Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SEC.
OF
FACTS:
1. Petitioners belong to the Jehovas
Witness whose children were expelled from
their schools when they refused to salute,
sing the anthem, recite the pledge during
the conduct of flag ceremony. DO No. 8
issued by DECS pursuant to RA 1265 which
called for the manner of conduct during a
flag ceremony. The petitioners wrote the
Secretary of Education on their plight and
requested to reinstate their children. This
was denied.
2. As a result, the petitioners filed for a writ
of preliminary injunction against the
Secretary and Director of Public Schools to
restrain them from implementing said DO
No. 8.
3. The lower court (RTC) declared DO 8
invalid and contrary to the Bill of Rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not DO 8 is valid or
constitutional
DO 8 is valid. Saluting the flag is not a
religious ritual and it is for the courts to
determine, not a religious group, whether or
not a certain practice is one.
1. The court held 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
government, the flag is utterly devoid of any
religious significance. Saluting the flag
consequently does not involve any religious
ceremony.
4. PAMIL VS TELSON
86 SCRA 413 Political Law
Inviolability of the Separation of
Church and State
In 1971, Fr. Margarito Gonzaga, a priest,
won the election for mayoralty in
Alburquerque, Bohol. He was later
proclaimed as mayor therein. Fortunato
Pamil, a rival candidate filed a quo warranto
case against Gonzaga questioning the
eligibility of Gonzaga. He argued that as
provided for in Section 2175 of the 1917
Revised Administrative Code:
in no case shall there be elected or
appointed
to
a
municipal
office
ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service,
persons receiving salaries or compensation
from provincial or national funds, or
contractors for public works of the
municipality.
In this case, the elected mayor is a priest.
However, Judge Victorino Teleron ruled that
the Administrative Code is repealed by the
Election Code of 1971 which now allows
ecclesiastics to run.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 2175 of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1917 is no
longer operative?
HELD: The Supreme Court decision was
indecisive. Under the 1935 Constitution, No
religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights. If the the
doctrine of constitutional supremacy is to be
maintained, then Section 2175 shall not
prevail, thus, an ecclesiastic may run for
elective office. However, this issue proved
to have divided the Supreme Court because
it failed to obtain the majority vote of eight
(8) which is needed in order to declare
Section 2175 of the RAC to be
unconstitutional. For this, the petition filed
by Pamil must be granted and the decision
of the lower court reversed and set aside.
Fr. Gonzaga is hereby ordered to vacate the
mayoralty position.
Held:
1. The setting of the amount at
P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive,
and constitutes an effective denial of
petitioners right to bail. The purpose for bail
is to guarantee the appearance of the
accused at the trial, or whenever so
required by the court. The amount should
9. VELMONTE VS BALMONTE170
SCRA 256
Facts:Ricardo Valmonte wrote Feliciano
Belmonte Jr. on 4 June 1986, requesting to
be "furnished with the list of names of
theopposition
members
of
(the)
BatasangPambansa who were able to
ownership
limitations
in
Constitution and existing laws.
the
1987
the
instant
appeal
is
necessity
to
HELD:
Eminent domain is the right of a
government to take and appropriate private
property to the public use, whenever the
public exigency requires it, which can be
done only on condition of providing a
reasonably compensation therefor. It is the
power of the State or its instrumentalities to
VS.
VDA.
DE
DECISION