The expulsion of students who are members of Jehovah's Witnesses for their refusal, based on religious convictions, to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge during school flag ceremonies is unconstitutional, as it infringes upon their right to freedom of religion and their right to free basic education, provided their non-participation is done respectfully and does not disrupt the ceremony or offend others.

The case arose from the long-standing conflict between state-mandated flag ceremonies in educational institutions, intended to foster patriotism, and the religious beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, who consider such acts as forms of worship prohibited by their faith. This issue had previously been decided by the Supreme Court in Gerona vs. Secretary of Education (1959), which upheld the legality of expelling students for non-participation, a ruling that gained legislative endorsement through the Administrative Code of 1987. The present cases challenged the continued application of this policy.

• Petitioners were 68 elementary and high school students from various public schools in Cebu, all members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who were expelled for refusing to salute the Philippine flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge during flag ceremonies.
• Their refusal was based on their religious belief that these acts constitute worship, which they can only render to God, and that the flag is an idol, citing biblical commands against idolatry.
• The expulsions were based on Republic Act No. 1265 (making flag ceremony compulsory) and DECS Department Order No. 8, s. 1955 (implementing rules for flag ceremony), as well as DECS Division Memorandum No. 108, s. 1989 (Cebu Division), which reiterated the Gerona ruling.
• School officials, including District Supervisor Manuel F. Biongcog and Teacher-In-Charge Antonio A. Sangutan, issued orders for the students to be "dropped from the rolls" or expelled after attempts to persuade them and their parents failed.
• The petitioners alleged that during flag ceremonies, they would stand quietly and respectfully at attention, not engaging in disruptive behavior.
• Appeals to the Secretary of Education Isidro Cariño by some parents went unanswered, prompting the filing of these special civil actions.

• The petitioners argued that compelling them to participate in the flag ceremony violates their constitutional right to freedom of religious profession and worship, as their religion prohibits them from rendering such acts of reverence to symbols like the flag.
• They contended that their non-participation is a peaceful exercise of their beliefs and does not cause disruption or harm to public order, thus not meeting the "clear and present danger" threshold required to limit religious freedom.
• They asserted that their expulsion also violates their right to due process (as some expulsions were allegedly without prior notice and hearing), their right to free public education, and their freedom of speech (including the right not to speak).
• They maintained that the State's action in compelling flag salute transcends constitutional limitations by invading the sphere of intellect and spirit protected by the Constitution.

• The Solicitor General, representing the respondents (Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, et al.), argued that the DECS rules on flag ceremonies do not violate freedom of religion as the flag salute is devoid of religious significance and aims to inculcate patriotism and love of country.
• Respondents contended that the religious practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, in this context, produce rebellious and anti-social children, and consequently, disloyal citizens.
• They asserted that the State has compelling interests in enforcing these regulations and that these interests do not warrant an exemption for the petitioners based on their self-perceived religious convictions.
• They maintained that the issue is one of enforcement of law and established jurisprudence (Gerona doctrine), and that the penalty of expulsion is legal, especially given Section 28, Title VI, Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code of 1987.

• Whether the expulsion of students who are members of Jehovah's Witnesses from schools for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, on account of their religious beliefs, violates their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
• Whether the Gerona doctrine, which upheld such expulsions, should be re-examined and overturned.
• Whether compelling participation in flag ceremonies infringes upon the students' rights to free education and freedom of speech.

• The Supreme Court granted the petitions, annulling and setting aside the expulsion orders, and making permanent the temporary restraining order that allowed the students to be readmitted.
• The Court ruled that compelling students, under threat of expulsion, to participate in the flag ceremony against their sincere religious beliefs is an infringement of their constitutional right to freedom of religious profession and worship (Art. III, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution).
• The Court overturned its previous ruling in Gerona vs. Secretary of Education, stating that the idea of compelling participation in such ceremonies is alien to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who value the Bill of Rights.
• The Court found that the petitioners' act of quietly standing at attention during the ceremony does not disrupt public order or pose a grave and present danger to public safety, morals, or health, which would be the only justification for restricting religious freedom.
• The expulsion also violates the students' right as Philippine citizens to receive free education at the elementary and high school levels, as mandated by the Constitution (Art. XIV, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2).
• The Court emphasized that forcing a small religious group to participate in a ceremony that violates their beliefs is not conducive to fostering love of country or respect for authority.

• Freedom of Religious Profession and Worship — A fundamental right encompassing freedom to believe (which is absolute) and freedom to act on one's beliefs (which is subject to regulation for public welfare). The Court applied this by stating that while the State can regulate acts, it cannot compel acts that violate sincere religious convictions, especially when non-participation is peaceful and non-disruptive.
• Clear and Present Danger Test — A doctrine stating that limitations on fundamental freedoms, such as religious freedom, are permissible only if there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. The Court applied this by finding that the Jehovah's Witnesses' quiet non-participation did not pose such a danger, thus their expulsion was unjustified.
• State's Duty to Provide Free Basic Education — The constitutional mandate for the State to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education and make such education accessible to all. The Court held that expelling students for peacefully exercising their religious beliefs violates this right.
• Overturning of Precedent (Stare Decisis) — While courts generally adhere to previous rulings, they may overturn them when they are found to be contrary to fundamental rights or current constitutional understanding. The Court explicitly overturned the 30-year-old Gerona doctrine.
• Compelling State Interest Test — (Implicitly used alongside Clear and Present Danger) The principle that a state must have a compelling governmental interest to justify infringing upon fundamental rights, and the means used must be narrowly tailored. The Court found no compelling state interest sufficient to override the students' religious freedom when their actions were not harmful.

• "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."
• "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."
• "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 duly constituted authorities."
• "x x x It is certain that not every conscience can be accomodated 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." (Quoting Victoriano citing Sherbert vs. Verner)

• Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al., 106 Phil. 2 (1959) — Overturned by this ruling. Previously upheld the expulsion of Jehovah's Witnesses students for refusing to salute the flag, deeming the flag salute a civic, not religious, act.
• Balbuna, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, 110 Phil. 150 (1960) — Reiterated Gerona; also effectively overturned.
• German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 — Cited for Chief Justice Fernando's separate opinion on the high priority of religious freedom and Chief Justice Teehankee's dissenting opinion articulating the clear and present danger test for limiting religious freedom.
• West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) — Cited for Justice Jackson's views on the importance of voluntary patriotism and the right to differ on matters of conscience, influencing the Court's reasoning on coerced loyalty.
• Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54 — Cited as precedent for granting exemptions from general laws when they conflict with religious scruples, unless a compelling state interest intervenes. This case involved exemption from a closed-shop agreement.
• Non vs. Dames II, 185 SCRA 523 — Paraphrased for the principle that while religious freedom is highly regarded, schools can still discipline students for disruptive actions that offend others' sensibilities.

• Republic Act No. 1265 — The law making the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational institutions. The Court's decision limits its enforceability against those with sincere religious objections.
• DECS Department Order No. 8, series of 1955 — The implementing rules for R.A. No. 1265. Its application was similarly limited by the ruling.
• Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), Section 28, Title VI, Chapter 9, Paragraph 5 — This provision, which codified the Gerona ruling allowing dismissal for refusal to participate in flag ceremonies, was effectively rendered unconstitutional in its application to Jehovah's Witnesses acting on sincere religious belief.
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 5 (Freedom of Religion) — The primary constitutional basis for the ruling, guaranteeing the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference.
• 1987 Constitution, Article XIV, Section 1 (Right to Quality Education) — Cited to establish that expulsion for religious beliefs violates the students' right to accessible quality education.
• 1987 Constitution, Article XIV, Section 3(2) (Educational Aims) — Referenced to show that petitioners would still be educated in patriotism and civic duties even if exempted from the flag ceremony.
• 1 John 5:21 (Bible) — Cited by petitioners as a basis for their belief against idolatry, which they associate with saluting the flag.

• Justice Isagani A. Cruz — Argued that Gerona was based on the erroneous assumption that the State could define what is religious. Stated that individuals have the right to choose what or whom to worship, and the State cannot compel participation in symbolic acts like flag salutes if it violates religious beliefs, especially when non-participation is not disruptive. Emphasized that freedom of speech includes the right to be silent.
• Justice Teodoro R. Padilla — Concurred with the result but expressed concern about potential far-reaching consequences, such as creating a privileged class. Suggested a practical accommodation where religious objectors are excluded from the ceremony area (e.g., remaining in classrooms or at the rear of the hall) to harmo