Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu

2/8/22, 12:57 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 219
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu
*
G.R. No. 95770. March 1, 1993.
ROEL EBRALINAG, EMILY EBRALINAG, represented by

their parents MR. & MRS. LEONARDO EBRALINAG,
JUSTINIANA TANTOG, represented by her father AMOS
TANTOG; JEMIL OYAO & JOEL OYAO, represented by
their parents MR. & MRS. ELIEZER OYAO; JANETH
DIAMOS & JEREMIAS DIAMOS, represented by parents
MR. & MRS. GODOFREDO DIAMOS; SARA OSTIA &
JONATHAN OSTIA, represented by their parents MR. &
MRS. FAUSTO OSTIA; IRVIN SEQUINO & RENAN
SEQUINO, represented by their parents MR. & MRS.
LYDIO SEQUINO; NAPTHALE TANACAO, represented
by his parents MR. & MRS. MANUEL TANACAO,
PRECILA PINO, represented by her parents MR. & MRS.
FELIPE PINO; MARICRIS ALFAR, RUWINA ALFAR,
represented by their parents MR. & MRS.
HERMINIGILDO ALFAR; FREDESMINDA ALFAR &
GUMERSINDO ALFAR, represented by their parents
ABDON ALFAR; ALBERTO ALFAR & ARISTIO ALFAR,
represented by their parents MR. & MRS. GENEROSO
ALFAR; MARTINO VILLAR, represented by his parents
MR. & MRS. GENARO VILLAR; PERGEBRIEL GUINITA
& CHAREN GUINITA, represented by their parents MR. &
MRS. CESAR GUINITA; ALVIN
______________
* EN BANC.
257
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 257

Cebu
DOOP, represented by his parents MR. & MRS.

LEONIDES DOOP; RHILYN LAUDE, represented by her
parents MR. & MRS. RENE LAUDE; LEOREMINDA
MONARES, represented by her parents, MR. & MRS.
FLORENCIO MONARES; MERCY MONTECILLO,
represented by her parents MR. & MRS. MANUEL
MONTECILLO; ROBERTO TANGAHA, represented by his
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ed51e428ec6b1450e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/21
parent ILUMINADA TANGAHA; EVELYN, MARIA &

FLORA TANGAHA, represented by their parents MR. &
MRS. ALBERTO TANGAHA; MAXIMO EBRALINAG,
represented by his parents, MR. & MRS. PAQUITO
EBRALINAG; JUTA CUMON, GIDEON CUMON &
JONATHAN CUMON, represented by their father
RAFAEL CUMON; EVIE LUMAKANG & JUNAR
LUMAKANG, represented by their parents MR. & MRS.
LUMAKANG; EMILIO SARSOZO, PAZ AMOR SARSOZO
& IGNA MARIE SARSOZO, represented by their parents
MR. & MRS. VIRGILIO SARSOZO; MICHAEL JOSEPH &
HENRY JOSEPH, represented by parent ANNIE JOSEPH;
EMERSON TABLASON & MASTERLOU TABLASON,
represented by their parent EMERLITO TABLASON,
petitioners, vs. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS OF CEBU, respondent.
G.R. No. 95887. March 1, 1993.*
MAY AMOLO, represented by her parents MR. & MRS.

ISAIAS AMOLO; REDFORD ALSADO, JOEBERT
ALSADO & RUDYARD ALSADO, represented by their
parents MR. & MRS. ABELARDO ALSADO; NESIA
ALSADO, REU ALSADO and LILIBETH ALSADO,
represented by their parents MR. & MRS. ROLANDO
ALSADO; SUZETTE NAPOLES, represented by her
parents ISMAILITO NAPOLES and OPHELIA NAPOLES;
JESICA CARMELOTES, represented by her parents MR.
& MRS. SERGIO CARMELOTES; BABY JEAN
MACAPAS, represented by her parents MR. & MRS.
TORIBIO MACAPAS; GERALDINE ALSADO, represented
by her parents MR. & MRS. JOEL ALSADO; RAQUEL
DEMOTOR and LEAH DEMOTOR, represented by their
parents MR. & MRS. LEONARDO DEMOTOR; JURELL
VILLA and MELONEY VILLA, represented by their
parents MR. & MRS. JOVENIANO VILLA; JONELL
HOPE MAHINAY, MARY GRACE
258

Cebu
MAHINAY and MAGDALENE MAHINAY, represented by

their parents MR. & MRS. FELIX MAHINAY; JONALYN
ANTIOLA and JERWIN ANTIOLA, represented by their
parents FELIPE ANTIOLA and ANECITA ANTIOLA;
MARIA CONCEPCION CABUYAO, represented by her
parents WENIFREDO CABUYAO and ESTRELLITA
CABUYAO, NOEMITURNO represented by her parents
MANUEL TURNO and VEVENCIA TURNO; SOLOMON
PALATULON, SALMERO PALATULON and ROSALINDA
PALATULON, represented by their parents

MARTILLANO PALATULON and CARMILA
PALATULON, petitioners, vs. THE DIVISION
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU and
ANTONIO A. SANGUTAN, respondents.
Constitutional Law; Religious Freedom; Nature thereof.—

Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the
highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights,
for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator (Chief
Justice Enrique M. Fernando's separate opinion in German vs.
Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 530-531).
Same; Same; Same; Two-fold aspect of right to religious
profession and worship; Scope.—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" (J. Cruz, Constitutional Law
1991 Ed pp 176-177).
Same; Same; Same; Prior restraint or limitation on the
exercise of religious freedom, sole justification thereof, explained.
—"The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the
exercise of religious 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 State has a right (and
duty) to prevent." Absent such a threat to public safety, the
expulsion of the petitioners from the schools is not justified.
259
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 259
Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
Same; Same; Freedom of Speech; Administrative Code; Flag

Salute Law; Compulsion to observe flag salute law on pain of
dismissal from one's job or expulsion from school is alien to the
conscience of present generation of Filipinos, being violative of
their constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise of
religious profession and worship.—Our task here is extremely
difficult, for the 30-year-old decision of this Court in Gerona
upholding the flag salute law and approving the expulsion of
students who refuse to obey it, is not lightly to be trifled with. It is
somewhat ironic however, that after the Gerona ruling had
received legislative cachet by its incorporation in the
Administrative Code of 1987, the present Court believes that the
time has come to reexamine it. The idea that one may be
compelled to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite
the patriotic pledge, during a flag ceremony on pain of being
dismissed from one's job or of being expelled from school, is alien
to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut

their teeth on the Bill of Rights which guarantees their rights to
free speech and the free exercise of religious profession and
worship (Sec. 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Article IV, Section
8, 1973 Constitution; Article III, Section 1[7], 1935 Constitution).
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Jehovah's witnesses are
accorded exemption to the observance of flag ceremony in deference
to their religious beliefs but said right not to participate in the flag
ceremony does not give them the right to disrupt such patriotic
exercises.—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 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 stand at attention during the 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 other legitimate public interest that the State has a
right (and duty) to prevent" (German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA
514, 517).
260
Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Right to free education;

Expulsion from school by reason of one's religious belief considered
a violation of a citizen's right to free education.—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 promote the right of
all citizens to quality education x x x and to make such education
accessible to all" (Sec. 1, Art. XIV).
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; To force a religious
group, through statutory compulsion, to participate in a ceremony
violative of its religious belief is not conducive to love of country or
respect for duly constituted authorities.—Expelling or banning the
petitioners from Philippine schools will bring about the very
situation that this Court had feared in Gerona. 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 duly constituted

authorities.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS for certiorari, mandamus and

prohibition to annul and set aside the orders of the
Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Felino M. Ganal for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
These two special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus

and Prohibition were consolidated because they raise
essentially the same issue: whether school children who are
members of 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.
In G.R. No. 95770, "Roel Ebralinag, et al. vs. Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu and Manuel F.
Biongcog, Cebu District Supervisor," the petitioners are 43
high school
261
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 261

Cebu
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.
In G.R. No. 95887, "May Amolo, et al. vs. Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu and Antonio A.
Sangutan," the petitioners are 25 high school and grade
school 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.
All the petitioners in these two 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 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 institutions. Republic Act No.
1265 provides:
"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.
"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 herein provided.
"Sec. 3. Failure or refusal to observe the flag ceremony provided
by this Act and in accordance with rules and regulations issued by
the Secretary of Education, after proper notice and hearing, shall
subject the educational institution concerned and its head to
public censure as an administrative punishment which shall be
published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation.
"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 cancellation of the
recognition or permit of the private educational institution
responsible for such failure."
The implementing rules and regulations in Department

Order No. 8 provide:
262

Cebu
"RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CONDUCTING THE FLAG

CEREMONY IN ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
"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
Iowered at sunset. The flagstaff must be straight, slightly
and gently tapering at the end, and of such height as
would give the Flag a commanding position in front of the
building or within the compound.
"2. Every public and private educational institution shall hold
a flag-raising ceremony 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:
"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 shall uncover. No one shall enter or leave
the school grounds during the ceremony.
"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
played by the school band alone. At the first note of the
Anthem, the flag shall be raised briskly. While the flag is

being raised, all persons present shall stand at attention
and execute a salute. Boys and men with hats shall salute
by placing the hat over the heart. Those without hat 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. The salute shall
be started as the Flag rises, and completed upon last note
of the anthem.
"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 which are intended for
Filipino students or whose population is predominantly
Filipino.
263
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 263

Cebu
"English Version"
I love the Philippines,

It is the land of my birth;
It is the home of my people.
It protects me and helps me to be strong, happy and useful.
In return, I will heed the counsel of my parents;
I will obey the rules of my school;
I will perform the duties of a patriotic, law-abiding citizen;
I will serve my country unselfishly and faithfully;
I will be a true Filipino in thought, in word, in deed.
xxx xxx xxx."
Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to

salute the flag, sing the 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 x x x to anyone or anything
except God" (p. 8, Rollo). They feel bound by the Bible's
command to "guard ourselves from idols—1 John 5:21" (p.
9, Rollo). They consider the flag as an image or idol
representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action
of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and
pledge transcends constitutional limitations on the State's
power and invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit
which the Constitution protects against official control (p.
10, Rollo).
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.
The same issue was raised in 1959 in Gerona, et al. vs.

Secretary of Education, et al., 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:
"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 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 significance. Saluting the flag does
not involve any
264

Cebu
religious ceremony. The flag salute is no more a religious

ceremony than the taking of an oath of office by a public official or
by a candidate for admission to the bar."
"In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute, the
State thru the Secretary of Education is not imposing a religion or
religious belief or a religious test on said students. It is merely
enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all
alike whether Christian, Moslem, 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 educational institutions, to establish and
maintain a complete and adequate system of public education,
and see to it that all schools aim to develop, among other things,
civic conscience and teach the duties of citizenship."
"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." (pp. 2-3).
Gerona was reiterated in Balbuna, as follows:
"The Secretary of Education was duly authorized by the

Legislature thru Republic Act 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 stands for, does not violate the
constitutional provision on freedom of religion." (Balbuna, et al.
vs. Secretary of Education, et al., 110 Phil. 150.)
Republic Act No. 1265 and the ruling in Gerona have been
incorporated in Section 28, Title VI, Chapter 9 of the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292)
which took effect on September 21, 1988 (one year after its
publication in the Official Gazette, Vol. 83, No. 38 of
September 21, 1987). Paragraph 5 of Section 28 gives
legislative cachet to the ruling in Gerona, thus:
265
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 265

Cebu
"5. Any teacher or student or pupil who refuses to join or

participate in the flag ceremony may be dismissed after due
investigation."
However, the petitioners herein have not raised in issue

the constitutionality of the above provision of the new
Administrative Code of 1987. They have targeted only
Republic Act No. 1265 and the implementing orders of the
DECS.
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
private schools, who refused to sing the Philippine national
anthem, salute the 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. No. 95770) directing District Supervisors,
High School Principals and Heads of Private Educational
institutions as follows:
"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 flag or participate in the daily flag ceremony
because of some religious belief.
"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 also strikes at
the heart of the DECS sustained effort to inculcate
patriotism and nationalism.
"3. Let it be stressed that any belief that considers the flag as
an image is not in any manner whatever a justification for
not saluting the Philippine flag or not participating in flag
ceremony. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Philippines
says:
" '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 freedom and liberty which it and the Constitution

guarantee and protect.' (Gerona, et al. vs. Sec. of Education, et al., 106
Phil. 11.)
"4. As regards the claim for freedom of belief, which an

objectionist may advance, the Supreme Court asserts:
266

Cebu
"But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is
quite a stretch of road to travel. If the exercise of said religious belief
clashes with the established institutions of society and with the law, then
the former must yield and give way to the latter.' (Gerona, et al. vs. Sec.
of Education, et al., 106 Phil. 11.)
"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 process.
"6. In strong language about pupils and students who do the
same the Supreme Court has this to say:
" 'lf 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 schools.'
(Gerona, et al. vs. Sec. of Education, et al., 106 Phil. 15.)
"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; Italics supplied.)
Cebu school officials resorted to a number of ways to

persuade the children of 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 end of the
song and recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag (Annex
D, p. 46, Rollo of G.R. No. 95770 and p. 48, Rollo of G.R. No.
95887), but they refused to sign the "Kasabutan" (p. 20,
Rollo of G.R. No. 95770).
In Tubigmanok Elementary School, the Teacher-In-
Charge, Antonio A. Sangutan, met with the Jehovah's
Witnesses' parents, as disclosed in his letter of October 17,
1990, excerpts from which reveal the following:
267
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 267

Cebu
"After two (2) fruitless confrontation meetings with the Jehovah's

Witnesses' parents on 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 from Grade I up to Grade VI
effective today.
"xxx xxx xxx.
"This order is in compliance with Division Memorandum No.
108 s. 1989 dated November 17, 1989 by virtue of Department
Order No. 8 s. 1955 dated July 21, 1955 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.)
In the Daan Bantayan District, the District Supervisor,
Manuel F. Biongcog, ordered 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.)
"1st Indorsement
DAANBANTAYAN DISTRICT
II
Daanbantayan, Cebu, July 24, 1990
"Respectfully returned to Mrs. Alicia A. Diaz, School In Charge

[sic], Agujo Elementary School with the information that this
office is sad to order the dropping of Jeremias Diamos and
Jeaneth Diamos, Grades III and IV pupils respectively from the
roll since 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
(Gerona, et al. vs. Sec. of Education, et al., 106 Philippines 15).
However, should they change their mind to respect and follow the
Flag Salute Law they may be re-accepted."
"(Sgd.) MANUEL F. BIONGCOG
District Supervisor"
(p. 47, Rollo of G.R. No. 95770.)
268

Cebu
The expulsion as of October 23, 1990 of the 43 petitioning

students of the Daanbantayan National High School, Agujo
Elementary School, Calape Barangay National High
School, Pinamungajan Provincial High School, Tabuelan
Central School, 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 some Jehovah's
Witnesses in Cebu to appeal to the Secretary of Education
Isidro Cariño but the latter did not answer their letter. (p.
21, 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
Superintendent of Schools, would not recall the expulsion
orders of his predecessor. Instead, he verbally caused the
expulsion of some more children of Jehovah's Witnesses.
On October 31, 1990, the students and their parents
filed these special civil actions for 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 speech, religion and worship (p. 23,
Rollo). The petitioners pray that:
"c. Judgment be rendered:
"i. declaring null and void the expulsion or dropping

from the rolls of herein petitioners from their
respective schools;
"ii. prohibiting and enjoining respondent from further
barring the petitioners from their classes or
otherwise implementing the expulsion ordered on
petitioners; and
"iii. compelling the respondent and all persons acting
for him to admit and order the re-admission of
petitioners to their respective schools." (p. 41,
Rollo.)
and that pending the determination of the merits of these

cases, a temporary restraining order be issued enjoining
the
269
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 269

Ebralinag us. The Division Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu
respondents from enforcing the expulsion of the petitioners

and to re-admit them to their respective classes.
On November 27, 1990, the Court issued a temporary

restraining order and a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction commanding the respondents to immediately re-
admit the petitioners to their respective classes until
further orders from this Court (p. 57, Rollo).
The Court also ordered the Secretary of Education and
Cebu District Supervisor Manuel F. Biongcog to be
impleaded as respondents in these cases.
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 grounds that:
1. Bizarre religious practices of the Jehovah's

Witnesses produce rebellious and anti-social school
children and consequently disloyal and mutant
Filipino citizens.
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.
3. The flag salute is devoid of any religious
significance; instead, it inculcates respect and love
of country, for which the flag stands.
4. The State's compelling interests being pursued by
the DECS's 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
religious convictions.
5. The issue is not freedom of speech but enforcement
of law and jurisprudence.
6. State's power to regulate repressive and unlawful
religious practices justified, besides having
scriptural basis.
7. The penalty of expulsion is legal and valid, more so
with the enactment of Executive Order No. 292
(The Administrative Code of 1987).
Our task here is extremely difficult, for the 30-year old

decision of this court in Gerona upholding the flag salute
law and approving the expulsion of students who refuse to
obey it, is not lightly to be trifled with.
It is somewhat ironic however, that after the Gerona
ruling
270

Cebu
had received legislative cachet by its incorporation in the

Administrative Code of 1987, the present Court believes
that the time has come to reexamine it. The idea that one
may be compelled to salute the flag, sing the national
anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, during a flag
ceremony on pain of being dismissed from one's job or of
being expelled from school, is alien to the conscience of the
present generation of Filipinos who cut their teeth on the**
Bill of Rights which guarantees their rights to free speech
and the free exercise of religious profession and worship
(Sec. 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Article IV, Section 8,
1973 Constitution; Article III, Section 1[7], 1935
Constitution.
Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is
entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection
among human rights, for it involves the relationship of
man to his Creator (Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando's
separate opinion in German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514,
530-531).
"The right to religious profession and worship has a
twofold 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" (J. Cruz, Constitutional
Law, 1991 Ed., pp. 176-177).
Petitioners stress, however, 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 (Annex F, Rollo of G.R. No. 95887,
p. 50 and Rollo of G.R. No. 95770, p. 48). Since they do not
engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their
expulsion.
"The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation
on the exercise of religious freedom (according to the late
Chief
_______________
** The flag salute, singing the national anthem and reciting the
patriotic pledge are all forms of utterances.
271
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 271

Ebralinag us. The Division Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu
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 State has a right (and duty) to prevent." Absent such a
threat to public safety, the expulsion of the petitioners from
the schools is not justified.
The situation that the Court directly predicted in
Gerona that:
"[T]he flag ceremony will become a thing of the past or perhaps

conducted with very few participants, and the time will come
when we would have citizens untaught and uninculcated in and
not imbued with reverence for the flag and love of country,
admiration for national heroes, and patriotism—a pathetic, even
tragic situation, and all because a small portion of the school
population imposed its will, demanded and was granted an
exemption." (Gerona, p. 24.)
has not come to pass. We are not persuaded that by

exempting the Jehovah's Witnesses from saluting the flag,
singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic
pledge, this religious group which admittedly comprises a
"small portion of the school 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 ceremony, not exclusion from the public schools
where they may study the Constitution, the democratic
way of life and form of government, and learn not only the
arts, sciences, Philippine history and culture but also
receive training for a vocation or profession and be taught
the virtues of "patriotism, respect for human rights,
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 situation that this court had feared in
Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron
hand of the
272

Cebu
law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their

religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country
or respect for duly constituted authorities.
As Mr. Justice Jackson remarked in West Virginia vs.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):
"x x x To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic

ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a
compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the
appeal of our institutions to free minds. x x x When they

[diversity] are so harmless to others or to the State as those we
deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is
not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a
mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to
differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
"Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty
even to the country, x x x—assuming that such unity and loyalty
can be attained through coercion—is not a goal that is
constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A
desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means." (Meyer
vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 67 L. ed. 1042, 1046.)
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 promote the right of all citizens to
quality education x x x and to make such education
accessible to all" (Sec. 1 Art XIV).
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
agreement between their employer and a union because it
would violate the teaching of their church not to join any
labor group:
"x x x 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

273
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 273

Cebu
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 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 stand at attention during the
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 other legitimate public interest that the State has a
right (and duty) to prevent" (German vs. Barangan, 135
SCRA 514, 517).
Before we close this decision, 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 Philippine flag. For when
liberation came in 1944 and 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.
Although the Court upholds in this decision the
petitioners' right under our Constitution to refuse to salute
the Philippine flag on account of their religious beliefs, we
hope, nevertheless, that another foreign invasion of our
country will not be necessary in order for our countrymen
to appreciate and cherish the Philippine flag.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and
prohibition is GRANTED. The expulsion orders issued by
the public respondents against the petitioners are hereby
ANNULLED AND
274

Cebu
SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order which was

issued by this Court is hereby made permanent.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, (C.J.), Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide,

Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Campos, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., On leave.
Cruz, J., See concurrence.
Padilla, J., See separate opinion.
Quiason, J., No part.
CRUZ, J., Concurring:
I am happy to concur with Mme. Justice Carolina Griño-

Aquino in her quietly eloquent affirmation of a vital
postulate of freedom. I would only add my brief
observations concerning Gerona v. Secretary of Education.
In my humble view, Gerona was based on an erroneous
assumption. The Court that promulgated it was apparently
laboring under the conviction that the State had the right
to determine what was religious and what was not and to
dictate to the individual what he could and could not

worship. In pronouncing that the flag was not a religious
image but a symbol of the nation, it was implying that no
one had the right to worship it or—as the petitioners
insisted—not to worship it. This was no different from
saying that the cult that reveres Rizal as a divinity should
not and cannot do so because he is only a civic figure
deserving honor but not veneration.
It seems to me that every individual is entitled to choose
for himself whom or what to worship or whether to worship
at all. This is a personal decision he alone can make. The
individual may worship a spirit or a person or a beast or a
tree (or a flag) and the State cannot prevent him from
doing so. For that matter, neither can it compel him to do
so. As long as his beliefs are not externalized in acts that
offend the public interest, he cannot be prohibited from
harboring them or punished for doing so.
In requiring the herein petitioners to participate in the
flag
275
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 275

Cebu
ceremony, the State has declared ex cathedra that they are

not violating the Bible by saluting the flag. This is to me an
unwarranted intrusion into their religious beliefs, which
tell them the opposite. The State cannot interpret the Bible
for them; only they can read it as they see fit. Right or
wrong, the meaning they derive from it cannot be revised
or reversed except perhaps by their own acknowledged
superiors. But certainly not the State. It has no competence
in this matter. Religion is forbidden territory that the
State, for all its power and authority, cannot invade.
I am not unaware of Justice Frankfurter's admonition
that "the constitutional protection of religious freedom
terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges. It
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."
But in the case at bar, the law to which the petitioners
are made to conform clashes with their own understanding
of their religious obligations. Significantly, as the ponencia
notes, their intransigence does not disturb the peaceful
atmosphere of the school or otherwise prejudice the public
order. Their refusal to salute the flag and recite the
patriotic pledge does not disrupt the flag ceremony. They
neither mock nor disdain it. The petitioners simply stand
at attention and keep quiet "to show their respect for the
right of those who choose to participate in the solemn
proceedings." It is for this innocuous conduct that,
pursuant to the challenged law and regulations, the
teachers have been dismissed and the students expelled.
Freedom of speech includes the right to be silent. Aptly

has it been said that the Bill of Rights that guarantees to
the individual the liberty to utter what is in his mind also
guarantees to him the liberty not to utter what is not in his
mind. The salute is a symbolic manner of communication
that conveys its message as clearly as the written or
spoken word. As a valid form of expression, it cannot be
compelled any more than it can be prohibited in the face of
valid religious objections like those raised in this petition.
To impose it on the petitioners is to deny them the right
not to speak when their religion bids them to be silent. This
coercion of conscience has no place in the free society.
276

Cebu
The democratic system provides for the accommodation of

diverse ideas, including the unconventional and even the
bizarre or eccentric. The will of the majority prevails, but it
cannot regiment thought by prescribing the recitation by
rote of its opinions or proscribing the assertion of
unorthodox or unpopular views as in this case. The
conscientious objections of the petitioners, no less than the
impatience of those who disagree with them, are protected
by the Constitution. The State cannot make the individual
speak when the soul within rebels.
SEPARATE OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
I concur in the Court's decision penned by Madame Justice

Carolina C. Griño-Aquino that school teachers and
students who cannot salute the flag, sing the national
anthem and recite the pledge of loyalty to the country, on
grounds of religious belief or conviction, may not on this
ground alone be dismissed from the service or expelled
from the school.
At the same time, I am really concerned with what could
be the far-reaching consequences of our ruling in that, we
may in effect be sanctioning a privileged or elite class of
teachers and students who will hereafter be exempt from
participating, even when they are in the school premises, in
the flag ceremony in deference to their religious scruples.
What happens, for instance, if some citizens, based also on
their religious beliefs, were to refuse to pay taxes and
license fees to the government? Perhaps problems of this
nature should not be anticipated. They will be resolved
when and if they ever arise. But with today's decision, we
may have created more problems than we have solved.
It cannot be denied that the State has the right and even
the duty to promote among its citizens, especially the
youth, love and country, respect for the flag and reverence
for its national heroes. It cannot also be disputed that the
State has the right to adopt reasonable means by which
these laudable objectives can be effectively pursued and
achieved. The flag ceremony is one such device intended to
inspire patriotism
277
VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 277

Cebu
and evoke the finest sentiments of love of country and

people.
In fine, the flag ceremony is a legitimate means to
achieve legitimate (and noble) ends. For a select few to be
exempt from the flag ceremony and all that it represents
even if the exemption is predicated on respect for religious
scruples, could be divisive in its impact on the school
population or community.
I would therefore submit that, henceforth, teachers and
students who because of religious scruples or beliefs cannot
actively participate in the flag ceremony conducted in the
school premises should be excluded beforehand from such
ceremony. Instead of allowing the religious objector to
attend the flag ceremony and display therein his inability
to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the
pledge of loyalty to the Republic, he or she should remain in
the classroom while honors to the flag are conducted and
manifested in the "quadrangle" or equivalent place within
school premises; or if the flag ceremony must be held in a
hall, the religious objector must take his or her place at the
rear of (or outside) the hall while those who actively
participate in the ceremony must take the front places.
This arrangement can, in my view, achieve an
accommodation and, to a certain extent, harmonization of a
citizen's constitutional right to freedom of religion and a
valid exercise of the State's fundamental and legitimate
authority to require homage and honor to the flag as the
symbol of the Nation.
Petition granted. Orders annulled and set aside.
Note.—View that the academic freedom of the school to

choose its students should not be stretched beyond its
constitutional limits (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA
212).
——o0o——
278
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/8/22, 12:57 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 219

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ROEL EBRALINAG, EMILY EBRALINAG, represented by

VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 257

DOOP, represented by his parents MR. & MRS.

parent ILUMINADA TANGAHA; EVELYN, MARIA &

G.R. No. 95887. March 1, 1993.*

MAY AMOLO, represented by her parents MR. & MRS.

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

MAHINAY and MAGDALENE MAHINAY, represented by

PALATULON, represented by their parents

Constitutional Law; Religious Freedom; Nature thereof.—

VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 259

Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu

Same; Same; Freedom of Speech; Administrative Code; Flag

to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Right to free education;

conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS for certiorari, mandamus and

These two special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus

VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 261

and elementary school students in the towns of Daan

"Sec. 1. All educational institutions shall henceforth observe daily

The implementing rules and regulations in Department

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

"RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CONDUCTING THE FLAG

"1. The Filipino Flag shall be displayed by all educational

"a. Pupils and teachers or students and faculty members who

Anthem, the flag shall be raised briskly. While the flag is

VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 263

I love the Philippines,

Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to

The same issue was raised in 1959 in Gerona, et al. vs.

"The flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

religious ceremony. The flag salute is no more a religious

Gerona was reiterated in Balbuna, as follows:

"The Secretary of Education was duly authorized by the

VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 265

"5. Any teacher or student or pupil who refuses to join or

However, the petitioners herein have not raised in issue

"1. Reports reaching this Office disclose that there are a

cohesion and freedom and liberty which it and the Constitution

"4. As regards the claim for freedom of belief, which an

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

"5. Accordingly, teachers and school employees who choose not

"7. School administrators shall therefore submit to this Office

Cebu school officials resorted to a number of ways to

VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 267

"After two (2) fruitless confrontation meetings with the Jehovah's

"Respectfully returned to Mrs. Alicia A. Diaz, School In Charge

(p. 47, Rollo of G.R. No. 95770.)

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The expulsion as of October 23, 1990 of the 43 petitioning

"c. Judgment be rendered:

"i. declaring null and void the expulsion or dropping

and that pending the determination of the merits of these

VOL. 219, MARCH 1, 1993 269

respondents from enforcing the expulsion of the petitioners

On November 27, 1990, the Court issued a temporary

1. Bizarre religious practices of the Jehovah's