ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

SECTION 6: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

RENE RONULO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 182438 July 2, 2014

FACTS:

*Fr. Rene Ronulo raised a petition for review on certiorari challenging the April 3, 2008 decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, (RTC).

Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on 29 March 2003 at the Sta. Rosa
Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on the day of the wedding, the church's officiating
priest refused to solemnize the marriage because of lack of a marriage license.

With the couple and the guests already dressed for the wedding, they headed to an
Independent Church of Filipino Christians, also known as the Aglipayan Church. The Aglipayan
priest, herein petitioner Ronulo, conducted a ceremony on the same day where the couple took
each other as husband and wife in front of the guests. This was despite Petitioner's knowledge
of the couple's lack of marriage license.

Petitioner was eventually charged of violating Article 352 of the RPC for performing an illegal
marriage ceremony.

The petitioner's defense was that what he did was an act of blessing and was not tantamount
to solemnization of marriage as contemplated by law. Still, the MTC found petitioner guilty of
violating Art. 352 of the Revised Penal Code for conducting an illegal marriage ceremony and
the RTC affirmed as did the Court of Appeals.

In his petition, he argues that the CA erred on the following grounds:

First, Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, is vague and does not define what constitutes "an
illegal marriage ceremony." The petitioner likewise maintains that the prosecution failed to
prove that the contracting parties personally declared that they take each other as husband
and wife.

Second, under the principle of separation of church and State, the State cannot interfere in
ecclesiastical affairs such as the administration of matrimony. Therefore, the State cannot
convert the "blessing" into a "marriage ceremony."

Lastly, he added that Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not provide for a penalty. The
present case is not covered by Section 44 of the Marriage Law as the petitioner was not found
violating its provisions nor a regulation promulgated thereafter.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner committed an illegal marriage.

DECISION:

Yes. The petitioner is guilty of committing illegal marriage.

*Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime are:
- authority of the solemnizing officer; and
- his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
The first element is present since petitioner himself admitted that he has authority to
solemnize a marriage. The second element is present since the alleged "blessing" by petitioner
is tantamount to the performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.

*There is no prescribed form or rite for the solemnization of a marriage. However, Article 6 of
the Family Code provides that it shall be necessary:
- for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer; and
- declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each
other as husband and wife.
The first requirement is present since petitioner admitted to it. The second requirement is
likewise present since the prosecution, through the testimony of its witnesses, proved that the
contracting parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife.

*The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is in accordance with the provision of the
Marriage Law, specifically Article 44, which states that:
- Section 44. General Penal Clause – Any violation of any provision of this Act not
specifically penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for
not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.

As such, Fr. Ronulo was held guilty of violating Article 352 and was fined P200 as penalty.