THE GARCES V.

ESTENZO CASE
 T H E S U P R E M E C O U RT
H E L D T H AT T H E R E WA S
N OT H I N G
160 70 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
OR ILLEGAL IN
140 60
H O L D I N G A F I E S TA
A N D H AV I N G A
120 PAT RO N S A I N T F O R
50 T H E B A R R I O. I T
100
A D H E R E D TO T H E
40 BARRIO RESOLUTIONS
80
O F T H E B A R A N G AY
I N VO LV E D I N T H E C A S E
30
S TAT I N G T H AT T H E
60
B A R R I O F I E S TA I S A
20 SOCIO-RELIGIOUS
40
A F FA I R , T H E
10
C E L E B R AT I O N O F
20 WHICH IS AN
“INGRAINED
0 0 T R A D I T I O N I N RU R A L
1/5/20YY 1/6/20YY 1/7/20YY 1/8/20YY 1/9/20YY
C O M M U N I T I E S ” T H AT
Volume Open High Low Close “RELIEVES THE
M O N OTO N Y A N D
D RU D G E RY O F T H E
L I V E S O F T H E M A S S E S .”
• Corollarily, the Court found nothing illegal about
any activity intended to facilitate the worship of
the patron saint such as the acquisition and display
of his image bought with funds obtained through
solicitation from the barrio residents.
• The Court pointed out that the image of the patron saint was “purchased in
connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint,
San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor
interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio
residents.” Citing the Aglipay ruling, the Court declared, viz:
• 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. (104 SCRA 510 (1981)
PRIESTS IN ELECTIVE PUBLIC OFFICE
• Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, was, in 1971, elected
to the position of mbunicipal mayor of
Alburquerque, Bohol. Therefore, he was duly
proclaimed. A suit for quo warranto was then filed
by petitioner, himself an aspirant for the office, for
his disqualification based on this Administrative
Code provision:
• "In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a
municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service,
persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial
or national funds, or contractors for public works of the
municipality." The suit did not prosper, respondent Judge
sustaining the right of Father Gonzaga to the office of
municipal mayor.
• He ruled that such statutory ineligibility was impliedly
repealed by the Election Code of 1971. The matter was
then elevated to this Tribunal by petitioner. It is his
contention that there was no such implied repeal, that it is
still in full force and effect. Thus was the specific question
raised. Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code of
1917 disqualifying ecclesiastics from appointment or
election as municipal officer was challenged.
THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT
THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE
RESPONDENT BASED ON
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION
CONSTITUTIONAL
• After protracted deliberation, the Court was
sharply divided on the issue. Seven members of
the Court, one short of the number necessary to
declare a law unconstitutional, approached the
problem from a free exercise perspective and
considered the law a religious test offensive of the
constitution.
• They were Justices Fernando, Teehankee, Muñoz-Palma,
Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero. Then
Associate Justice Fernando, the ponente, stated, viz: “The
challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar
as it declares ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or
appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent with the
religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. (Pamil v.
Teleron G.R. No. L-34854 November 20, 1978)
 T H E S U P R E M E C O U RT
H E L D T H AT T H E R E WA S
N OT H I N G
160 70 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
OR ILLEGAL IN
140 60
H O L D I N G A F I E S TA
A N D H AV I N G A
120 PAT RO N S A I N T F O R
50 T H E B A R R I O. I T
100
A D H E R E D TO T H E
40 BARRIO RESOLUTIONS
80
O F T H E B A R A N G AY
I N VO LV E D I N T H E C A S E
30
S TAT I N G T H AT T H E
60
B A R R I O F I E S TA I S A
20 SOCIO-RELIGIOUS
40
A F FA I R , T H E
10
C E L E B R AT I O N O F
20 WHICH IS AN
“INGRAINED
0 0 T R A D I T I O N I N RU R A L
1/5/20YY 1/6/20YY 1/7/20YY 1/8/20YY 1/9/20YY
C O M M U N I T I E S ” T H AT
Volume Open High Low Close “RELIEVES THE
M O N OTO N Y A N D
D RU D G E RY O F T H E
L I V E S O F T H E M A S S E S .”
• Corollarily, the Court found nothing illegal about
any activity intended to facilitate the worship of
the patron saint such as the acquisition and display
of his image bought with funds obtained through
solicitation from the barrio residents.
• The Court pointed out that the image of the patron saint was “purchased in
connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint,
San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor
interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio
residents.” Citing the Aglipay ruling, the Court declared, viz:
• 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. (104 SCRA 510 (1981)
PRIESTS IN ELECTIVE PUBLIC OFFICE
• Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, was, in 1971, elected
to the position of mbunicipal mayor of
Alburquerque, Bohol. Therefore, he was duly
proclaimed. A suit for quo warranto was then filed
by petitioner, himself an aspirant for the office, for
his disqualification based on this Administrative
Code provision:
• "In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a
municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service,
persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial
or national funds, or contractors for public works of the
municipality." The suit did not prosper, respondent Judge
sustaining the right of Father Gonzaga to the office of
municipal mayor.
• He ruled that such statutory ineligibility was impliedly
repealed by the Election Code of 1971. The matter was
then elevated to this Tribunal by petitioner. It is his
contention that there was no such implied repeal, that it is
still in full force and effect. Thus was the specific question
raised. Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code of
1917 disqualifying ecclesiastics from appointment or
election as municipal officer was challenged.
THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT
THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE
RESPONDENT BASED ON
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION
CONSTITUTIONAL
• After protracted deliberation, the Court was
sharply divided on the issue. Seven members of
the Court, one short of the number necessary to
declare a law unconstitutional, approached the
problem from a free exercise perspective and
considered the law a religious test offensive of the
constitution.
• They were Justices Fernando, Teehankee, Muñoz-Palma,
Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero. Then
Associate Justice Fernando, the ponente, stated, viz: “The
challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar
as it declares ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or
appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent with the
religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. (Pamil v.
Teleron G.R. No. L-34854 November 20, 1978)
 THANK YOU

someone@example.com