GERONA, ET AL. vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL. Posted onSeptember 11 by yummy

G.R. No. L-13954

August 12, 1959

MONTEMAYOR, J.

EN BANC

FACTS:

1. When RA 1265 (An Act Making Flag Ceremony Compulsary In All Educational Institutions) took

effect, the Sec. of Education issued Dept. Order No. 8 prescribing the rules and regulations for the

proper conduct of the flag ceremony.

2. The said order mandates that a proper salute must be given, or at least standing still with arms and

hands straight at sides along with the singing of the National Anthem and recital of the pledge.

However, petitioners children attending the Buenavista Community School in Uson, Masbate

refused to do so.

3. This was because, as members of Jehovas Witnesses, they believe that the obligation imposed by

law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by the State. This is based on a verse which states:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,

or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself

to them, nor serve them.

They consider that the flag is an image within this command and thus refuse to salute it. Because

of this, they were expelled from the school.

4. The counsel of petitioners wrote to the Sec. of Education that the children be allowed to just remain

silent and stand still with their arms and hands straight at their sides. This was, however, denied along

with the childrens reinstatement.

5. An action was then filed before the CFI with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction but the

complaint was dismissed. Hence, the present petition with the SC issuing a temporary writ subject to

the result of the case.

ISSUE: Should the department order be upheld?

RULING: Yes. The CFI decision was affirmed and the writ of preliminary injunction was

dissolved.

1. First, there was no question with the act of saluting since the department order allows that students

can just stand still with their arms and hands straight at their sides. The issue was focused on the

singing of the national anthem and the recital of pledge.

2. The court eventually held that 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. The

reasons are:

a. the flag is not an image nor the flag ceremony a religious rite; the flag is a symbol of the Republic

of the Philippines, an emblem of national sovereignty, unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty.

b. the wordings of the patriotic pledge or the national anthem does not have anything that is

religiously objectionable as they speak only of love of country, patriotism, liberty and the glory of

suffering and dying for it.

c. the State was merely carrying out its constitutional duty to supervise and regulate educational

institutions and see to it that all schools aim to develop civic conscience and teach the duties of

citizenship. (Art. XIV, section 5 of the Constitution).

d. considering the separation of the State and Church, the flag does not have any religious significance.

e. also, the determination of whether a certain ritual is or is not a religious ceremony must rest with

the court; it cannot be left to a religious group or sect or to its follower as there would be confusion

and misunderstanding for there might be as many interpretations and meaning to be given as there

are religious groups or sects or followers.

f. as emphatically stated, if a man lived on an island, alone and all by himself, he would normally

have complete and absolute rights as to the way he lives, his religion, incuding the manners he

practices his religious beliefs with no laws to obey, no rules and regulations to follow; but since man

is gregarious by nature and instinct and he gravitates toward community life, to receive and enjoy

the benefits of society, he becomes a member of a community or nation; thus, he has to give up rights

for the benefit of his fellow citizens and for the general welfare, just as his fellow men and

companions also agree to a limitation of their rights in his favor.

g. also, exempting the children will disrupt school discipline and demoralize the rest of the school

population which by far constitutes the great majority; other pupils would naturally ask for the same

privilege because they might want to do something else such as play or study; if this exemption is

extended, then the flag ceremony would soon be 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.

3. US jurisprudence made as basis:

a. Reynolds vs. US the law prohibited polygamy which was allowed for Mormons

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would

be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to

permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

b. Hamilton vs. University of California the university requires military science and tactics training

but the objectioners believe that war and preparation for war is a violation of their religious belief

it was held untenable. The Court stated that California did not call them. They sought education in

the university and the due process clause secured by law will be violated if they are to be exempted

from the training.

In this case, having elected not to comply with the regulations about the flag salute, they forfeited

their right to attend public schools.

c. Minersville School District vs. Gobitis same facts with present case; the US Supreme Court

upheld the conduct of flag ceremony but after 3 years, it was reversed in West Virginia State Board

of Education vs. Bernette. This was only because in the latter case, the parents are to be prosecuted

criminally if their children are not in school. It turned out as a dilemma with the authority against

individual rights so the Court then approved the exemption. However, it is not the ruling in the

present case.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented in the latter case stating:

The constitutional protection of religious freedom 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