Free Exercise Clause

Ebralinag, et al vs. Div. Supt. of Schools of Cebu

March 1, 1993

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.

Facts:

In 1989, DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints about teachers and pupils belonging
to the Jehovah’s Witness, and enrolled in various public and private schools, which refused to sing the
Phil. National Anthem, salute the flag and recite the patriotic pledge.

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.

Members of the Jehovah’s Witness sect find such 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 to their belief. 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.

Some Jehovah’s Witness members appealed to the Secretary of Education but the latter did not
answer to their letter.

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. 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.

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.

On May 31, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment to the petitions defending the
expulsion orders issued by the respondents.
 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:

Whether or not the expulsion of the members of Jehovah’s Witness from the schools
violates right receive free education.

Ruling:

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). Nevertheless, their right not to participate in the Flag
Ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt such patriotic exercises. If they quietly stand at attention
during flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing the national anthem and
recite the patriotic pledge, we do not see how such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose ‘a
grave and present danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any legitimate
public interest that the state has a right and duty to prevent.

It is appropriate to recall the Japanese occupation of our country in 1942-1944 when every Filipino,
regardless of religious persuasion, in fear of the invader, saluted the Japanese flag and bowed before
every Japanese soldier, perhaps if petitioners had lived through that dark period of our history, they would
not quibble now about saluting the Phil. Flag. The petitions for certiorari and prohibition are granted and
expulsion orders are hereby annulled and set aside.

Ebralinag, et al vs. Div. Supt. of Schools of Cebu

December 29, 1995 (En Banc Resolution)

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.

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 the members of Jehovah’s Witness from the schools
violates right receive free education.

Ruling:

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.