American Bible Society v. City of Manila G.R. L-9637, penned by J. Felix (1957) FACTS ISSUES & COURT RULING PARTIES American Bible has been distributing and selling bibles and gospels, concordance throughout the Philippines which are translated in Filipino. Respondent City of Manila is a municipal corporation with powers that are to be exercised within the Revised Charter of City of Manila. The City Treasurer of Manila informed the American Bible that it was conducting the business of general merchandise without: (1) municipal permit (Ordinance 3000) (2) license fees (Ordinance 2529) Is Ordinance 3000 valid? (Obtaining of municipal licence/ Mayor s permit to conduct business) Is Ordinance 2529 valid? (which taxes any business, trade, occupation conducted in Manila) IT IS INVALID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it restrains the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of appellant. On the issue whether taxing the business of American Bible and its free exercise of religion as SEPARATE actions, the court ruled that the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment To tax is to destroy Article III Sec. 1 clause 7 of the Constitution also guarantees the freedom of religious profession and worship — which in turn carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. VALID In Coleman v. Griffin, it is ruled that the obtaining of a municipal tax does not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.

G.R. L-9637 American Bible Society v. City of Manila

Download PDF Report

Upload
cecille-carmela-t-de-los-reyes
View
20
Download
1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

G.R. L-9637 American Bible Society v. City of ManilaCONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; DlSSEMINATION OF RELIGIOUS INFORMATION, WHEN MAY BE RESTRAINED; PAYMENT OF LlCENSE FEE, IMPAIRS FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.—The consti-tutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent." (Tañada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 297).In the case at bar, plaintiff is engaged in the distribution and sales of bibles and religious articles. The City Treasurer of Manila informed the plaintiff that it was conducting the business of general merchandise without providing itself with the necessary Mayor's permit and municipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, and required plaintiff to secure the corresponding permit and license. Plaintiff protested against this requirement and claimed that it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles. Held: It is true the price asked for the religious articles was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same, but this cannot mean that plaintiff was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said "merchandise" for profit. For this reasons, the provisions of City Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, which requires the payment of license fee for conducting the business of general merchandise, cannot be applied to plaintiff society, for in doing so, it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. Upon the other hand, City Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, which requires the obtention of the Mayor's permit before any person can engage in any of the businesses, trades or occupations enumerated therein, does not impose any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. Hence, it cannot be considered unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society. But as Ordinance No. 2529 is not applicable to plaintiff and the City of Manila is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff society involved herein, for the reasons above stated, Ordinance No. 3000 is also inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff. [American Bible Society vs. City of Manila,, 101 Phil. 386(1957)]

Citation preview

American Bible Society v.

City of Manila

G.R. L-9637, penned by J.

Felix (1957)

FACTSISSUES &

COURT RULING

PARTIES

American Bible has been

distributing and selling bibles

and gospels, concordance

throughout the Philippines

which are translated in

Filipino.

Respondent City of Manila is

a municipal corporation with

powers that are to be

exercised within the Revised

Charter of City of Manila.

The City Treasurer of Manila informed

the American Bible that it was

conducting the business of general

merchandise without:

(1) municipal permit (Ordinance 3000)

(2) license fees (Ordinance 2529)

Is Ordinance 3000 valid?

(Obtaining of municipal

licence/ Mayor s permit to conduct business)

Is Ordinance 2529 valid?

(which taxes any business,

trade, occupation conducted

in Manila)

IT IS INVALID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

because it restrains the free exercise and

enjoyment of the religious profession and

worship of appellant.

On the issue whether taxing the business of

American Bible and its free exercise of

religion as SEPARATE actions, the court

ruled that the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress

its enjoyment

To tax is to destroy

Article III Sec. 1 clause 7 of the Constitution

also guarantees the freedom of religious

profession and worshipwhich in turn carries with it the right to disseminate

religious information.

VALID

In Coleman v. Griffin, it is ruled that the

obtaining of a municipal tax does not deprive

the defendant of his constitutional right of the

free exercise and enjoyment of religious

profession and worship.

G.R. L-9637 American Bible Society v. City of Manila.vsdxPage-1