Scribd
Upload
22 views2 pages

Chanrob1es Virtual 1aw Library: Separate Opinions

The document discusses a case regarding the requirement of students to participate in flag ceremonies in Philippine public schools. It finds that: 1) The flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act of love, allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the Philippines. 2) Requiring observance of the flag ceremony does not violate constitutional provisions on freedom of religion. 3) Compliance with reasonable school rules, including observing the flag ceremony, is required for attendance in public schools. 4) Petitioners who refused to participate in the flag ceremony were properly excluded and dismissed from school. The court affirms the decision.

Uploaded by

Jhenjhen Ganda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views2 pages

Chanrob1es Virtual 1aw Library: Separate Opinions

The document discusses a case regarding the requirement of students to participate in flag ceremonies in Philippine public schools. It finds that: 1) The flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act of love, allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the Philippines. 2) Requiring observance of the flag ceremony does not violate constitutional provisions on freedom of religion. 3) Compliance with reasonable school rules, including observing the flag ceremony, is required for attendance in public schools. 4) Petitioners who refused to participate in the flag ceremony were properly excluded and dismissed from school. The court affirms the decision.

Uploaded by

Jhenjhen Ganda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

religious freedom . . . gave religious equality, not civil immunity.

Its essence is freedom from


conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma.
Religious loyalties may be exercised without hindrance from the State, not the State may not exercise
that which except by leave of religious loyalties is within the domain of temporal power. Otherwise,
each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the
public good by those whose business it is to make laws." (West Virginia State Board v. Barnette, supra,
at p. 653; Emphasis supplied)
In conclusion we find and hold that the Filipino flag is not an image that requires religious veneration;
rather it is a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, of sovereignty, an emblem of freedom, liberty
and national unity; that the flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act and profession of love
and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the fatherland which the flag stands for; that by authority of
the legislature, the Secretary of Education was duly authorized to promulgate Department Order No. 8,
series of 1955; that the requirement of observance of the flag ceremony or salute provided for in said
Department Order No. 8, does not violate the Constitutional provision about freedom of religion and
exercise of religion; that compliance with the non-discriminatory and reasonable rules and regulations
and school discipline, including observance of the flag ceremony is a prerequisite to attendance in
public schools; and that for failure and refusal to participate in the flag ceremony, petitioners were
properly excluded and dismissed from the public school they were attending.
In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is affirmed. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore
issued is ordered dissolved. No costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
BARRERA, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I am in substantial accord with the well-thought and well- expressed opinion of Mr. Justice Montemayor.
As much reliance has been placed by appellants on the Barnette case decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 87 L. ed. 1628),
two fundamental features distinguishing that case from the one before us, bear some stressing.
The underlying and, I believe, compelling consideration that impelled the majority in the Barnette case
to overrule the Gobitis decision (Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 84 L. ed 1375) was
the compulsory nature of the order of the State Board of Education making non-compliance therewith
virtually unlawful in the sense that under the West Virginia Code, upon expulsion of the disobeying
pupil, his parents or guardian become liable to criminal prosecution 1 for such absence due to
expulsion and if convicted are subjected to fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty
days. 2 The delinquent pupil may be proceeded against and sent to reformatories maintained for
criminally inclined juveniles. 3 Hence, the Court treated the case as one where "the sole conflict is
between authority and rights of the individual. The State asserts power to condition access to public
education on making a prescribed sign and profession, and at the same time to coerce attendance (in
school) by punishing both parent and child." As thus presented, really the conflict there between
authority and liberty became deeply sharpened and has attained the proportion of repugnance to a
degree that left no choice to the Court except to apply the rationale of the grave-and- imminentdanger rule and to enjoin, under the circumstances, the enforcement of the West Virginia School
Regulation.
Fortunately the problem the instant case presents to us is unaccompanied by such dire consequences.
Non-compliance with our prescribed flag ceremony does not result in criminal prosecution either of the
pupil or of the parent. All that the unwilling pupil suffers is inability to continue his studies in a public
school. If this and nothing else is the consequence, as it presently appears to be the complaint of
appellants in this case, then I perceive no clear offense is done to the Constitution.
One other significant distinction between the Barnette case and the one before us is the substantial

difference in the manner the flag salute is to be executed under the two laws, and of course, the
varying reaction and attitude taken by the Jehovahs Witnesses in relation thereto. In West Virginia, the
law requires the "stiff-arm" salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while
the following is repeated: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." The Jehovahs
Witnesses considered this posture of raising the hand at the same time reciting the pledge as an act of
obeisance contrary to their religious beliefs.
Here, what is required of all persons present during the flag ceremony is to stand at attention while the
flag is being raised and the National Anthem is being played or sung. Boys and men with hats shall
place the hat over the heart. Those without hats may stand with their arms and hands down and
straight at the sides. Those in military or Boy Scout uniform shall give the salute prescribed by their
regulations.
Appellants here have manifested through counsel, both in their brief and, I understand, in the course of
the oral argument, that they do not object to this requirement of standing at attention with their arms
and hands down and straight at the sides. Consequently, there seems to be no irreconciliable
fundamental conflict, except perhaps as regards the singing of the National Anthem and the recital
(unaccompanied by any particular physical position) of the patriotic pledge near the close of the
ceremony. As to the import of the National Anthem and the Patriotic Pledge, I can add nothing to the
very sober and well-considered opinion of Justice Montemayor.
As I see the issue, disentangled as it should and could be from the stress and strain of counsels
doctrinal discussion and argumentation on the fundamentals of the freedom of religion about which
there could be no serious disagreement, and if viewed and interpreted rationally in a spirit of
harmony, goodwill and in keeping with an appropriate sense of nationalism I find no reasonable
consideration making the flag ceremony executed in the manner prescribed by the questioned
Department order and regulation, clearly repugnant to the Constitution.

You might also like