Ebralinag v.
Division Superintendent of School of Cebu
G.R. No. 95770 | March 1, 1993
Grino – Aquino, J.
Digester: Group 6, Alonzo
FACTS:
1. In 1989, DECS Regional Office in Cebu
received complaints about teachers and
pupils belonging to the Jehovah’s Witness
who were enrolled in various public and
private schools, who refused to sing the Phil.
National Anthem, salute the flag and recite
the patriotic pledge.
2. Division Superintendent of schools, Susana B.
Cabahug of the Cebu Division of DECS and
her Assistant issued Division Memorandum
No. 108, dated Nov. 17, 1989, directing
District Supervisors, High School Principals and
Heads of Private Educational institutions to
remove from service, after due process,
teachers and school employees, and to
deprive the students and pupils from the
benefit of public education, if they do not
participate in daily flag ceremony and
doesn’t obey flag salute rule.
3. The Members of the Jehovah’s Witness sect
found the memorandum to be contrary to
their religious belief and choose not to obey.
Despite a number of appropriate persuasions
made by the Cebu officials to let them obey
the directives, still they opted to follow their
conviction in their belief.
4. As a result, an order was issued by the district
supervisor of Daan Bantayan District of Cebu,
dated July 24, 1990, ordering the ‘dropping
from the list’ in the school register of all
Jehovah’s Witness teachers and pupils from
Grade 1 to Grade 6 who opted to follow their
belief which is against the Flag Salute Law,
however, given a chance to be re-accepted
if they change their mind.
5. Some Jehovah’s Witness members appealed
to the Secretary of Education but the latter
did not answer to their letter.
6. On Oct. 31, 1990, students and their parents
filed special civil actions for Mandamus,
Certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the
respondents acted without or in excess of
their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discretion 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 speech, religion and worship.
7. Petitioners prayed for the voiding of the order
of expulsion or ‘dropping from the rolls’ issued
by the District Supervisor; prohibiting and
enjoining respondent from barring them from
classes; and compelling the respondent and
all persons acting for him to admit and order
their(Petitioners) re-admission I their
respective schools.
8. On November 27, 1990, Court issued a TRO
and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,
commanding the respondents to
immediately re-admit the petitioners to their
respective classes until further orders.
9. On May 31, the Solicitor General filed a
consolidated comment to the petitions
defending the expulsion orders issued by the
respondents.
10. Petitioners stressed 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 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.
ISSUE:
W/N the expulsion of the members of Jehovah’s
Witness from the schools violates right receive free
education.
W/N the expulsion was illegal, on the basis of the
Constitutional right to freedom of religion.
HELD:
On the Right to Free Education
1. The expulsion of the members of Jehovah’s
Witness 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 promote the right
of all citizens to quality education, and to
make such education accessible to all
(Sec. I, Art XIV).
2. It is appropriate to recall the Japanese
occupation when every Filipino, regardless
of religious persuasion, in fear of the
invader, saluted the Japanese flag and
bowed before every Japanese soldier
 3. If petitioners had lived through that dark
period of our history, they would not quibble
now about saluting the Phil. Flag.

On Freedom of Religion
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Forcing a small religious group, through the
iron hand of the law, to participate in a
ceremony that violates their religious
beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of
country or respect for dully constituted
authorities If they quietly stand at attention
during the flag ceremony while their
classmates and teachers salute the flag,
sing the national anthem and recite the
patriotic pledge. Such conduct may not
possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave
and present danger of a serious evil to
public safety, public morals, public health
or any other legitimate public interest that
the State has a right (and duty) to prevent.

DECISION: The petitions for certiorari and

prohibition are granted and expulsion orders
are hereby annulled and set aside.