Scribd
Upload
127 views2 pages

Gerona V Sec of Education

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Department Order No. 8 which required students to salute the Philippine flag and sing the national anthem during flag ceremonies. The petitioners, who were members of the Jehovah's Witness religion, claimed this violated their religious freedom. However, the Court found that the flag is a secular symbol and saluting it does not constitute a religious ritual. It further held that freedom of religion does not exempt compliance with reasonable laws and school regulations. Therefore, expelling the petitioners' children for refusing to participate in the flag ceremony did not violate their constitutional rights.

Uploaded by

Maila Fortich Rosal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views2 pages

Gerona V Sec of Education

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Department Order No. 8 which required students to salute the Philippine flag and sing the national anthem during flag ceremonies. The petitioners, who were members of the Jehovah's Witness religion, claimed this violated their religious freedom. However, the Court found that the flag is a secular symbol and saluting it does not constitute a religious ritual. It further held that freedom of religion does not exempt compliance with reasonable laws and school regulations. Therefore, expelling the petitioners' children for refusing to participate in the flag ceremony did not violate their constitutional rights.

Uploaded by

Maila Fortich Rosal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Gerona, et. al v SEC.

OF EDUCATION
106 Phil 2 Aug. 12, 1959

FACTS:
1. Petitioners belong to the Jehova’s Witness whose children were
expelled from their schools when they refused to salute, sing the
anthem, recite the pledge during the conduct of flag ceremony.
DO No. 8 issued by DECS pursuant to RA 1265 which called for the
manner of conduct during a flag ceremony. The petitioners wrote
the Secretary of Education on their plight and requested to
reinstate their children. This was denied.

2. As a result, the petitioners filed for a writ of preliminary


injunction against the Secretary and Director of Public Schools to
restrain them from implementing said DO No. 8.

3. The lower court (RTC) declared DO 8 invalid and contrary to the


Bill of Rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not DO 8 is valid or constitutional

DO 8 is valid. Saluting the flag is not a religious ritual and it is for


the courts to determine, not a religious group, whether or not a
certain practice is one.

1. The court held that 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.

2. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution


does not and cannot mean exemption form or non-compliance
with reasonable and non-discriminatory laws, rules and
regulations promulgated by competent authority. In enforcing the
flag salute on the petitioners, there was absolutely no compulsion
involved, and for their failure or refusal to obey school regulations
about the flag salute they were not being persecuted. Neither
were they being criminally prosecuted under threat of penal
sacntion. If they chose 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 regulations about the flag salute, they
forfeited their right to attend public schools.

3. The Filipino flag is not an image that requires religious


veneration; rather it is symbol of the Republic of the Philippines,
of sovereignty, an emblem of freedom, liberty and national unity;
that the flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act and
profession of love and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the
fatherland which the flag stands for; that by authority of the
legislature, the Secretary of Education was duly authorized to
promulgate Department Order No. 8, series of 1955; that the
requirement of observance of the flag ceremony or salute
provided for in said Department Order No. 8, does not violate the
Constitutional provision about freedom of religion and exercise of
religion; that compliance with the non-discriminatory and
reasonable rules and regulations and school discipline, including
observance of the flag ceremony is a prerequisite to attendance
in public schools; and that for failure and refusal to participate in
the flag ceremony, petitioners were properly excluded and
dismissed from the public school they were attending.

You might also like