Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2


The Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8, series of 1955, rules and
regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony, in accordance with R.A. 1265.
Petitioners' children attending the Buenavista Community School refused to salute the flag,
sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge contrary as a result they were
expelled from school. Petitioners thru counsel wrote to the Secretary of Education petitioning
that they be exempted from executing the formal salute, singing of the National Anthem and
the reciting of the patriotic pledge which was denied and making it clear that the denial was
the final and absolute stand. Their petition was also dismissed by CFI of Masbate. "Urgent
Motion for Writ of Preliminary Injunction" filed on behalf of petitioners to the Supreme Court.
WON, the requirement on school pupils to salute the flag is an imposition of religion in
contrary to the right of a citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution about freedom of
religious belief.
No, 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. Under a
system of complete separation of church and state in the government, the flag is utterly
devoid of any religious significance. Saluting the flag does not involve any religious
ceremony. The State is not imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on said
students to participate in the flag salute. It is merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school
regulation applicable to all alike whether Christian, Moslem, Protestants or Jehovah's
Witness. The State is 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. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution does not and
cannot mean exemption from or non-compliance with reasonable and nondiscriminatory
laws, rules and regulations promulgated by competent authority. 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.
Thus the Supreme Court dismissed the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and affirmed the
decision of the court a quo.


Leo Echegaray was convicted subject to lethal injection (R.A. 8177). The Supreme Court
issued a temporary restraining order, upon the request of the petitioner, for the execution
until it ensures that there will no longer be any repeal or modification as to the
implementation of RA 8177. Such action was by the court was questioned by the public
respondents since it already rendered a final judgment on the case.

WON, the court loses its jurisdiction on a decided case with a final judgment.
No, the rule on finality of judgment cannot divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to
execute and enforce the same judgmentthe finality of a judgment does not mean that the
Court has lost all its powers over the case. Thus, Supreme Court does not lose its
jurisdiction over a case with a final judgment rendered upon it. What it cannot do is modify
or amend the final decision. The court held that by finality of judgment, the court loses its
jurisdiction to amend the decision but retains its power to execute or enforce it (Miranda v.
Tiangco, 96 Phil 526) . There is a difference between the jurisdiction of the court to execute
its judgment and its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter a decision. The former continues
for the purpose of enforcing the judgment while the latter terminates after the final
judgment is rendered for after the judgment becomes final, facts and circumstances may
transpire which may render the execution unjust or impossible.