The requirement of observing the flag ceremony, including saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge, as mandated by Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of religion and the exercise thereof, as the flag ceremony is a civic and patriotic exercise, not a religious one, and compliance with such non-discriminatory school regulations is a prerequisite for attendance in public schools.

On June 11, 1955, Republic Act No. 1265, "An Act Making Flag Ceremony Compulsory in all Educational Institutions," was approved. Section 2 of this Act authorized the Secretary of Education to issue rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony. Consequently, on July 21, 1955, the Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8, series of 1955, detailing the rules for the compulsory daily flag ceremony in all public and private schools.

• Petitioners, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and their children refused to salute the Philippine flag, sing the National Anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge during the compulsory daily flag ceremony in public schools, as required by Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, issued by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Republic Act No. 1265.
• Petitioners' religious beliefs, based on a literal interpretation of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, consider the flag an "image" and saluting it an act of bowing down or serving an image, which is forbidden.
• As a result of their refusal, petitioners' children attending the Buenavista Community School in Uson, Masbate, were expelled in September 1955.
• Petitioners sought an exemption from the flag ceremony, requesting that their children be allowed to stand silently at attention, but this was denied by the Secretary of Education.
• Petitioners do not challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1265 itself, but only Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, which implements it.
• Petitioners are willing to stand at attention with arms and hands down during the ceremony and agree that members in military or Boy Scout uniform may execute the prescribed salute. Their main objection is to singing the National Anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge.

• The obligation imposed by the law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by the State.
• The flag is an "image" within the meaning of Exodus 20:4-5 ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image... thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them"), and saluting it is a religious act forbidden by their beliefs.
• The flag salute ceremony is a religious ceremony, and compelling participation violates their freedom of religious belief and worship.
• Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, is invalid and contrary to the Bill of Rights, specifically the guarantee of religious freedom.
• They should be exempted from the requirement to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, and be allowed to stand silently at attention during the ceremony.

• The Secretary of Education was duly authorized by Republic Act No. 1265 to promulgate Department Order No. 8, s. 1955.
• The flag ceremony is not a religious ceremony but a civic and patriotic exercise intended to inculcate love of country and respect for the flag.
• The requirement to participate in the flag ceremony does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of religion.
• Compliance with reasonable, non-discriminatory school regulations, including the flag ceremony, is a prerequisite for attendance in public schools.
• Exempting petitioners would disrupt school discipline and demoralize other students.

• Whether Department Order No. 8, series of 1955, which makes the flag ceremony compulsory, is unconstitutional as it allegedly violates the petitioners' freedom of religion and worship.
• Whether the Filipino flag is an "image" in the religious sense and whether saluting it, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge constitute a religious ceremony.
• Whether the State can compel students to participate in the flag ceremony despite their religious objections.

• The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, dismissing the petitioners' complaint.
• The Court held that the Filipino flag is not an image that requires religious veneration but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, of sovereignty, freedom, liberty, and national unity.
• The flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act and profession of love and allegiance and a pledge of loyalty to the fatherland. The determination of whether a ritual is religious rests with the courts, not religious groups.
• Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, does not violate the constitutional provision about freedom of religion and the exercise of religion. The freedom of religious belief is absolute, but the freedom to act on one's belief is subject to regulation for the protection of society.
• The patriotic pledge and the National Anthem do not contain objectionable content from a religious standpoint, as they speak of love of country, patriotism, and liberty.
• Compliance with non-discriminatory and reasonable school rules, including the flag ceremony, is a prerequisite to attendance in public schools. Expulsion for non-compliance does not constitute persecution or criminal prosecution, unlike the situation in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette.
• The State has a duty under the Constitution (Art. XIV, Sec. 5) to supervise educational institutions and ensure they develop civic conscience and teach citizenship duties, which includes inculcating love of country and the flag.
• Exempting petitioners would disrupt school discipline and potentially lead to the demise of the flag ceremony, undermining the State's objective of fostering national unity and patriotism.

• Freedom of Religious Belief and Worship — The Constitution guarantees the freedom to believe and the freedom to act on one's beliefs. The freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act (exercise of belief) is subject to regulation for the protection of society. The Court found that the compulsory flag ceremony, being a civic and not a religious act, does not infringe upon this freedom, as the State's interest in fostering patriotism and national unity is a legitimate secular purpose.
• Separation of Church and State — This principle implies that the State cannot establish a religion or interfere with the free exercise thereof, and religious matters are outside the purview of civil authority. The Court held that the flag ceremony is "utterly devoid of any religious significance" given this separation, thus making it a secular, civic exercise.
• Police Power of the State — The inherent power of the State to enact laws and regulations to promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, and general welfare of the people. The Court implicitly invoked this by upholding the State's authority to require the flag ceremony as a means to develop civic conscience and patriotism, which are essential for national unity and survival.
• Parens Patriae — The doctrine that the state is the ultimate guardian of the people who are unable to care for themselves, including minors. While not explicitly named for the flag salute, the Court referenced Prince v. Massachusetts which used this doctrine to justify state intervention in child labor despite religious objections, highlighting the state's interest in the well-being and civic development of children.
• Primacy of Secular Law over Religious Practice in case of conflict — When the exercise of religious belief clashes with established societal institutions and laws, the former must yield to the latter. The Court cited Reynolds vs. U.S. (polygamy) to illustrate that religious belief cannot be an excuse for overt acts contrary to law and public good. The flag salute was deemed a reasonable, non-discriminatory regulation for the public good (fostering patriotism).

• "The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one's imagination and thought. So is the freedom of belief, including religious belief, limitless and without bounds... But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road to travel. 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 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."
• "Saluting the flag consequently does not involve any religious ceremony. The flag salute, particularly the recital of the pledge of loyalty is no more a religious ceremony than the taking of an oath of office by a public official or by a candidate for admission to the bar."
• "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 sanction. 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."
• "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."

• Halter vs. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 — Cited by petitioners to establish that the flag is an "emblem of National sovereignty," which they then link to their concept of "sovereignty" belonging exclusively to God.
• Reynolds vs. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 — Cited by the Court to support the principle that religious belief cannot excuse practices contrary to law (in this case, polygamy), illustrating that the exercise of religious freedom is not absolute and can be regulated.
• Hamilton vs. University of California, 293 U.S. 243 — Cited extensively by the Court as analogous. Students were suspended for refusing mandatory military training on religious grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the university's requirement, stating that students seeking state-offered education must comply with its conditions, and there is no constitutional right to attend a state university free from such obligations.
• United States vs. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 — Referenced within the Hamilton citation. It held that there is no constitutional principle relieving a conscientious objector from the obligation to bear arms; such exemption is a matter of Congressional policy, not constitutional right.
• Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 — Referenced within the Hamilton citation. Upheld a state compulsory vaccination law, stating that an individual may be compelled, even against religious or political convictions, to serve the country.
• Minersville School District vs. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 — Cited by the Court as the earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld compulsory flag salutes in schools, a position the Philippine Supreme Court found more in keeping with its Constitution and government policy.
• West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 — Cited as the U.S. Supreme Court case that overruled Gobitis. The Philippine Supreme Court distinguished Barnette on the grounds that in Barnette, non-compliance led to expulsion, truancy charges, and potential prosecution of parents with fines and jail time, which was not the case in the Philippines where expulsion was the sole consequence.
• re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 — Cited by the Court. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the denial of bar admission to a conscientious objector unwilling to serve in the state militia due to religious beliefs, holding it did not violate religious freedom.
• Prince vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 88 L. ed. 645 — Cited by the Court. Upheld a conviction for violating child labor laws by allowing a child to distribute religious pamphlets, stating that neither rights of religion nor parenthood are beyond limitation when the state acts to guard youth's well-being.

• Republic Act No. 1265 — "An Act Making Flag Ceremony Compulsory in all Educational Institutions." Section 2 authorized the Secretary of Education to issue rules for the flag ceremony. This Act forms the statutory basis for Department Order No. 8.
• Department Order No. 8, series of 1955 (Department of Education) — The specific regulation being challenged. It details the rules and regulations for conducting the compulsory daily flag ceremony in all educational institutions.
• Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5 (Bible) — Cited by petitioners as the religious basis for their refusal to salute the flag, interpreting it as a command against making or bowing to graven images.
• Romans 13:1 (Bible) — Mentioned by petitioners in their interpretation of "higher powers" as Jehovah God and Christ Jesus, not the sovereign state.
• Constitution, Article XIV, Section 5 — (Referring to the 1935 Constitution, then in effect) Charges the State with supervision over and regulation of all educational institutions, and to establish and maintain a complete and adequate system of public education, and see to it that all schools aim to develop, among other things, civic conscience and teach the duties of citizenship. The Court cited this to justify the State's role in inculcating patriotism.
• Republic Act 896 — Mentioned by the Court as the law requiring compulsory enrollment of children of school age, but noted it has many exceptions and no penal sanction for non-attendance or expulsion, distinguishing the Philippine situation from that in Barnette.

• Justice Barrera — Agrees with Justice Montemayor's opinion, emphasizing two distinctions from West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette: (1) In Barnette, non-compliance led to criminal prosecution of parents and pupils being treated as delinquents, which is not the case in the Philippines where the only consequence is inability to continue studies in public school. (2) The "stiff-arm" salute required in Barnette along with the pledge was considered an act of obeisance by Jehovah's Witnesses there, whereas in the Philippines, the petitioners do not object to standing at attention with arms down, and their objection is mainly to singing the anthem and reciting the pledge, the content of which Justice Barrera finds unobjectionable. He concludes that the Philippine flag ceremony, as prescribed, is not clearly repugnant to the Constitution.