religion.
“In this case…the stamps printed for a secular purpose, and did not primarily advance religion. Likewise, the issuance of these stamps did not result to excessive entanglemennt by the government, such as to require state monitoring, as these stamps were simply printed then sold to the public by defendant-appellee PhilPost,” the CA explained.
The CA added that the purpose for printing the commemorative stamps which is “to enhance awareness of the INC’s contribution in national development” is a “legitimate secular purpose.”
The CA also did not give weight to Peralta’s argument that the late Felix Manalo’s portrait in the stamp is religious in character since he is not the head of state like the pope.
“There is no question that the late Felix Y. Manalo is a prominent figure in Philippine history who deserves to be commemorated like any other Filipino here, statesman, or national artist which is what defendant-appelle PhilPost has been doing in the design of its commemorative stamps,” the CA stressed.
It added that even the Supreme Court has recognized Manalo’s significance when it declared as valid the use of public funds for the expropriation of his birthplace.
“No amount of bigotry or spite against INC can erode the historial and cultural significance to the nation of Felix Y. Manalo and the institution he founded. To strike down the subject commemorative stamps is to illiterately ignore these contributions recognized by no less than the National Historical Commission and the President of the Philippines,” it declared.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and Socorro B. Inting.
source: Business Mirror
