BALBUNA, ET AL. vs. THE HON. SEC.

OF EDUCATION
Posted on September 12, 2014 by yummy
Note: Please read GERONA, ET AL. vs. THE HON. SEC. OF EDUCATION first before rea
ding this case.
G.R. No. L-14283
November 29, 1960
REYES, J.B.L., J.
EN BANC
FACTS:
1. Members of the Jehova s Witnesses filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus
before the CFI of Capiz against the Sec. of Education, et al. It was to prevent
the enforcement of Dept. Order No. 8 issued pursuant to RA 1265 promulgating ru
les and regulations for the conduct of the compulsory flag ceremony in all schoo
ls.
2. The facts are the same with the Gerona case. It allegedly denies them freedom
of worship and of speech, however, new issues have been raised this time such a
s:
a. the department order has no binding force and effect, not having been publish
ed in the Official Gazette; and
b. it is an undue delegation of legislative power
3. The petition was dismissed. Hence, appeal to the SC.
ISSUE/S:
1. Does it violate freedom of worship and speech?
2. Is it in accordance with the requirements of publication?
3. Is it unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power?
RULING:
1. Issue on freedom of worship and speech. No.
a. the court maintains that the Filipino flag is not an image that requires reli
gious veneration; rather, it is a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, of
sovereignty, an emblem of freedom, liberty and national unity;
b. 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 stan
ds for;
c. that compliance with the non-discriminatory and reasonable rules and regulati
ons 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.
2. Issue on publication. Yes.
a. Commonwealth Act 638 and Act 2930 do not require the publication of the circu
lars, regulations or notices therein mentioned in order to become binding and ef
fective;
b. said two acts merely enumerate and make a list of what should be published in

the Official Gazette, presumably, for the guidance of the different branches of
the government issuing the same, and of the Bureau of Printing.
c. while it is true that statutes or laws shall take effect fifteen days after p
ublication in the Official Gazette and it is also true that administrative rules
and regulations have the force of law, the primary factor for this rationale is
that such statutes provided for penalties for violations thereof.
d. in the case at bar, Department Order No. 8 does not provide any penalty again
st those pupils or students refusing to participate in the flag ceremony or othe
rwise violating the provisions of said order; their expulsion was merely the con
sequence of their failure to observe school discipline which the school authorit
ies are bound to maintain.
e. for their failure or refusal to obey school regulations about the flag salute
, they were not being prosecuted under threat of penal sanction; if they choose
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
and having elected not to comply, they forfeited their right to attend public s
chools.
3. Issue on undue delegation of legislative power. No.
a. the requirements in Sections 1 and 2 of the department order constitute an ad
equate standard, to wit, simplicity and dignity of the flag ceremony and the sin
ging of the National Anthem.
b. that the Legislature did not specify the details of the flag ceremony is no o
bjection to the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the l
aying down of standards and policy that will limit the discretion of the regulat
ory agency;
c. to require the statute to establish in detail the manner of exercise of the d
elegated power would be to destroy the administrative flexibility that the deleg
ation is intended to achieve.