G.R. No. L-14283. November 29, 1960.
GIL BALBUNA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners-appellants, members of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” appealed from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Capiz dismissing their petition for prohibition and mandamus against the Secretary of Education and other respondents. The action sought to enjoin the enforcement of Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, issued by the Secretary of Education, which promulgated rules and regulations for the conduct of the compulsory flag ceremony in all schools as provided in Republic Act No. 1265 . Petitioners assailed the Department Order as denying their freedom of worship and speech, due process, equal protection of the laws, and unduly restricting their rights in the upbringing of their children. The issue was narrowed to the validity of Department Order No. 8, as petitioners assailed Republic Act No. 1265 only as construed and applied.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the validity of Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, implementing Republic Act No. 1265 , specifically whether it: (1) violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, due process, and equal protection; (2) is invalid for lack of publication in the Official Gazette; and (3) is based on an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power under Republic Act No. 1265 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, upholding the validity of Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, and Republic Act No. 1265 .
1. On Constitutional Violations: The Court held that the flag is not an object of religious veneration but a symbol of the Republic, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, and national unity. The flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act of love, allegiance, and loyalty to the country. The requirement to observe the flag ceremony does not violate constitutional provisions on freedom of religion. Compliance with reasonable school rules, including the flag ceremony, is a prerequisite for attendance in public schools. Petitioners’ exclusion for refusal to participate was a proper consequence of failing to observe school discipline, not a penal sanction.
2. On Publication Requirement: The Court ruled that Department Order No. 8, being addressed only to school directors and not of general application, did not require publication in the Official Gazette to be effective. Citing People vs. Que Po Lay and Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central Bank, it held that Commonwealth Act 638 and Act 2930 merely list what should be published but do not mandate that unpublished items are void. While administrative rules implementing a law generally have the force of law, the crucial distinction here was that Department Order No. 8 imposed no penalties; expulsion was merely a disciplinary consequence for non-compliance with school regulations.
3. On Delegation of Legislative Power: The Court found Republic Act No. 1265 constitutional. Sections 1 and 2 of the Act, which require a “simple and dignified” flag ceremony including the National Anthem and authorize the Secretary to issue implementing rules, provide an adequate standard (“simplicity and dignity”). This standard is sufficient when compared to other upheld standards like “public interest” or “public welfare.” The legislature is not required to specify detailed procedures, as this would defeat the purpose of administrative flexibility.

Decision

The appealed decision was affirmed. Costs were imposed on petitioners-appellants.