THE Court of Appeals ruled that the public funds used to print more than one million postage stamps to commemorate the 100th founding anniversary of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) last year were legal.
In a 10-page decision written by Associate Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando, the appeals court 2nd Division dismissed the taxpayer’s petition filed by Renato Peralta that sought to reverse the July 25, 2014 decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court.
The Manila court dismissed the injunction sought by Peralta to stop the Philippine Postal Corporation (PhilPost) from paying and distributing the stamps, saying the commemorative stamps constituted free advertisement for INC at the expense of taxpayers money.
He argued that the government violated Section 29 (2) Article VI of the Constitution which prohibits the use of public funds to support a religious sect.
He noted that PhilPost printed 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 Benigno Aquino III through Presidential Proclamation No. 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.”
The appeals court, however, said what the 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 added that it is not correct to say that aid was given to INC since it is the government who will earn from the sale of the stamps.
“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.
It further 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 entanglement 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 appeals court explained adding that the printing’s purpose is to recognize INC’s contribution in national development” is a “legitimate secular purpose.”
The court added that putting the portrait of the late Felix Manalo in the stamp is proper contrary to the argument of Peralta that 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-appellee PhilPost has been doing in the design of its commemorative stamps,” the appeals court said.
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 historical 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 Inting.