Page I

Case Copy (Resolution)

The State moves for a reconsideration of our decision dated March 1, 1993 granting private
respondents’ petition for certiorari and prohibition and annulling the expulsion orders issued by
the public respondents therein on the ground that the said decision created an exemption in
favor of the members of the religious sect, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in violation of the
"Establishment Clause" of the Constitution. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the public
respondent, furthermore contends that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The accommodation by this Honorable Court to a demand for special treatment in favor of a
minority sect even on the basis of a claim of religious freedom may be criticized as granting
preference to the religious beliefs of said sect in violation of the "non-establishment guarantee"
provision of the Constitution. Surely, the decision of the Court constitutes a special favor which
immunizes religious believers such as Jehovah’s Witnesses to the law and the DECS rules and
regulations by interposing the claim that the conduct required by law and the-rules and
regulation (sic) are violative of their religious beliefs. The decision therefore is susceptible to the
very criticism that the grant of exemption is a violation of the non-establishment" provision of the
Constitution.

Furthermore, to grant an exemption to a specific religious minority poses a risk of collision

course with the "equal protection of the laws" clause in respect of the non-exempt, and, in public
schools, a collision course with the "non-establishment guarantee." chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Additionally the public respondent insists that this Court adopt a "neutral stance" by reverting to
its holding in Gerona declaring the flag as being devoid of any religious significance. He
stresses that the issue here is not curtailment of religious belief but regulation of the exercise of
religious belief. Finally, he maintains that the State’s interests in the case at bench are
constitutional and legal obligations to implement the law and the constitutional mandate to
inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism and to encourage their involvement in public
and civic affairs, referring to the test devised by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v.
O’Brien. 1

II

All the petitioners in the original case 2 were minor schoolchildren, and members of the sect,
Jehovah’s Witnesses (assisted by their parents) who were expelled from their classes by
various 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 issued by the Department of Education. Aimed
primarily at private educational institutions which did not observe the flag ceremony exercises,
Republic Act No. 1265 penalizes all educational institutions for failure or refusal to observe the
flag ceremony with-public censure on first offense and cancellation of the recognition or permit
on second offense.

The implementing regulations issued by the Department of Education thereafter detailed the
manner of observance of the same. Immediately pursuant to these orders, school officials in
Masbate expelled children belonging to the sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses from school for
failing or refusing to comply with the flag ceremony requirement. Sustaining these expulsion
orders, this Court in the 1959 case of Gerona v. Secretary of Education 3 held that:chanrob1es
virtual 1aw library

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. Considering the complete separation of church and state in
our system of government, the flag is utterly devoid of any religious significance. Saluting the
flag consequently does not involve any religious ceremony. . . . .

After all, the determination of whether a certain ritual is or is not a religious ceremony must rest
with the courts. It cannot be left to a religious group or sect, much less to a follower of said
group or sect; otherwise, there would be confusion and misunderstanding for there might be as
many interpretations and meanings to be given to a certain ritual or ceremony as there are
religious groups or sects or followers.

Upholding religious freedom as a fundamental right deserving the "highest priority and amplest
protection among human rights," this Court, in Ebralinag vs Division Superintendent of Schools
of Cebu 4 re-examined our over two decades-old decision in Gerona and reversed expulsion
orders made by the public respondents therein as violative of both the free exercise of religion
clause and the right of citizens to education under the 1987 Constitution. 5

From our decision of March 1, 1993, the public respondents filed a motion for reconsideration
on grounds hereinabove stated. After a careful study of the grounds adduced in the
government’s Motion For Reconsideration of our original decision, however, we find no cogent
reason to disturb our earlier ruling.

The religious convictions and beliefs of the members of the religious sect, the Jehovah’s
Witnesses are widely known and are equally widely disseminated in numerous books,
magazines, brochures and leaflets distributed by their members in their house to house
distribution efforts and in many public places. Their refusal to render obeisance to any form or
symbol which smacks of idolatry is based on their sincere belief in the biblical injunction found in
Exodus 20:4,5, against worshipping forms or idols other than God himself. The basic
assumption in their universal refusal to salute the flags of the countries in which they are found
is that such a salute constitutes an act of religious devotion forbidden by God’s law. This
assumption, while "bizarre" to others is firmly anchored in several biblical passages. 6
And yet, while members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the basis of religious convictions, refuse to
perform an act (or acts) which they consider proscribed by the Bible, they contend that such
refusal should not be taken to indicate disrespect for the symbols of the country or evidence that
they are wanting in patriotism and nationalism. They point out that as citizens, they have an
excellent record as law abiding members of society even if they do not demonstrate their refusal
to conform to the assailed orders by overt acts of conformity. On the contrary, they aver that
they show their respect through less demonstrative methods manifesting their allegiance, by
their simple obedience to the country’s laws, 7 by not engaging in antigovernment activities of
any kind, 8 and by paying their taxes and dues to society a self-sufficient members of the
community. 9 While they refuse to salute the flag, they are willing to stand quietly and peacefully
at attention, hands on their side, in order not to disrupt the ceremony or disturb those who
believe differently. 10

The religious beliefs, practices and convictions of the member of the sect as a minority are
bound to be seen by others as odd and different and at divergence with the complex
requirements of contemporary societies, particularly those societies which require certain
practices as manifestations of loyalty and patriotic behavior. Against those who believe that
coerced loyalty and unity are mere shadows of patriotism, the tendency to exact "a hydraulic
insistence on conformity to majoritarian standards," 11 is seductive to the bureaucratic mindset
as a shortcut to patriotism.

No doubt, the State possesses what the Solicitor General describes as the responsibility "to
inculcate in the minds of the youth the values of patriotism and nationalism and to encourage
the involvement in public and civic affairs." The teaching of these value ranks at the very apex of
education’s "high responsibility" of shaping up the minds of the youth in those principles which
would mold them into responsible and productive members of our society. However, the
government’s interest in molding the young into patriotic and civic spirited citizens is "not totally
free from a balancing process" 12 when it intrudes into other fundamental rights such as those
specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause, the constitutional right to education and the
unassailable interest of parents to guide the religious upbringing of their children in accordance
with the dictates of their conscience and their sincere religious beliefs. 13 Recognizing these
values, Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino, the writer of the original opinion, underscored that a
generation of Filipinos which cuts its teeth on the Bill of Rights would find abhorrent the idea that
one may be compelled, on pain of expulsion, to salute the flag sing the national anthem and
recite the patriotic pledge during a flag ceremony. 14 "This coercion of conscience has no place
in a free society." 15

The State’s contentions are therefore, unacceptable, for no less fundamental than the right to
take part is the right to stand apart. 16 In the context of the instant case, the freedom of religion
enshrined in the Constitution should be seen as the rule, not the exception.. To view the
constitutional guarantee in the manner suggested by the petitioners would be to denigrate the
status of a preferred freedom and to relegate it to the level of an abstract principle devoid of any
substance and meaning in the lives of those for whom the protection is addressed. As to the
contention that the exemption accorded by our decision benefits a privileged few, it is enough to
re-emphasize that "the constitutional protection of religious freedom terminated disabilities, it did
not create new privileges. It gave religious equality, not civil immunity." 17 The essence of the
free exercise clause is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity
to law because of religious dogma. 18 Moreover, the suggestion implicit in the State’s pleadings
to the effect that the flag ceremony requirement would be equally and evenly applied to all
Citizens regardless of sect or religion and does not thereby discriminate against any particular
sect or denomination escapes the fact that" [a] regulation, neutral on its face, may in its
application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it
unduly burdens the free exercise of religion." 19

III

The ostensible interest shown by petitioners in preserving the flag as the symbol of the nation
appears to be integrally related to petitioner’s disagreement with the message conveyed by the
refusal of members of the Jehovah’s Witness sect to salute the flag or participate actively in flag
ceremonies on religious grounds. 20 Where the governmental interest clearly appears to be
unrelated to the suppression of an idea, a religious doctrine or practice or an expression or form
of expression, this Court will not find it difficult to sustain a regulation. However, regulations
involving this area are generally held against the most exacting standards, and the zone of
protection accorded by the Constitution cannot be violated, except upon a showing of a clear
and present danger of a substantive evil which the state has a right to protect. 21 Stated
differently, in the case of a regulation which appears to abridge a right to which the fundamental
law accords high significance it is the regulation, not the act (or refusal to act), which is the
exception and which requires the court’s strictest scrutiny. In the case at bench, the government
has not shown that refusal to do the acts of conformity exacted by the assailed orders, which
respondents point out attained legislative cachet in the Administrative Code of 1987, would pose
a clear and present danger of a danger so serious and imminent, that it would prompt legitimate
State intervention.

In a case involving the Flag Protection Act of 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
"State’s asserted interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity
was an interest related to the suppression of free expression . . . because the State’s concern
with protecting the flag’s symbolic meaning is implicated only when a person’s treatment of the
flag communicates some message." 22 While the very concept of ordered liberty precludes this
Court from allowing every individual to subjectively define his own standards on matters of
conformity in which society, as a whole has important interests, the records of the case and the
long history of flag salute cases abundantly supports the religious quality of the claims adduced
by the members of the sect Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their treatment of flag as a religious symbol
is well-founded and well-documented and is based on grounds religious principle. The message
conveyed by their refusal to participate in the flag ceremony is religious, shared by the entire
community of Jehovah’s Witnesses and is intimately related to their theocratic beliefs and
convictions. The subsequent expulsion of members of the sect on the basis of the regulations
assailed in the original petitions was therefore clearly directed against religious practice. It is
obvious that the assailed orders and memoranda would gravely endanger the free exercise of
the religious beliefs of the members of the sect and their minor children.chanrobles
virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Furthermore, the view that the flag is not a religious but a neutral, secular symbol expresses a
majoritarian view intended to stifle the expression of the belief that an act of saluting the flag
might sometimes be - to some individuals — so offensive as to be worth their giving up another
constitutional right — the right to education. Individuals or groups of individuals get from a
symbol the meaning they put to it. 23 Compelling members of a religious sect to believe
otherwise on the pain of denying minor children the right to an education is a futile and
unconscionable detour towards instilling virtues of loyalty and patriotism which are best instilled
and communicated by painstaking and non-coercive methods. Coerced loyalties, after all, only
serve to inspire the opposite. The methods utilized to impose them breed resentment and
dissent. Those who attempt to coerce uniformity of sentiment soon find out that the only path
towards achieving unity is by way of suppressing dissent. 24 In the end, such attempts only find
the "unanimity of the graveyard."25cralaw:red

To the extent to which members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect assiduously pursue their belief
in the flag’s religious symbolic meaning, the State cannot, without thereby transgressing
constitutionally protected boundaries, impose the contrary view on the pretext of sustaining a
policy designed to foster the supposedly far-reaching goal of instilling patriotism among the
youth. While conceding to the idea - adverted to by the Solicitor General — that certain methods
of religious expression may be prohibited 26 to serve legitimate societal purposes, refusal to
participate in the flag ceremony hardly constitutes a form of religious expression so offensive
and noxious as to prompt legitimate State intervention. It is worth repeating that the absence of
a demonstrable danger of a kind which the State is empowered to protect militates against the
extreme disciplinary methods undertaken by school authorities in trying to enforce regulations
designed to compel attendance in flag ceremonies. Refusal of the children to participate in the
flag salute ceremony would not interfere with or deny the rights of other school children to do so.
It bears repeating that their absence from the ceremony hardly constitutes a danger so grave
and imminent as to warrant the state’s intervention.

Finally, the respondents’ insistence on the validity of the actions taken by the government on the
basis of their averment that "a government regulation of expressive conduct is sufficiently
justified if it is within the constitutional power of the government (and) furthers an important and
substantial government interest" 27 misses the whole point of the test devised by the United
States Supreme Court in O’Brien, cited by respondent, because the Court therein was emphatic
in stating that "the government interest (should be) unrelated to the suppression of free
expression." We have already stated that the interest in regulation in the case at bench was
clearly related to the suppression of an expression directly connected with the freedom of
religion and that respondents have not shown to our satisfaction that the restriction was
prompted by a compelling interest in public order which the state has a right to protect.
Moreover, if we were to refer (as respondents did by referring to the test in O’Brien) to the
standards devised by the US Supreme Court in determining the validity or extent of restrictive
regulations impinging on the freedoms of the mind, then the O’Brien standard is hardly
appropriate because the standard devised in O’Brien only applies if the State’s regulation is not
related to communicative conduct. If a relationship exists, a more demanding standard is
applied. 28

The responsibility of inculcating the values of patriotism, nationalism, good citizenship, and
moral uprightness is a responsibility shared by the State with parents and other societal
institutions such as religious sects and denominations. The manner in which such values are
demonstrated in a plural society occurs in ways so variable that government cannot make
claims to the exclusivity of its methods of inculcating patriotism so all-encompassing in scope as
to leave no room for appropriate parental or religious influences. Provided that those influences
do not pose a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to society and its institutions,
expressions of diverse beliefs, no matter how upsetting they may seem to the majority, are the
price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Francisco and
Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Panganiban, J., took no part.

Padilla, J., [I reiterate my Separate Opinion in G.R. No. 95770 (Ebralinag v. The Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu), 1 March 1993, 219 SCRA 276].

Separate Opinions

MENDOZA, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The value of the national flag as a symbol of national unity is not in question in this case. The
issue rather is whether it is permissible to compel children in the Nation’s schools to salute the
flag as a means of promoting nationhood considering that their refusal to do so is grounded on a
religious belief.

Compulsory flag salute lies in a continuum, at one end of which is the obligation to pay taxes
and, at the other, a compulsion to bow down before a graven image. Members of a religious
sect cannot refuse to pay taxes, 1 render military service, 2 submit to vaccination 3 or give their
children elementary school education 4 on the ground of conscience. But public school children
may not be compelled to attend religious instruction 5 or recite prayers or join in bible reading
before the opening of classes in such schools. 6
In determining the validity of compulsory flag salute, we must determine which of these polar
principles exerts a greater pull. The imposition of taxes is justified because, unless support for
the government can be exacted, the existence of the State itself may well be endangered. The
compulsory vaccination of children is justified because unless the State can compel compliance
with vaccination program there is danger that a disease will spread. But unlike the refusal to pay
taxes or to submit to compulsory vaccination, the refusal to salute the flag threatens no such
dire consequences to the life or health of the State. Consequently, there is no compelling reason
for resorting to compulsion or coercion to achieve the purpose for which flag salute is instituted.

Indeed schools are not like army camps where the value of discipline justifies requiring a salute
to the flag. Schools are places where diversity and spontaneity are valued as much as personal
discipline is. They are places for the nurturing of ideals and values, not through compulsion or
coercion but through persuasion, because thought control is a negation of the very values which
the educational system seeks to promote. Persuasion and not persecution is the means for
winning the allegiance of free men. That is why the Constitution provides that the development
of moral character and the cultivation of civic spirit are to be pursued through education that
includes a study of the Constitution, an appreciation of the role of national heroes in historical
development, teaching the rights and duties of citizenship and, at the option of parents and
guardians, religious instruction to be taught by instructors designated by religious authorities of
the religion to which they belong. It is noteworthy that while the Constitution provides for the
national flag, 7 it does not give the State the power to compel a salute to the
flag.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

On the other hand, compelling flag salute cannot be likened to compelling members of a
religious sect to bow down before a graven image. The flag is not an image but a secular
symbol. To regard it otherwise because a religious minority regards it so would be to put in
question many regulations that the State may constitutionally enact or measures which it may
adopt to promote civic virtues which the Constitution itself enjoins the State to promote. 8

It trivializes great principles to assimilate compulsory flag salute to a form of command to

worship strange idols not only because the flag is not a religious symbol but also because the
salute required involves nothing more than standing at attention or placing one’s right hand over
the right breast as the National Anthem is played and of raising the right hand as the following
pledge is recited:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Ako’y nanunumpang magtatapat sa watawat ng Pilipinas at sa Republikang kanyang

kinakatawan - isang bansang nasa kalinga ng Dios buo at hindi mahahati, na may kalayaan at
katarungan para sa lahat.

(I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the nation for which it stands — one nation under God
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.)

In sum compulsory flag salute violates the Constitution not because the aim of the exercise is
doubtful but because the means employed for accomplishing it is not permitted. Legitimate ends
cannot be pursued by methods which violate fundamental freedoms when the ends may be
achieved by rational ones.

For this reason I join in holding that compulsory flag salute is unconstitutional.
 Page II
Case Copy (Proceedings)

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 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.

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 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:

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 lowered at sunset. The flag-staff
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.

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 . . . 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 protect 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 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. 63, No. 38 of
September 21, 1987). Paragraph 5 of Section 28 gives legislative cachet to the ruling in Gerona,
thus:

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 Philippine 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:

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:

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 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; Emphasis 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:

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.)

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 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' 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 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 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 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).
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 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:

The 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 of 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 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.

As Mr. Justice Jackson remarked in West Virginia vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):

. . . 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. . . . 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, . . . — 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 . . . 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:

. . . 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 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 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.

Quiason, J., took no part.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.

Separate Opinions

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 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 excelled.

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.

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.

PADILLA, J., concurring:

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 also 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 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 represent seven 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.

# Separate Opinions

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 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 excelled.

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.

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.

PADILLA, J., concurring:

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 also 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 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 represent seven 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.
 Page III
Case Introduction

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Philippine Flag

Defining the concept of religion is not simply an academic exercise.
If one adopts the functional definition, nationalism can very well be considered a religion in itself
with the flag and the Constitution as its sacred icon and text. Interestingly, there are religious
groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses that forbid its members from saluting the flag and singing
the national anthem for they take such acts as idolatrous.
In the 1990s, a case was filed against the Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu for
expelling students from a public school for refusing to participate in the flag ceremony, which
involved saluting the flag and reciting a patriotic oath. The case was called Ebralinag o. Division
Superintendents of Schools of Cebu. The decision of the public school was seemingly
consistent with the Administrative Code of 1987, which states that "Any teacher or student or
pupil who refuses to join or participate in the flag ceremony may be dismissed after due
investigation."
It is noteworthy that this administrative stipulation merely reaffirms the decision of the Supreme
Court in the 1950s to expel students in a similar case. At that time, the Supreme Court rejected
the belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses that the Philippine flag, for example, was effectively a
religious idol like the graven images one could find in the Roman Catholic Church. From this
point of view, participating in a flag ceremony was a patriotic act devoid of any religious
significance and could not therefore be characterized as idolatrous by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The case was called Gerona v. Secretary of Education.
In the 1990s, however, the Supreme Court reversed its position in the Ebralinag case. For these
later judges, the Supreme Court should not define what constitutes idolatry since such
interpretations are religious in nature and should therefore be left to the religious groups
themselves. The Supreme Court instead approached the issue from the point of an individual's
freedom of speech, which included one's decision to not participate in the flag ceremony or "the
right to be silent." Furthermore, to the Supreme Court, such an act did not pose any threat to the
State and so there was no need to coerce student participation. By deciding in this manner, the
Supreme Court effectively upheld the religious freedom and freedom of speech of individuals.
 Page IV
Summary and Explanation of Case

The State has filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Supreme Court's decision to grant
Jehovah's Witnesses an exemption from participating in flag salute ceremonies in public
schools. The State argues that this exemption grants special treatment to a minority religious
sect, violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, and poses a risk of unequal
treatment under the law. Additionally, the State asserts that the flag is a secular symbol devoid
of religious significance, and thus, refusal to participate in flag ceremonies should not be
protected under the guise of religious freedom.

However, the Supreme Court reaffirms its earlier decision, emphasizing the importance of
protecting religious freedom as enshrined in the Constitution. The Court acknowledges the
deeply-held religious convictions of Jehovah's Witnesses, rooted in biblical injunctions against
idolatry. Despite their refusal to participate in flag ceremonies, Jehovah's Witnesses
demonstrate respect for the symbols of the country through alternative means and lawful
conduct as responsible citizens.

Moreover, the Court rejects the argument that compelling participation in flag ceremonies is
necessary to instill patriotism, asserting that true patriotism cannot be coerced but must be
cultivated through understanding and voluntary engagement. The Court highlights the need to
balance the state's interest in promoting patriotism with the individual's right to religious
expression, affirming that no one should be compelled to perform acts contrary to their sincere
beliefs.

In summary, the Supreme Court upholds the exemption for Jehovah's Witnesses from flag
salute ceremonies, emphasizing the primacy of religious freedom and the importance of
respecting individual beliefs even in the face of majority opinion or state interests. The decision
reinforces the principle that in a diverse and pluralistic society, fundamental freedoms must be
protected, and coercive measures cannot be justified in the name of patriotism.
 Page V
Argument I

(Amend)

Firstly, we have to identify a key factor of this issue at hand, what is idolatry, idolatry is the
concept of worshipping something or someone with extreme reverence, and this is mainly
forbidden in Western concepts or beliefs. In the context of Jehovah’s Witnesses pledging
allegiance to a flag of any country or participating in ceremonies related to that context can be
considered idolatry which they forbid for their constituents.

Although the law, specifically RA 1265 and RA 8491, reinforces that citizens should participate
in flag raising and lowering ceremonies to be compulsory and a mandate. Although these laws
are in themselves just, they can be interpreted as unconstitutional as the constitution promotes
individual rights and freedom of religion, specifically, Article III Section V of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution explicitly declares that “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.”
therefore these laws can be regarded as going against the very constitution that it was based
on. In fact, freedom of religion is one of the basic human rights here in the Philippines.
Therefore the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the motion of reconsideration is only right and
just.

Additionally, the Constitution also includes the separation of church and state, specifically in
Article II Section VI which explicitly declares that “The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.” to explain, no religious institution shall intercede in any government affairs nor does
the government have the ability to intervene in religious affairs, in the light of this case, it is only
right that the supreme court reconsidered their position as only right, as the government does
not have the right to interpret the sacred texts nor do they have the right to repress their beliefs
in the name of the state’s interests.

In conclusion, the decision of the Supreme Court to acknowledge the motion of reconsideration
for this specific case is commendable as it upholds the Constitution and the rights within it. It is
a safeguard of our principles of freedom and democracy, a testimony of the Philippines’ religious
tolerance and openness built upon the foundations of democracy and individual freedom and
liberties, that recognizes minorities and does not oppress any religious institution whatsoever.
 Page VI

Argument II

In the context of the cases at hand, the issue revolves around the fundamental right of
individuals, particularly Jehovah's Witnesses, to freely exercise their religious beliefs without
interference from the state. The concept of idolatry, central to the beliefs of Jehovah's
Witnesses, is defined as the worship of something or someone with extreme reverence. For
them, pledging allegiance to a flag or participating in ceremonies related to nationalism could be
interpreted as idolatry, as it diverts their ultimate allegiance from their religious beliefs.

However, existing laws such as RA 1265 and RA 8491 mandate citizens to participate in
flag-raising and lowering ceremonies, which could potentially conflict with the religious
convictions of Jehovah's Witnesses. These laws, while well-intentioned, may be seen as
unconstitutional as they infringe upon the individual rights and freedom of religion guaranteed by
the Philippine Constitution.

Article III Section V of the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly protects the free exercise of
religion without discrimination or preference. This provision underscores the importance of
allowing individuals to practice their faith without coercion or imposition from the state.
Moreover, the Constitution's declaration of the separation of church and state in Article II
Section VI further reinforces the principle that religious institutions should not interfere in
government affairs, and vice versa.

In light of these constitutional principles, the decision of the Supreme Court to acknowledge the
motion of reconsideration is commendable as it upholds the fundamental rights enshrined in the
Constitution. By reconsidering its position, the Supreme Court ensures that the state does not
overstep its boundaries by compelling individuals to act against their religious beliefs. It reaffirms
the Philippines' commitment to religious tolerance and openness, built upon the foundations of
democracy and individual freedom.

Furthermore, by respecting the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Supreme Court sets a
precedent for protecting the rights of all religious minorities in the country. This decision serves
as a safeguard against religious discrimination and oppression, promoting a society that values
diversity and respects the beliefs of its citizens.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to acknowledge the motion of reconsideration in

these cases demonstrates a commitment to upholding the principles of freedom and democracy
outlined in the Philippine Constitution. By safeguarding the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to
freely exercise their religious beliefs, the court reinforces the country's commitment to religious
tolerance and individual liberties.
 Page VII
Argument III

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to abstain from
participating in the flag salute ceremony in public schools is not only legally sound but also
ethically imperative, serving as a beacon of justice and protection for fundamental freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution. By rejecting the State's motion for reconsideration and affirming
the earlier decision, the court demonstrates an unwavering commitment to safeguarding the
cherished principle of freedom of religion.

The State's argument in the motion for reconsideration raises legitimate concerns about
potential violations of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. However, the
court's decision to maintain the exemption for Jehovah's Witnesses is rooted in a deep
understanding of the delicate balance between state interests and individual liberties. Rather
than granting preferential treatment to a specific religious group, this decision upholds the
fundamental principle that individuals should be free to practice their beliefs without fear of state
coercion or interference.

Furthermore, the court's analysis reflects a nuanced understanding of the complexities

surrounding patriotism and religious expression. While fostering patriotism is undoubtedly a
laudable goal, compelling individuals to participate in flag ceremonies through coercion
undermines the very essence of freedom and democracy. The court rightly emphasizes that true
patriotism cannot be imposed but must be nurtured through genuine understanding and
voluntary engagement.

By affirming the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to abstain from the flag salute ceremony, the
Supreme Court sends a powerful message about the importance of protecting minority rights in
a democratic society. This decision underscores the principle that in a diverse and inclusive
nation, individual liberties must be upheld and respected, even when they may diverge from
majority opinion or societal norms. Ultimately, the court's decision serves as a bulwark against
the encroachment of state power and ensures that the rights of all citizens are safeguarded
against unjust imposition.