Ebralinag vs.

Division Superintendent of
School of Cebu
Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of School of Cebu
GR 95770, 29 December 1995; En Banc Resolution, Kapunan [J]

FACTS:
Two special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition were filed and consolidated raising
the same issue whether school children who are members or a religious sect known as Jehovah’s
Witnesses may be expelled from school (both public and private), for refusing, on account of their
religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony which includes playing (by a band) or singing the
Philippine national anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the patriotic pledge.

All of the petitioners in both (consolidated) cases were expelled from their classes by the public
school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the
patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 (An Act making flagceremony compulsory in
all educational institutions) of July 11, 1955 , and by Department Order No. 8 (Rules and
Regulations for Conducting the Flag Ceremony in All Educational Institutions)dated July 21, 1955 of
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) making the flag ceremony compulsory in
all educational institutions.

Petitioners are Jehovah’s Witnesses believing that by doing these is religious worship/devotion akin
to idolatry against their teachings. They contend that to compel transcends constitutional limits and
invades protection against official control and religious freedom. The respondents relied on the
precedence of Gerona et al v. Secretary of Education where the Court upheld the explulsions.
Gerona doctrine provides that we are a system of separation of the church and state and the flag is
devoid of religious significance and it doesn’t involve any religious ceremony. The children of
Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be exempted from participation in the flag ceremony. They have no
valid right to such exemption. Moreover, exemption to the requirement will disrupt school discipline
and demoralize the rest of the school population which by far constitutes the great majority. The
freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution does not and cannot mean exemption
from or non-compliance with reasonable and non-discriminatory laws, rules and regulations
promulgated by competent authority.

ISSUE: Whether or not the expulsion of petitioners violated their freedom of religion?
HELD:
YES. The Court held that the expulsion of the petitioners from the school was not justified.

Religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority and the amplest protection
among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator. The right to
religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom
to act on one’s belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of
thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts
that affect the public welfare. The only limitation to religious freedom is the existence of
grave and present danger to public safety, morals, health and interests where State has right
to prevent.
Petitioners stress that while they do not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they do not
engage in “external acts” or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing
their love of country through the observance of 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. Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their
expulsion.