Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

110 Phil 150:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-14283. November 29, 1960.]

GIL BALBUNA, ET AL., petitioners and appellants, v. THE HON. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL., respondents and appellees.

K.V. Faylona and Juan B. Soliven for Appellants.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Ceferino Padua for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 8, SERIES OF 1955, VALID; SECRETARY OF EDUCATION AUTHORIZED TO PROMULGATE IT; FLAG CEREMONY OR SALUTE PROVIDED THEREIN NOT VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION. — Department Order No. 8, series of 1955, is valid. The Secretary of Education was duly authorized by the Legislative thru Republic Act 1265 to promulgate said Department Order, and its provisions requiring the observance of the flag salute, not being a religious ceremony but an act and profession of love and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the fatherland which the flag stands for, does not violate the constitutional provision of freedom of religion (Gerona, Et. Al. v. Secretary of Education, Et Al., 106 Phil., 2; 57 Off. Gaz., [5] 820).

2. ID.; DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 8 NOT OF GENERAL APPLICATION; PUBLICATION THEREOF IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE BINDING FORCE AND EFFECT. — The contention that Department Order No. 8 has no binding force and effect, not having been published is the Official Gazette, is without merit. The assailed Department Order, being addressed only to the Directors of Public and Private Schools, and educational institutions under their supervision, cannot be said to be of general application, requiring previous publication in the Official Gazette before it could have binding force and effect. Com. Act 638 and Act 2930 do not require the publication of the circulars, regulations or notices therein mentioned in order to become binding and effective; said two Acts merely enumerate and made 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.

3. ID.; REPUBLIC ACT 1265 DOES NOT CONSTITUTE UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER; REQUIREMENTS IN SECTIONS 1 AND 2 THEREOF TO OBSERVE DAILY FLAG CEREMONY WITH SIMPLICITY AND DIGNITY AND THE PLAYING OR SINGING OF NATIONAL ANTHEM CONSTITUTE ADEQUATE STANDARD. — The requirements set in Sections 1 and 2 of the Act constitute an adequate standard, to wit, simplicity and dignity of the flag ceremony and the singing of the National Anthem. That the Legislature did not specify the details of the flag ceremony is no objection to the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the laying down of standards and policy that will limit the discretion of the regulatory agency. To require the statute to establish in detail the manner of exercise of the delegated to establish in detail the manner of exercise of the delegated power would be to destroy the administrative flexibility that the delegation is intended to achieve.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Appeal by members of the "Jehovahs’ Witnesses" from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, dated June 23, 1958, dismissing their petition for prohibition and mandamus against the Secretary of Education and the other respondents.

The action was brought to enjoin the enforcement of Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, issued by the Secretary of Education, promulgating rules and regulations for the conduct of the compulsory flag ceremony in all schools, as provided in Republic Act No. 1265. Petitioners appellants assail the validity of the above Department Order, for it allegedly denies them freedom of worship and of speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights; that it denies them due process of law and equal protection of the laws; and that it unduly restricts their rights in the upbringing of their children. Since the brief for the petitioners-appellants assails Republic Act No. 1265 only as construed and applied, the issue ultimately boils down to the validity of Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, which promulgated the rules and regulations for the implementation of the law.

This case, therefore, is on all fours with Gerona, Et Al., v. Secretary of Education, Et Al., 106 Phil., 2; 57 Off. Gaz., (5) 820, also involving identical grounds, the validity of the same Department order above mentioned. This Court discerns no reasons for changing its stand therein, where we said:ClubJuris

"In conclusion, we find and hold that the Filipino flag is not an image that requires religious veneration; rather, it is a 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 provisions 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 attendant 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." clubjuris

However, in their memorandum, petitioners-appellants raise the new issue that Department Order No. 8 has no binding force and effect, not having been published in the Official Gazette as allegedly required by Commonwealth Act 638, Article 2 of the New Civil Code, and Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code. We see no merit in this contention. The assailed Department Order, being addressed only to the Directors of Public and Private Schools, and educational institutions under their supervision, can not be said to be of general application. Moreover, as observed in People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil., 640; 50 Off. Gaz., (10) 4850 (affirmed in Lim Hoa Ting v. Central Bank, 104 Phil., 573; 55 Off. Gaz., [6] 1006), —

"the laws in question (Commonwealth Act 638 and Act 2930) do not require the publication of the circulars, regulations or notices therein mentioned in order to become binding and effective. All that said two laws provide is that laws, regulations, decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, notices and documents required by law to be published shall be published in the Official Gazette but said two laws do not say that unless so published they will be of no force and effect. In other words, 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." clubjuris

It is true, as held in the above cases, that pursuant to Article 2 of the New Civil Code and Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code, statutes or laws shall take effect fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. It is likewise true that administrative rules and regulations, issued to implement a law, have the force of law. Nevertheless, the cases cited above involved circulars of the Central Bank which provided for penalties for violations thereof and that was the primary factor that influenced the rationale of those decisions. In the case at bar, Department Order No. 8 does not provide any penalty against those pupils or students refusing to participate in the flag ceremony or otherwise violating the provisions of said order. Their expulsion was merely the consequence of their failure to observe school discipline which the school authorities are bound to maintain. As observed in Gerona v. Secretary of Education, supra,

". . . for their failure or refusal to obey school regulations about the flag salute, they were not being prosecuted. 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. . . . Having elected not to comply with the regulations about the flag salute, they forfeited their right to attend public schools.

"Finally, appellants contend that Republic Act No. 1265 is unconstitutional and void for being an undue delegation of legislative power, "for its failure to lay down any specific and definite standard by which the Secretary of Education may be guided in the preparation of those rules and regulations which he has been authorized to promulgate." With this view we again disagree. Sections 1 and 2 of the Act read as follows:ClubJuris

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

"Section 2. The Secretary of Education is hereby authorized and directed to issue or cause to be issued rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony herein provided." clubjuris

In our opinion, the requirements above-quoted constitute an adequate standard, to wit, simplicity and dignity of the flag ceremony and the singing of the National Anthem — specially when contrasted with other standards heretofore upheld by the Courts: "public interest" (People v. Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328): "public welfare" (Municipality of Cardona v. Binangonan, 36 Phil. 547); "interest of law and order" (Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil., 669; justice and equity and the substantial merits of the case" (Int. Hardwood v. Pañgil Federation of Labor, 70 Phil. 602); or "adequate and efficient instruction" (P.A.C.U. v. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil., 806; 51 Off. Gaz., 6230). That the Legislature did not specify the details of the flag ceremony is no objection to the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the laying down of standards and policy that will limit the discretion of the regulatory agency. To require the statute to establish in detail the manner of exercise of the delegated power would be to destroy the administrative flexibility that the delegation is intended to achieve.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against Petitioner-Appellants.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Gutiérrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301