To salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge

By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico 

 

In the case of GENARO GERONA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL., respondents-appellees, docketed as G.R. No. L-13954 and promulgated on August 12, 1959, the Supreme Court was asked to decide on a petition filed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which the Court said is,

“(A)n unincorporated body teaching that the obligation imposed by law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by the State.”

“Their religious beliefs include,” the Court said, “a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which say: “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. For this reason they refuse to salute it.”

The case started on June 11, 1955, when Republic Act No. 1265, entitled: “An Act Making Flag Ceremony Compulsory in all Educational Institutions,” was enacted into law. It provides that:

“SECTION 1. All educational institutions henceforth observe daily flag ceremony, which shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the Philippine National Anthem.”

Thereafter, the Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8, Series of 1955, containing the rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony.

Petitioners’ children are enrolled at the Buenavista Community School, Uson, Masbate. They “refused to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge contrary to the requirement of Department Order No. 8; as a result they were expelled from school sometime in September, 1955.” 

Petitioners then filed a case in the Court of First Instance, which dismissed it. They appealed to the Supreme Court, which “issued the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction restraining respondents from excluding or banning petitioners-appellants, their children and all other of Jehovah’s Witnesses for whom this action has been brought, from admission to public schools, particularly the Buenavista Community School, solely on account of their refusal to salute the flag or preventing their return to school should they have already been banned, until further orders from this Court.” 

Justice Marcelino Montemayor, who penned the decision for the Court en banc, summarized the issue, thus:

We are called upon to determine the right of a citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution about freedom of religious belief and the right to practice it as against the power and authority of the State to limit or restrain the same.” 

At the start, the Court stated 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 governments, the flag is utterly devoid of any religious significance. 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 said oath, taken while his right hand is raised, he swears allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, promise to defend the Constitution and even invokes the help of God; and it is to be doubted whether a member of Jehovah’s Witness who is a candidate for admission to the Philippine Bar would object to taking the oath on the ground that is religious ceremony.”

The Court emphasized its authority, thus:

“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 meaning to be given to a certain ritual or ceremony as there are religious groups or sects or followers, all depending upon the meaning which they, though in all sincerity and good faith, may want to give to such ritual or ceremony.”

The Court explained that “the practice of religion or religious belief is subject to reasonable and non-discriminatory laws and regulations by the state. x x x. x x x, the State thru the Secretary of Education was not imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on said students. It was merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all alike whether Christian, Moslem, Protestant or Jehovah’s Witness. The State was merely carrying out the duty imposed upon it by the Constitution which charges it with supervision over and regulation of all educational institutions, 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. (Art. XIV, section 5 of the Constitution). It does nothing more than try to inculcate in the minds of the school population during the formative period of their life, love of country and love of the flag, all of which make for united and patriotic citizenry, so that later in after years they may be ready and willing to serve, fight, even die for it. It is well known that whatever is taught to the youth during this period, such as love of God, of parents, respect for elders, love of the truth, loyalty, honoring one’s word and respecting the rights of other, becomes a habit or second nature that will remain with them always.”

Then, the Court concluded that “we find and hold that 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.”

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and dissolved writ of preliminary injunction. And for their refusal “to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge,” the Genaro Gerona, et al., who are all members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, were excluded from the public school system.

In the decision, the Court reproduced the National Anthem in English,

 “Land of the morning,

 Child of the sun returning. 

 With fervor burning,

 Thee do our souls adore. 

 Land dear and holy,

 Cradle of noble heroes,

 Ne’er shall invaders,

 Trample thy sacred shores. 

 Ever within thy skies and through thy clouds,

 and o’er thy hills and sea,

 Do we behold the radiance, fell the throb

 of glorious liberty. 

 Thy banner, dear to all our hearts,

 Its sun and stars alight. 

 O — never shall its shining field

 Be dimmed by tyrant’s might. 

 Beautiful land of love,

 O — land — of light,

 In thine embrace ‘tis rapture to lie. 

 But it is glory ever, when thou art wronged,

 For us, thy sons to suffer and die”.

And the Court stated that the National Anthem “speaks only of love of country, of patriotism, liberty and the glory of suffering and dying for it. It does not even speak of resorting to force and engaging in military service or duty to defend the country, which service might meet with objection on the part of conscientious objectors. Surely, petitioners do not disclaim or disavow these noble and sacred feelings of patriotism, respect, even veneration for the flag and love of country for which the flag stands.” 

These words, my dear Reader, still rings true today, 61 years after it was written in 1959. And I wish to add that this is still the law.