Ebralinag vs.

Division Superintendent of School of Cebu

GR 95770, 29 December 1995; En Banc Resolution, Kapunan [J]
FACTS:

Two special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition

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

All of the petitioners in both (consolidated) cases were expelled from

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

Petitioners are Jehovah’s Witnesses believing that by doing these is

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

ISSUE: Whether or not the expulsion of petitioners violated their

freedom of religion?

HELD:

YES. The Court held that the expulsion of the petitioners from the
school was not justified.

Religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority and the

amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the
relationship of man to his Creator. The right to religious profession
and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and
freedom to act on one’s belief. The first is absolute as long as the
belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to
regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect
the public welfare. The only limitation to religious freedom is the
existence of grave and present danger to public safety, morals, health
and interests where State has right to prevent.

Petitioners stress that while they do not take part in the compulsory
flag ceremony, they do not engage in “external acts” or behavior that
would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their love
of country through the observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly
stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for
the right of those who choose to participate in the solemn
proceedings. Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is
no warrant for their expulsion.

1. If you were a member of this religious group what would you

do? Why?
2. If you were a school administrator what would you do? Why?
3. Which between the two (2) contradicting decisions will you
uphold as Lasallian? Why?