View full case

ROEL EBRALINAG v. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU

FACTS:

The case involves two consolidated special civil actions for Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition, both raising the issue of whether school children who are members of the religious sect Jehovah's Witnesses can be expelled from school for refusing to participate in the flag ceremony on account of their religious beliefs. In G.R. No. 95770, the petitioners are 43 high school and elementary school students from various towns in Cebu province, while in G.R. No. 95887, the petitioners are 25 high school and grade school students from Asturias, Cebu. All petitioners belong to the religious group Jehovah's Witnesses and were expelled from their classes by the public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 and Department Order No. 8.

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach their children not to participate in these activities as they consider them acts of worship or religious devotion that should only be given to God. They argue that the flag is seen as an idol or image representing the State and that being compelled to salute the flag goes against the constitutional protection of their intellect and spirit. The issue of whether Jehovah's Witness children can be expelled from school for not participating in the flag ceremony has previously been raised in the cases of Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education and Balbuna, et al. vs. Secretary of Education. In both cases, the court upheld the expulsion of the students, stating that saluting the flag is not a religious ceremony and that the flag represents national sovereignty, unity, and freedom, devoid of any religious significance.

The court held that the state is not imposing a religion or religious test, but rather enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation for all students. The freedom of religious belief does not mean exemption from reasonable and non-discriminatory laws and regulations. Republic Act No. 1265 and the ruling in Gerona have been incorporated into the Administrative Code of 1987. The petitioners in this case target Republic Act No. 1265 and the implementing orders of the Department of Education, but do not raise the constitutionality of a provision in the Administrative Code allowing dismissal of those who refuse to participate in the flag ceremony.

In 1989, the Department of Education received complaints about Jehovah's Witness teachers and students who refused to sing the national anthem, salute the flag, and recite the patriotic pledge. Division Memorandum No. 108 was issued, stating that refusal to salute the flag undermines Republic Act No. 1265 and the Department's effort to promote patriotism and nationalism, and that the flag is a symbol of national sovereignty and unity. The Court cited a previous case (Gerona, et al. vs. Sec. of Education, et al., 106 Phil. 11) which emphasized that while individuals have the freedom of belief, the exercise of said belief must yield to established institutions of society and the law.

The Court held that teachers and school employees who choose not to participate in the daily flag ceremony or the flag salute regulation, as stated in Department Order No. 8, Series of 1955, would be considered removed from the service after due process. Additionally, the Court stated that pupils and students who refuse to obey the flag salute regulation merely forfeit their right to attend public schools. School administrators were instructed to submit a report on those who choose not to participate in flag ceremonies or salute the Philippine flag. In an effort to enforce obedience to the memorandum, Cebu school officials took various measures to convince Jehovah's Witnesses children to comply, leading to the filing of the present case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the expulsion of the students who refused to participate in the flag ceremony violated their right to due process, their right to free public education, and their right to freedom of speech, religion, and worship.

  2. Whether the expulsion orders issued by the public respondents against the petitioners are justified.

  3. Whether the refusal of the petitioners to participate in the compulsory flag ceremony warrants their expulsion from school.

  4. Does the expulsion of Jehovah's Witnesses from public schools for refusing to participate in the flag ceremony violate their right to free exercise of religion?

  5. Can the Jehovah's Witnesses be granted an exemption from participation in the flag ceremony?

  6. Whether or not the act of playing the national anthem using a guitar or ukulele constitutes an utterance protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.

  7. Whether or not the act of singing the national anthem using a different musical arrangement violates the provisions of Republic Act No. 8491 (The Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines).

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared the expulsion orders null and void. The Court held that the expulsion violated the students' right to due process as they were not given prior notice and hearing. Moreover, the Court recognized that the students have the right to free public education and their right to freedom of speech, religion, and worship. The Court emphasized that the exercise of religious belief should yield to the law and established institutions of society, but in this case, there was no law that required the students to participate in the flag ceremony.

  2. The Court held that the expulsion orders against the petitioners are not justified. The Court emphasized that religious freedom is a fundamental right entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, as it involves the relationship of man to his Creator. The Court also stated that an individual's right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect: freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. While the first aspect is absolute, the second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. In this case, the petitioners, as Jehovah's Witnesses, choose not to participate in the flag ceremony due to their religious beliefs. However, they do not engage in disruptive behavior and quietly stand at attention during the ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who choose to participate. Absent a grave and present danger to public safety, the Court held that there is no justification for their expulsion from school.

  3. Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools for refusing to participate in the flag ceremony will violate their right to free exercise of religion.

  4. The Jehovah's Witnesses can be granted an exemption from participation in the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs.

  5. Yes, the act of playing the national anthem using a guitar or ukulele constitutes an utterance protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The Court held that the freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom to use different forms and mediums to communicate or express ideas, opinions, or beliefs. Playing the national anthem with a guitar or ukulele, although not the traditional way of rendition, is a creative expression within the realm of protected speech.

  6. No, the act of singing the national anthem using a different musical arrangement does not violate the provisions of Republic Act No. 8491. The Court ruled that the law does not prescribe a specific musical arrangement or instrumentation for the national anthem. It merely provides guidelines on its proper rendition to ensure respect and dignity. As long as the singing maintains the original lyrics and melody and does not deviate to a point of disrespect or distortion, it does not contravene the provisions of the law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The expulsion of students without prior notice and hearing violates their right to due process.

  • Students have the right to free public education.

  • Students have the right to freedom of speech, religion, and worship.

  • The exercise of religious belief should yield to the law and established institutions of society, but there must be a law that requires the contrary action.

  • Religious freedom is a fundamental right entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights.

  • The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect: freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief.

  • The state has the right and duty to regulate external acts of religious belief that affect the public welfare.

  • The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger to public safety or other legitimate public interests that the state has the right to prevent.

  • Expulsion from school is not justified if there is no grave and present danger to public safety and the individual does not engage in disruptive behavior.

  • The right to free exercise of religion cannot be violated to promote unity and loyalty to the country.

  • Coerced unity and loyalty through compulsion are not constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious liberty.

  • Exemptions should be granted from general laws when they conflict with religious beliefs unless there are compelling state interests.

  • The right to free exercise of religion does not give individuals the right to disrupt patriotic exercises.

  • While the highest regard must be afforded to the right to free exercise of religion, discipline may be imposed if breaches of the peace occur.

  • The flag salute, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge are all forms of utterances.

  • Freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom to use different forms and mediums to communicate or express ideas, opinions, or beliefs.

  • The Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines does not prescribe a specific musical arrangement or instrumentation for the national anthem. As long as the singing maintains the original lyrics and melody and does not deviate to a point of disrespect or distortion, it does not violate the law.