1

G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993 Sec. 1. All educational institutions shall henceforth observe daily flag ceremony,
which shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the
Philippine National anthem.
ROEL EBRALINAG, EMILY EBRALINAG vs.

THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU Sec. 2. The Secretary of Education is hereby authorized and directed to issue or
cause to be issued rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
herein provided.

These two special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition were
Sec. 3. Failure or refusal to observe the flag ceremony provided by this Act and in
consolidated because they raise essentially the same issue: whether school children
accordance with rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Education, after
who are members or a religious sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses may be expelled
proper notice and hearing, shall subject the educational institution concerned and its
from school (both public and private), for refusing, on account of their religious beliefs,
head to public censure as an administrative punishment which shall be published at
to take part in the flag ceremony which includes playing (by a band) or singing the
least once in a newspaper of general circulation.
Philippine national anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the patriotic
pledge.

In case of failure to observe for the second time the flag-ceremony provided by this Act,
the Secretary of Education, after proper notice and hearing, shall cause the
In G.R. No. 95770 "Roel Ebralinag, et al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of
cancellation of the recognition or permit of the private educational institution
Cebu and Manuel F. Biongcog, Cebu District Supervisor," the petitioners are 43 high
responsible for such failure.
school and elementary school students in the towns of Daan Bantayan, Pinamungajan,
Carcar, and Taburan Cebu province. All minors, they are assisted by their parents who
belong to the religious group known as Jehovah's Witnesses which claims some
100,000 "baptized publishers" in the Philippines. The implementing rules and regulations in Department Order No. 8 provide:

In G.R. No. 95887, "May Amolo, et al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CONDUCTING THE FLAG CEREMONY IN ALL
and Antonio A. Sangutan," the petitioners are 25 high school and grade school EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
students enrolled in public schools in Asturias, Cebu, whose parents are Jehovah's
Witnesses. Both petitions were prepared by the same counsel, Attorney Felino M.
Ganal.
1. The Filipino Flag shall be displayed by all educational institutions, public and
private, every school day throughout the year. It shall be raised at sunrise and lowered
at sunset. The flag-staff must be straight, slightly and gently tapering at the end, and of
All the petitioners in these two cases were expelled from their classes by the public such height as would give the Flag a commanding position in front of the building or
school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and within the compound.
recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 of July 11, 1955, and
by Department Order No. 8 dated July 21, 1955 of the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS) making the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational
2. Every public and private educational institution shall hold a flag-raising ceremony
institutions. Republic Act No. 1265 provides:
every morning except when it is raining, in which event the ceremony may be
conducted indoors in the best way possible. A retreat shall be held in the afternoon of
the same day. The flag-raising ceremony in the morning shall be conducted in the
following manner:
 2

xxx xxx xxx

a. Pupils and teachers or students and faculty members who are in school and its
premises shall assemble in formation facing the flag. At command, books shall be put
away or held in the left hand and everybody shall come to attention. Those with hats Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the
shall uncover. No one shall enter or leave the school grounds during the ceremony. national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of
worship" or "religious devotion" (p. 10, Rollo) which they "cannot conscientiously
give . . . to anyone or anything except God" (p. 8, Rollo). They feel bound by the Bible's
command to "guard ourselves from
b. The assembly shall sing the Philippine National Anthem accompanied by the
school band or without the accompaniment if it has none; or the anthem may be idols — 1 John 5:21" (p. 9, Rollo). They consider the flag as an image or idol
played by the school band alone. At the first note of the Anthem, the flag shall be representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of the local authorities in
raised briskly. While the flag is being raised, all persons present shall stand at compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on the
attention and execute a salute. Boys and men with hats shall salute by placing the hat State's power and invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit which the Constitution
over the heart. Those without hat may stand with their arms and hands down and protect against official control (p. 10, Rollo).
straight at the sides. Those in military or Boy Scout uniform shall give the salute
prescribed by their regulations. The salute shall be started as the Flag rises, and
completed upon last note of the anthem.
This is not the first time that the question, of whether the children of Jehovah's
Witnesses may be expelled from school for disobedience of R.A. No. 1265 and
Department Order No. 8, series of 1955, has been raised before this Court.
c. Immediately following the singing of the Anthem, the assembly shall recite in
unison the following patriotic pledge (English or vernacular version), which may bring
the ceremony to a close. This is required of all public schools and of private schools
The same issue was raised in 1959 in Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.,
which are intended for Filipino students or whose population is predominantly Filipino.
106 Phil. 2 (1959) and Balbuna, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, 110 Phil. 150 (1960).
This Court in the Gerona case upheld the expulsion of the students, thus:

English Version
The flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, an emblem of
national sovereignty, of national unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it
I love the Philippines. and the Constitution guarantee and protect. Under a system of complete separation of
church and state in the government, the flag is utterly devoid of any religious
It is the land of my birth; significance. Saluting the flag does not involve any religious ceremony. The flag salute
is no more a religious ceremony than the taking of an oath of office by a public official
It is the home of my people.
or by a candidate for admission to the bar.
It protects me and helps me to be, strong, happy and useful.

In return, I will heed the counsel of my parents;

In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute, the State thru the Secretary
I will obey the rules of my school; of Education is not imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on said
students. It is merely enforcing a
I will perform the duties of a patriotic, law-abiding citizen;
non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all alike whether Christian, Moslem,
I will serve my country unselfishly and faithfully; Protestant or Jehovah's Witness. The State is merely carrying out the duty imposed
upon it by the Constitution which charges it with supervision over and regulation of all
I will be a true, Filipino in thought, in word, in deed.
educational institutions, to establish and maintain a complete and adequate system of
 3

public education, and see to it that all schools aim to develop, among other things, private schools, who refused to sing the Philippine national anthem, salute the
civic conscience and teach the duties of citizenship. Philippine flag and recite the patriotic pledge. Division Superintendent of Schools,
Susana B. Cabahug of the Cebu Division of DECS, and Dr. Atty. Marcelo M. Bacalso,
Assistant Division Superintendent, recalling this Court's decision in Gerona, issued
Division Memorandum No. 108, dated November 17, 1989 (pp. 147-148, Rollo of G.R.
The children of Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be exempted from participation in the flag
No. 95770) directing District Supervisors, High School Principals and Heads of Private
ceremony. They have no valid right to such exemption. Moreover, exemption to the
Educational institutions as follows:
requirement will disrupt school discipline and demoralize the rest of the school
population which by far constitutes the great majority.

1. Reports reaching this Office disclose that there are a number of teachers, pupils,
students, and school employees in public schools who refuse to salute the Philippine
The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution does not and cannot
flag or participate in the daily flag ceremony because of some religious belief.
mean exemption from or non-compliance with reasonable and non-discriminatory laws,
rules and regulations promulgated by competent authority. (pp. 2-3).

2. Such refusal not only undermines Republic Act No. 1265 and the DECS
Department Order No. 8, Series of 1955 (Implementing Rules and Regulations) but
Gerona was reiterated in Balbuna, as follows:
also strikes at the heart of the DECS sustained effort to inculcate patriotism and
The Secretary of Education was duly authorized by the Legislature thru Republic Act nationalism.
1265 to promulgate said Department Order, and its provisions requiring the
observance of the flag salute, not being a religious ceremony but an act and
profession of love and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the fatherland which the flag 3. Let it be stressed that any belief that considers the flag as an image is not in any
stands for, does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of religion. manner whatever a justification for not saluting the Philippine flag or not participating in
(Balbuna, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al., 110 Phil. 150). flag ceremony. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Philippine says:

Republic Act No. 1265 and the ruling in Gerona have been incorporated in Section 28, The flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, an emblem of
Title VI, Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) which national sovereignty, of national unity and cohesion and freedom and liberty which it
took effect on September 21, 1988 (one year after its publication in the Official Gazette, and the Constitution guarantee and protect. (Gerona, et al. vs. Sec. of Education, et al.,
Vol. 63, No. 38 of September 21, 1987). Paragraph 5 of Section 28 gives legislative 106 Phil. 11.)
cachet to the ruling in Gerona, thus:

4. As regards the claim for freedom of belief, which an objectionist may advance,
5. Any teacher or student or pupil who refuses to join or participate in the flag the Supreme Court asserts:
ceremony may be dismissed after due investigation.

But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a
However, the petitioners herein have not raised in issue the constitutionality of the stretch of road to travel. If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with the
above provision of the new Administrative Code of 1987. They have targeted only established institutions of society and with the law, then the former must yield and give
Republic Act No. 1265 and the implementing orders of the DECS. way to the latter. (Gerona, et al. vs. Sec. of Education, et al., 106 Phil. 11.)

In 1989, the DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints about teachers and
pupils belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and enrolled in various public and
 4

5. Accordingly, teachers and school employees who choose not to participate in the
daily flag ceremony or to obey the flag salute regulation spelled out in Department
Order No. 8, Series of 1955, shall be considered removed from the service after due xxx xxx xxx
process.

This order is in compliance with Division Memorandum No. 108 s. 1989 dated
6. In strong language about pupils and students who do the same the Supreme November 17, 1989 by virtue of Department Order No. 8 s. 1955 dated July 21, 1955
Court has this to say: in accordance with Republic Act No. 1265 and Supreme Court Decision of a case
"Genaro Gerona, et al., Petitioners and Appellants vs. The Honorable Secretary of
Education, et al., Respondents and Appellees' dated August 12, 1959 against their
favor. (p. 149, Rollo of G.R. No. 95770.)
If they choose not to obey the flag salute regulation, they merely lost the benefits of
public education being maintained at the expense of their fellow Citizens, nothing more.
According to a popular expression, they could take it or leave it! Having elected not to
comply with the regulation about the flag salute they forfeited their right to attend public In the Daan Bantayan District, the District Supervisor, Manuel F. Biongcog, ordered
schools. (Gerona, et al. vs. Sec. of Education, et al., 106 Phil. 15.) the "dropping from the rolls" of students who "opted to follow their religious belief which
is against the Flag Salute Law" on the theory that "they forfeited their right to attend
public schools." (p. 47, Rollo of G.R. No. 95770.)

7. School administrators shall therefore submit to this Office a report on those who
choose not to participate in flag ceremony or salute the Philippine flag. (pp. 147-148,
Rollo of G.R. No. 95770; Emphasis supplied). 1st Indorsement

DAANBANTAYAN DISTRICT II

Cebu school officials resorted to a number of ways to persuade the children of Daanbantayan, Cebu, July 24, 1990.
Jehovah's Witnesses to obey the memorandum. In the Buenavista Elementary School,
the children were asked to sign an Agreement (Kasabutan) in the Cebuano dialect
promising to sing the national anthem, place their right hand on their breast until the Respectfully returned to Mrs. Alicia A. Diaz, School In Charge [sic], Agujo Elementary
end of the song and recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag (Annex D, p. 46, Rollo of School with the information that this office is sad to order the dropping of Jeremias
G.R. No. 95770 and p. 48, Rollo of G.R. No. 95887), but they refused to sign the Diamos and Jeaneth Diamos, Grades III and IV pupils respectively from the roll since
"Kasabutan" (p. 20, Rollo of G.R. No. 95770). they opted to follow their religious belief which is against the Flag Salute Law (R.A.
1265) and DECS Order No. 8, series of 1955, having elected not to comply with the
regulation about the flag salute they forfeited their right to attend public schools
In Tubigmanok Elementary School, the Teacher-In-Charge, Antonio A. Sangutan, met (Gerona, et al. vs. Sec. of Education, et al., 106 Philippines 15). However, should they
with the Jehovah's Witnesses' parents, as disclosed in his letter of October 17, 1990, change their mind to respect and follow the Flag Salute Law they may be re-accepted.
excerpts from which reveal the following:

(Sgd.) MANUEL F. BIONGCOG

After two (2) fruitless confrontation meetings with the Jehovah's Witnesses' parents on
District Supervisor
October 2, 1990 and yesterday due to their firm stand not to salute the flag of the
Republic of the Philippines during Flag Ceremony and other occasions, as mandated
by law specifically Republic Act No. 1265, this Office hereby orders the dropping from
the list in the School Register (BPS Form I) of all teachers, all Jehovah Witness pupils (p. 47, Rollo of G.R. No. 95770.)
from Grade I up to Grade VI effective today.
 5

The expulsion as of October 23, 1990 of the 43 petitioning students of the and that pending the determination of the merits of these cases, a temporary
Daanbantayan National High School, Agujo Elementary School, Calape Barangay restraining order be issued enjoining the respondents from enforcing the expulsion of
National High School, Pinamungajan Provincial High School, Tabuelan Central School, the petitioners and to re-admit them to their respective classes.
Canasojan Elementary School, Liboron Elementary School, Tagaytay Primary School,
San Juan Primary School and Northern Central Elementary School of San Fernando,
Cebu, upon order of then Acting Division Superintendent Marcelo Bacalso, prompted
On November 27, 1990, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and a writ of
some Jehovah's Witnesses in Cebu to appeal to the Secretary of Education Isidro
preliminary mandatory injunction commanding the respondents to immediately
Cariño but the latter did not answer their letter. (p. 21, Rollo.)
re-admit the petitioners to their respective classes until further orders from this Court
(p. 57, Rollo).

The petition in G.R. No. 95887 was filed by 25 students who were similarly expelled
because Dr. Pablo Antopina, who succeeded Susana Cabahug as Division
The Court also ordered the Secretary of Education and Cebu District Supervisor
Superintendent of Schools, would not recall the expulsion orders of his predecessor.
Manuel F. Biongcog to be impleaded as respondents in these cases.
Instead, he verbally caused the expulsion of some more children of Jehovah's
Witnesses.

On May 13, 1991, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment to the petitions
(p. 98, Rollo) defending the expulsion orders issued by the public respondents on the
On October 31, 1990, the students and their parents filed these special civil actions for
grounds that:
Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition alleging that the public respondents acted
without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion — (1) in
ordering their expulsion without prior notice and hearing, hence, in violation of their
right to due process, their right to free public education, and their right to freedom of 1. Bizarre religious practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses produce rebellious and
speech, religion and worship (p. 23, Rollo). The petitioners pray that: anti-social school children and consequently disloyal and mutant Filipino citizens.

c. Judgment be rendered: 2. There are no new and valid grounds to sustain the charges of the Jehovah's
Witnesses that the DECS' rules and regulations on the flag salute ceremonies are
violative of their freedom of religion and worship.
i. declaring null and void the expulsion or dropping from the rolls of herein
petitioners from their respective schools;
3. The flag salute is devoid of any religious significance; instead, it inculcates
respect and love of country, for which the flag stands.
ii. prohibiting and enjoining respondent from further barring the petitioners from
their classes or otherwise implementing the expulsion ordered on petitioners; and
4. The State's compelling interests being pursued by the DECS' lawful regulations
in question do not warrant exemption of the school children of the Jehovah's
Witnesses from the flag salute ceremonies on the basis of their own self-perceived
iii. compelling the respondent and all persons acting for him to admit and order the
religious convictions.
re-admission of petitioners to their respective schools. (p. 41, Rollo.)

5. The issue is not freedom of speech but enforcement of law and jurisprudence.
 6

6. State's power to regulate repressive and unlawful religious practices justified, (Annex F, Rollo of G.R. No. 95887, p. 50 and Rollo of G.R. No. 95770, p. 48). Since
besides having scriptural basis. they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion.

7. The penalty of expulsion is legal and valid, more so with the enactment of The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious
Executive Order No. 292 (The Administrative Code of 1987). freedom (according to the late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in his dissenting
opinion in German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 517) is the existence of a grave and
present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public
safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest, that the
Our task here is extremely difficult, for the 30-year old decision of this court in Gerona
State has a right (and duty) to prevent." Absent such a threat to public safety, the
upholding the flag salute law and approving the expulsion of students who refuse to
expulsion of the petitioners from the schools is not justified.
obey it, is not lightly to be trifled with.

The situation that the Court directly predicted in Gerona that:

It is somewhat ironic however, that after the Gerona ruling had received legislative
cachet by its in corporation in the Administrative Code of 1987, the present Court
believes that the time has come to re-examine it. The idea that one may be compelled
to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, during a The flag ceremony will become a thing of the past or perhaps conducted with very few
flag ceremony on pain of being dismissed from one's job or of being expelled from participants, and the time will come when we would have citizens untaught and
school, is alien to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut their uninculcated in and not imbued with reverence for the flag and love of country,
teeth on the Bill of Rights which guarantees their rights to free speech ** and the free admiration for national heroes, and patriotism — a pathetic, even tragic situation, and
exercise of religious profession and worship (Sec. 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution; all because a small portion of the school population imposed its will, demanded and
Article IV, Section 8, 1973 Constitution; Article III, Section 1[7], 1935 Constitution). was granted an exemption. (Gerona, p. 24.)

Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the has not come to pass. We are not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovah's
amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic
Creator (Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando's separate opinion in German vs. pledge, this religious group which admittedly comprises a "small portion of the school
Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 530-531). population" will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a nation
"untaught and uninculcated in and unimbued with reverence for the flag, patriotism,
love of country and admiration for national heroes" (Gerona vs. Sec. of Education, 106
Phil. 2, 24). After all, what the petitioners seek only is exemption from the flag
The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to
ceremony, not exclusion from the public schools where they may study the
believe and freedom to act on one's belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is
Constitution, the democratic way of life and form of government, and learn not only the
confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the
arts, sciences, Philippine history and culture but also receive training for a vocation of
belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare (J. Cruz,
profession and be taught the virtues of "patriotism, respect for human rights,
Constitutional Law, 1991 Ed., pp. 176-177).
appreciation for national heroes, the rights and duties of citizenship, and moral and
spiritual values (Sec. 3[2], Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution) as part of the curricula.
Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will bring about the very
Petitioners stress, however, that while they do not take part in the compulsory flag situation that this Court had feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through
ceremony, they do not engage in "external acts" or behavior that would offend their the iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs,
countrymen who believe in expressing their love of country through the observance of will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for dully constituted authorities.
the flag ceremony. They quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show
their respect for the right of those who choose to participate in the solemn proceedings
 7

As Mr. Justice Jackson remarked in West Virginia vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943): SCRA 523, 535, while the highest regard must be afforded their right to the free
exercise of their religion, "this should not be taken to mean that school authorities are
powerless to discipline them" if they should commit breaches of the peace by actions
that offend the sensibilities, both religious and patriotic, of other persons. If they quietly
. . . To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and
stand at attention during the flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute
spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the
the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we do not see how
appeal of our institutions to free minds. . . . When they [diversity] are so harmless to
such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave and present danger of
others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But
a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate
freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere
public interest that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent (German vs. Barangan,
shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch
135 SCRA 514, 517).
the heart of the existing order.

Before we close this decision, it is appropriate to recall the Japanese occupation of our
Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even to the country, . . . —
country in 1942-1944 when every Filipino, regardless of religious persuasion, in fear of
assuming that such unity and loyalty can be attained through coercion — is not a goal
the invader, saluted the Japanese flag and bowed before every Japanese soldier.
that is constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A desirable end
Perhaps, if petitioners had lived through that dark period of our history, they would not
cannot be promoted by prohibited means. (Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 67 L.
quibble now about saluting the Philippine flag. For when liberation came in 1944 and
ed. 1042, 1046.)
our own flag was proudly hoisted aloft again, it was a beautiful sight to behold that
made our hearts pound with pride and joy over the newly-regained freedom and
sovereignty of our nation.
Moreover, the expulsion of members of Jehovah's Witnesses from the schools where
they are enrolled will violate their right as Philippine citizens, under the 1987
Constitution, to receive free education, for it is the duty of the State to "protect and
Although the Court upholds in this decision the petitioners' right under our Constitution
promote the right of all citizens to quality education . . . and to make such education
to refuse to salute the Philippine flag on account of their religious beliefs, we hope,
accessible to all (Sec. 1, Art. XIV).
nevertheless, that another foreign invasion of our country will not be necessary in
order for our countrymen to appreciate and cherish the Philippine flag.

In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54, 72-75, we upheld the
exemption of members of the Iglesia ni Cristo, from the coverage of a closed shop
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The expulsion
agreement between their employer and a union because it would violate the teaching
orders issued by the public respondents against the petitioners are hereby
of their church not to join any labor group:
ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order which was issued by
this Court is hereby made permanent.

. . . It is certain that not every conscience can be accommodated by all the laws of the
land; but when general laws conflict with scruples of conscience, exemptions ought to
be granted unless some "compelling state interests" intervenes. (Sherbert vs. Berner,
374 U.S. 398, 10 L. Ed. 2d 965, 970, 83 S. Ct. 1790.)

We hold that a similar exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with
regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs,
however "bizarre" those beliefs may seem to others. Nevertheless, their right not to
participate in the flag ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt such patriotic
exercises. Paraphrasing the warning cited by this Court in Non vs. Dames II, 185