Hon. L. R. WILFLEY, EXHIBIT No. 46. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Attorney-General, Manila, P. I. SIR: I desire your opinion upon the following question: A parish priest in actual possession and administering a parish church of the Roman Catholic Church leaves the Roman Catholic communion and joins the Independent Filipino Catholic Church, remaining in possession of the parish church and refusing, in obedience to the order of the Catholic bishop of the diocese, to yield possession to a newly appointed priest of the Catholic Church directed to act as parish priest and to take possession of the church. Is it my duty, on demand of the bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, or is it the duty of the governor, or of the executive officers of the peace in the pueblo, to put the new priest, having authority of the bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, in possession of the parish church, or must the bishop appeal to judicial proceedings to dispossess the apostate priest and to secure possession for his new agent, the new parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church? Your early opinion upon this point I shall greatly appreciate. WM. H. TAFT, Civil Governor, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Hon. WILLIAM H. TAFT, Civil Governor of the Philippines. SIR: I have the honor to render my opinion upon the question you ask in your letter of the 20th instant. QUESTION. A parish priest in actual possession and administering a parish church of the Roman Catholic Church leaves the Roman Catholic communion and joins the Independent Filipino Catholic Church, remaining in possession of the parish church and refusing, in obedience to the order of the Catholic bishop of the diocese; to yield possession to the newly appointed priest of the Roman Catholic Church directed to act as parish priest and to take possession of the church. Is it the duty of the civil governor, or of the provincial governor, or of some executive officer of the peace of the pueblo, on demand of the bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, to put the new priest, having authority from the bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, in possession of the parish church, or must the bishop appeal to judicial proceedings to dispossess the apostate priest and to secure possession for his new agent, the new parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church? OPINION. In the present case there is a controversy between the schismatic priest and the Roman Catholic bishop with respect to the possession and consequent administration of the parish church. The former claims the right to remain in possession of and to administer the parish church in the name of the Independent Filipino Catholic Church, the said church believing itself to have the right to said parish church by the change of belief of the priest and the parishioners; and the latter claiming that the parish church, as the property of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippine Islands, should continue to have such character, the schismatic priest, therefore, having no right to continue in the possession and occupancy of said church, and claiming the right to appoint a priest of the Roman Catholic faith in substitution of such schismatic priest. The determination of such a question is not the function of the executive power. Its determination comes within the province of the courts of justice by reason of their functions. To deprive the schismatic priest of the possession of the parochial church and deliver such possession to the new Roman Catholic priest would imply an examination of the question as to which of the contending parties has the right to the possession and administration of such parochial church and a decision that the right belongs to the Roman Catholic bishop, functions purely judicial and not executive. It matters not that the claim of one of the contending parties is manifestly unjust and illegal, and that the right of the other party is evident. This circumstance would not be the slightest reason why the controversy should be decided by the executive power, since it is not the difficulty of the determination of a question which causes it to be admitted to the courts, but the opposition of one of the parties to the claims of the other. Article 46 of the civil code, still in force in these islands, provides that "Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession, and, should he be disturbed therein, he must be protected or possession must be restored to him by the means established in the laws of procedure.' This provision protects the possession, and refers not only to the civil possessor-that is to say, him who is in possession as owner-but also to the natural possessor, or him who is simply the holder of a thing. Further, the possession refers principally to the possession in fact, and against the disturber of such possession the law of civil procedure formerly in force in these islands provided the remedy of injunctions-summary trials, which were held and decided solely upon the fact of possession. In consulting precedents on this question in American legislation, I find two opinions of the Attorney-General of the United States which bear very closely upon the matter under consideration. In an opinion rendered October 11, 1838, the following question was dealt with: An American vessel had entered and cleared from a port under blockade, and while returning to New Orleans was captured by a vessel belonging to the French blockading squadron, from which the captain of the former rescued her and brought her into the port of New Orleans, to which he was destined. Subsequently a demand was made of the Executive to deliver up the vessel and cargo, both on account of the said breach of the blockade and the rescue. Independently of other considerations, the Attorney-General, in rendering his opinion, stated that "there is no constitutional right vested in the Executive to deliver up the property of an American citizen, claimed by him as his own, and in his actual possession, and not comdemned nor legally adjudged to belong to another." (Opinions of the Attorney-General, Vol. III, p. 377.) On November 2, 1843, an opinion was rendered regarding the case of a claim presented to the Executive by the owner of an abducted slave, asking that his property be returned to him. The Attorney-General stated as follows: "I am aware of no authority that can be properly exerted by the Government of the United States adequate to the relief that is sought; all that can be done is to instruct the district attorney of the United States for the district in which the accused resides to inquire into the facts, and to institute a prosecution if they will warrant it. In regard to the property in the negro alleged to have been abducted, the Government of the United States can not interfere; its courts are open to the party injured. To them he may safely appeal for the full vindication of his claim to the property and to the damage consequent upon its withdrawal from his service."" (Opinions of the Attorneys-General, Vol. IV, p. 269.) In view of the foregoing considerations, I am of the opinion that it would not be proper for the Executive to intervene in the question at issue. The bishop of the Roman Catholic Church must appeal to the courts in support of his claim. Respectfully, Approved. GREGORIO ARANETA, Solicitor-General. L. R. WILFLEY, Attorney-General. OFFICE OF THE CIVIL GOVERNOR OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, His Excellency GIAMBATISTA GUIDI, YOUR EXCELLENCY: I beg to inclose herewith certain correspondence which I have had with the Attorney-General and with the Secretary of War on the general subject of ownership of churches and the right of possession in the Philippines, together with the duty of the executive in respect to possession of said churches and chapels. I also inclose a copy of a letter which I sent to the governor of Tarlac upon the same general subject. The result of all this is: First. That the actual possession by a Roman Catholic priest of a church or chapel is recognized as the lawful possession of the bishop or archbishop of the diocese, and that it is the duty of the executive to protect the actual possession of the priest in the face of any claims of right to possession on behalf of the municipality or the people of the municipality or barrio in which the church or chapel is situate. Second. That where, without dispossessing a priest of the Roman Catholic Church by force or fraud, peaceable and actual possession of a church is held by the municipality under a claim of right, or by persons claiming to represent such municipality under a claim of right, the executive has no function except to preserve the status quo; and that should such possession be a violation of the rights of the church, they must be vindicated in a suit in the civil courts. Third. That where a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, while in possession of the parish church, leaves the Roman Catholic communion and retains possession of the church under a claim of right for the municipality or the people of the municipality, however great violation this may be of the rights of the church, it can not be remedied through the executive, but the rights of the church must be asserted and vindicated through a suit in the civil courts. In view of these conclusions, I have not thought it wise to issue a general order, and shall content myself with treating each case as it arises upon the particular circumstances thereof. I have the honor to be, with great respect, sincerely yours, WM. H. TAFT, Civil Governor. EXHIBIT No. 47. MANILA, P. I., September 7, 1903. SIR: Pursuant to your instructions, I visited the town of Hagonoy, province of Bulacan, on Thursday, the 3d instant, for the purpose of investigating the charges of disturbing religious worship made against certain inhabitants of that town by the Rev. Homer C. Stuntz, presiding elder of the Philippine Islands district of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Briefly stated, the facts in the case are as follows: It appears that the building of the Methodist Chapel at Hagonoy, after many months of active Methodist propaganda, during which considerable feeling was manifested between the opposing church parties, was the occasion for much bitterness and recrimination on the part of the Catholics of the town. The new chapel is situated on the same street as the house of one Domingo Toma la Cruz, the municipal treasurer, and a prominent leader in Catholic Church matters in Hagonoy. Cruz is represented as being particularly annoyed by the proximity of the church of the new sect to his home, and when it was in course of construction is said to have declared that he would never permit the holding of services there. The church was dedicated for worship on Sunday, the 26th of July, and on that day, as well as on every succeeding Sunday since the dedication ceremonies, a bamboo band, played by young men of the town, was stationed in front of the church during the evening services, making hideous noises with their instruments, without regard to time, and rendering the continuance of the services impossible. These facts were fully substantiated by the witnesses examined at the suggestion of Mr. Stuntz. The names of these men are as follows: Pedro Aduna, licensed exhorter; Mariano Madino, Marcelo Estrella, Benedicto Viri, Lorenzo Angeles, and Adriano Felipe, all adherents of the Methodist faith. Toma la Cruz disclaimed all responsibility for the disturbance; declared that the band had never been inside his house, and tried to give the impression that the said band was composed of irresponsible boys, sacristanes, altar boys, and others, and that the disturbance represented the mischief of children rather than the expression of any religious hatred on the part of the full-grown inhabitants of the town. It was afterwards ascertained from the presidente that Cruz had rented his “entresuelo" for the purposes of a musical school. The time of the establishment of this school seemed at first suspiciously coincident with the beginning of the work on the new church. No connection, however, could be established between the pupils of Cruz's musical school and the musicians of the bamboo band, and while there is every indication that Cruz aided and abetted the disturbers, none of the Methodists furnished any proof of this fact. Domingo Tarralba, who was represented in the complaint as the master of the band, denied all connection with it, and said he was in the crowd merely as a spectator. The presidente of Hagonoy, whose name is José Lopez, is a keenly intelligent, capable, and, I think, trustworthy man. He gave his testimony frankly and freely, and admitted that ill feeling was prevalent since the establishment of the new church. No complaint had been made to him, however, or to the justice of the peace, and since no actual breach of the peace had occurred, he had hoped that it would pass away without any necessity for intervention on the part of the town authorities. Cruz, he said, was undoubtedly one of those who felt most bitterly on the subject of the new church, and he did not hesitate to say that he thought he was capable of instigating the disturbances. He attributed the whole trouble, however, to the lincensed exhorter, Pedro Aduna, who he said was a man of bad repute, a professional demagogue and agitator, he was constantly inciting violence by his intemper ate characterizations of the Catholics as "image worshippers," " 'idolators," etc., and by industriously spreading the report that the Methodist Church was the state church of the United States. Aduna had been presidente of the town during the American military régime, and created intense feeling by closing the Catholic cemetery and ordering all the deceased inhabitants of the town to be interred in the cemetery belonging to the municipality. After being removed from his position for cause, he became an evangelist, and lately succeeded in still further intensifying the feeling against him by attempting to bury a non-Catholic in the Catholic cemetery, in violation of the rules of the Catholic Church, and in spite of the protests of the local padre. The presidente is of the opinion that the selection of Aduna to be the local mouthpeice of the Methodists in Hagonoy is the worst possible choice that could have been made, and that this fact has contributed more than any other to the disturbed state of public feeling. The appearance and manners of Aduna are decidedly unprepossessing and corroborate almost in detail the presidente's statements with respect to him. The presidente further stated that his position was very difficult. There are 21,000 Catholics in the town he avers, and about 100 Methodists. Unless an actual breach of the peace occurs, of sufficient gravity to warrant his interference, he fears that any unusual action he might take for the protection of the Protestants might be misunderstood by the rest of his people, and add to rather than allay the excitement. It was explained to the presidente that if there was only one dissenter in Hagonoy, that his right to worship according to his conscience was as sacred as if his opinions were held by the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and that the government looked to him to see that the rights of the minority, no less than those of the majority, were properly respected; he promised to prevent a recurrence of the disturbance by the band, and, if necessary, to station a policeman in front of the church during the hours of service to see that the Methodists were not subjected to further annoyance. It is my opinion that a town ordinance declaring the freedom of religious worship and providing penalties and liabilities for infractions of same, would simplify matters considerably. Such an ordinance would obviate the necessity of appealing to the insular government in cases of this character, at least until local remedies had been exhausted, and each conviction had thereunder, would be a good object lesson in the real meaning of religious liberty. I informed Aduna and the other Methodist workers that when their rights were infringed or their meetings disturbed, it was their duty to file a complaint forthwith with the justice of the peace, and if the result of the trial should prove that justice could not be had in the town, it would then be time for them to appeal their case to a higher court or to make grievances known to the proper authorities. On being asked his opinion of Lopez, Judge Roxas, who was holding court at Malolos, said that Lopez was the most efficient and trustworthy presidente in Bulacan. Everything considered, his town was a model one, and it was the judge's opinion that he might be depended upon to do full justice to all the interests involved so far as his authority extended. While in Malolos, in accordance with the verbal instructions of the executive secretary, I made inquiries as to the complaints against Crisostomo, the provincial fiscal of Bulacan. The gravest and in fact the only charge against Crisostomo seems to be incompetency. When I called at the court of first instance I found that Judge Roxas was practically compelled to take the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the government away from the fiscal, and to put the questions to the witnesses calculated to elicit the information necessary to sustain the complaint. I asked Judge Roxas afterwards about this, and he admitted that it was most distasteful to him, and that he was driven to it merely as an emergency measure. The lawyers were protesting against the practice. By reason of the fiscal's incompetency and the lack of intelligent preparation and presentment half the cases brought by the government would collapse unless he came to the fiscal's aid, thus practically assuming the functions of the prosecuting attorney. Respectfully submitted. Hon. L. R. WILFLEY, RICHARD CAMPBELL. Attorney-General, Manila, P. I. [First indorsement.] OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respectfully forwarded to the executive secretary for the Philippine Islands. [Second indorsement.] OFFICE OF THE CIVIL GOVERNOR OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Manila, P. I., September 10, 1903. Respectfully referred to Doctor Stuntz, Manila, for his information, with a request that the paper be returned. W. H. TAFT, Civil Governor. [Third indorsement.] No. 114, NOZALEDA, MANILA, P. I. Governor WM. H. TAFT, Manila, P. I. SIR: I return herewith the report of Mr. Richard Campbell on the disturbance of a religious service in Hagonoy, Bulacan, as requested in your letter or transmission. The inquiry as carried on by Mr. Campbell and reported upon in the communication under reply has been most unsatisfactory, and I ask that the attorney-general be requested to prosecute the offenders. In support of that request permit me to briefly restate the following: We During two years and well into the third we have maintained Protestant services regularly in Hagonoy. During all that time our services have been interrupted in minor ways-stones and eggs thrown at the ministers and at the chapel in which the work was being done. Little by little offenders have become more bold, and the outbreak which constituted the offense for which we now ask prosecution was only the culmination of this spirit of bitter hostility. On July 26 last, I dedicated a new chapel built there by the people and all day a band in the house of Señor Cruz, municipal secretary, located immediately across the street from the new chapel kept up its tooting and drumming. As it was the day of town fiesta we made no complaint, but submitted to the annoyance as though it had been unintentional. were sure that it was not so, for Señor Cruz is a prominent Catholic in Hagonoy, and had threatened repeatedly that he would never permit the Methodists to use their chapel. After the dedication services were interrupted in each instance. On Sunday August 23, however, a mob of two or three score assembled in the street immediately in front of the chapel about the time for evening service and with bamboo instruments, tin cans, bells, and every noise-producing instrument they could find they kept up an incessant din until long past the hour when service could be held. Our Mr. Goodell sent for the police, and the officer who came shrugged his shoulders and declined to interfere. He then proceeded quietly to secure the names of the parties, and with the help of members of the church and congregation succeeded in getting nearly every name. He brought the paper which he and the officers of the church made out in the midst of the din and yelling of this mob, to me, and I transmitted it with a request for investigation and action to the attorney-general the week following the disturbance, with the results already known. Mr. Campbell's report is open to criticism in several particulars: 1. He admits that the disturbance took place as alleged, but suggested no prosecution for the offense! "These facts were fully substantiated by the witnesses examined at the suggestion of Doctor Stuntz." In his interview with the presidente that official stated that "unless a breach of the peace occurs of sufficient gravity to warrant his interference he fears that any unusual action he might take for the protection of the Protestant people might be misunderstood by the rest of his people, etc." (pp. 3-4). If the offense charged does not constitute "an actual breach of the peace sufficient to warrant interference" on the part of the officials sworn to keep order, and protect all worshippers in their rights of peaceable assemblage for divine worship, I would be unable to suggest what would be regarded as such breach of the peace. He admits the facts as set forth in the charge, and then leaves us to infer that he accepts the view of the presidente that no actual breach of the peace took place. This is unsatisfactory to us as complainants. 2. He accepts, apparently without question, the unsupported denials of parties charged with participation in the mob, while we have more than a score of witnesses, including our Mr. Goodell, who lived in Hagonoy for more than a year, and knows nearly all of the participants by name, who saw them at close range while the dis |