9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

[No. L-13954. August 12, 1959]

GENARO GERONA, ET AL., petitioners and appellants, vs. THE

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,
respondents and appellees.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; FREEDOM OF RELIGION; DAILY

FLAG CEREMONY NOT A RELIGIOUS RITUAL.—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. Under a system of complete separation of church

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 3

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

and state in the government, the flag is utterly devoid of any

religious significance. Saluting the flag does not involve any
religious ceremony. The flag salute is no more a religious ceremony
than the taking of an oath of office by a public official or by a
candidate for admission to the bar.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT ON SCHOOL PUPILS TO

SALUTE THE FLAG NOT AN IMPOSITION OF RELIGION.—
In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute, the State
thru the Secretary of Education is not imposing a religion or
religious belief or a religious test on said students. It is merely
enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all
alike whether Christian, Moslem, Protestant 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.

3. ID.; ID.; EXEMPTION FROM FLAG CEREMONY NOT

PROPER.—The children of Jehovah Witnesses cannot be
exempted from participation in the flag ceremony. They have no
valid right to such exemption. Moreover, exemption to the

[Link] 1/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
requirement will disrupt school discipline and demoralize the rest
of the school population which by far constitutes the great majority.

4. ID.; ID.; NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NON-DISCRIMINATORY

LAWS NOT A PART OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.—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.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Masbate.

Dollete, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of he Court.
K. V. Faylona and Hayden C. Covington for appellant.
Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Conrado T.
Limcaoco for appellees.

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

Petitioners are appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance

of Masbate dismissing their complaint. Acting upon the "Urgent
Motion For Writ of Preliminary
4

4 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

Injunction" filed on behalf of petitioners on December 12, 1958, and

without objection on the part of the Solicitor General, by resolution
of this Court of December 16, we issued the corresponding writ of
preliminary injunction restraining respondents from excluding or
banning petitioners-appellants, their children and all other of
Jehovah's Witnesses for whom this action has been brought, from
admission to public schools, particularly the Buenavista Community
School, solely on account of their refusal to salute the flag or
preventing their return to school should they have already been
banned, until further orders from this Court.
The facts involved are not disputed. On June 11, 1955, Republic
Act No. 1265 was approved and went into effect. Acting upon
section 2 of said Act authorizing and directing the Secretary of
Education to issue or cause to be issued rules and regulations for
the proper conduct of the flag ceremony, said Secretary issued
Department Order No. 8, series of 1955 on July 21, 1955 which
Department Order quoting Republic Act No. 1265 in its entirety, we
reproduce below for purposes of reference:

"REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
MANILA

[Link] 2/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
DEPARTMENT ORDER
No. 8, s. 1955

July 21, 1955

COMPULSORY DAILY FLAG CEREMONY IN ALL PUBLIC

AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

To the Director of Public Schools and the Director of Private Schools:

1. Quoted below is Republic Act No. 1265 entitled "An Act Making Flag
Ceremony Compulsory in all Educational Institutions," which is self-
explanatory.
"SECTION 1. All educational institutions henceforth observe daily flag
ceremony, which shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing
or singing of the Philippine National Anthem.

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 5

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

"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.
"SECTION 3. Failure or refusal to observe the flag ceremony provided
by this Act and in accordance with rules and regulations issued by the
Secretary of Education, after proper notice and hearing, shall subject the
educational institution concerned and its head to public censure as an
administrative punishment which shall be published at least once in a
newspaper of general circulation.
In case of failure to observe for the second time the flag ceremony
provided by this Act, the Secretary of Education, after proper notice and
hearing, shall cause the cancellation of the recognition or permit of the
private educational institution responsible for such failure.
"SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, June 11. 1955."
2. As provided in Section 2 of the Act, the rules and regulations
governing the proper conduct of the required flag ceremony, given in the
inclosure to this Order, are hereby promulgated. These rules and regulations
should be made known to all teachers and school officials, public and
private. The patriotic objective or significance of the Act should be
explained to all pupils and students in the schools and to all communities
through the purok organizations and community assemblies.
(Sgd.) G. HERNANDEZ, JR.
Secretary of Education

Incl.:

As stated

(Inclosure of Department Order No. 8, s. 1955)

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CONDUCTING THE FLAG

CEREMONY IN ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
[Link] 3/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
1. The Filipino Flag shall be displayed by all educational institutions,
public and private, every school day throughout the year. It shall be
raised at sunrise and lowered at sunset. The flagstaff must be
straight, slightly and gently tapering at the end, and of such height
as would give the Flag a commanding position in front of the
building or within the compound.
2. Every public and private educational institution shall hold a flag-
raising ceremony every morning except when it is raining, in which
event the ceremony may be conducted indoors in the best way
possible. A .retreat shall be held in the afternoon of the same day.

6 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

The flag-raising ceremony in the morning shall be conducted in the

following manner:

a. Pupils and teachers or students and faculty members who are in

school and its premises shall assemble in formation facing the flag.
At command, books shall be put away or held in the left hand and
everybody shall come to attention. Those with hats shall uncover.
No one shall enter or leave the school grounds during the
ceremony.
b. The assembly shall sing the Philippine National Anthem
accompanied by the school band or without the accompaniment if it
has none; or the anthem may be played by the school band alone.
At the first note of the Anthem, the flag shall be raised briskly.
While the flag is being raised, all persons present shall stand at
attention and execute a salute. Boys and men with hats shall salute
by placing the hat over the heart. Those without hats may stand
with their arms and hands down and straight at the sides. Those in
military or Boy Scout uniform shall give the salute prescribed by
their regulations. The salute shall be started as the Flag rises, and
completed upon last note of the anthem.
c. Immediately following the singing of the Anthem, the assembly
shall recite in unison the following patriotic pledge (English or
vernacular version), which may bring the ceremony to a close. This
is required of all public schools and of private schools which are
intended for Filipino students or whose population is
predominantly Filipino.

ENGLISH VERSION

I love the Philippines.

It is the land of my birth;
It is the home of my people.
It protects me and helps me to be strong, happy and useful.
In return, I will heed the counsel of my parents;
I will obey the rules of my school;
I will perform the duties of a patriotic, law-abiding citizen;
[Link] 4/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
I will serve my country unselfishly and faithfully;
I will be a true Filipino in thought, in word, in deed.

3. The retreat shall be observed as follows:

a. Teachers and pupils or faculty members and students whose classes
and after the last school period in the afternoon before sun down shall
assemble facing the flag. At command, the Philippine National Anthem
shall be sung with accompaniment of the school band. If the school has no
band, the assembly will only sing the Anthem. Boys who have been taking
part in preparatory military training or Boy Scout activities shall attend the
retreat

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 7

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

in formation and execute the salute prescribed for them. Others shall
execute the same salute and observe the same deportment as required of
them in the flag-raising ceremony. The flag should be lowered slowly so that
it will be in the hands of the color detail at the sound of the last note of the
Anthem.
b. If the school so prefers, it may have its bugle corp play "To the
Colors", instead of the singing of the National Anthem, for the retreat. At
the sound of the first note, the assembly shall stand at attention facing the
flag and observe the same deportment as required in the flag-raising
ceremony. Or, it may have its bugle corp play "To the Colors" and at the
sound of the first note everybody within hearing distance shall stand at
attention, face the flag, and observe the same deportment as required in the
flag-raising ceremony.

4. The flag should be handled reverently in raising or lowering it and

not allowed to touch the ground. This can be insured by having one
pupil hold the flag while another pupil fastening it to or unfasten it
from the halyard.
5. To display the National Flag at half-mast when necessary, it must
be hoisted to full-mast, allowing it to fly there for a moment, and
then brought down to half-mast. To lower the flag, it must again be
hoisted to full-mast before bringing it down."

In his turn the Director of Public Schools issued Circular No. 22,
series of 1955, on July 30, 1955 addressed to Division
Superintendents of Schools, enclosing a copy of Department Order
No. 8, series of 1955 and enjoining strict compliance therewith.
It would appear that pursuant to the Department Order in
question, the flag ceremony contemplated therein was held daily in
every school, public and private. Petitioners' children attending the
Buenavista Community School, Uson, Masbate, ref used to salute
the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge
contrary to the requirement of Department Order No. 8; as a result
they were expelled from school sometime in September, 1955. It is
said that other children similarly situated who refused or failed to
[Link] 5/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

comply with the requirement about saluting the flag are under threats
of being also expelled from all public schools in the Philippines.
Petitioners thru counsel wrote to the Secretary of Education
petitioning that in the implementation of this flag

8 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

ceremony, they and their children attending school be allowed to

remain silent and stand at attention with their arms and hands down
and straight at the sides and that they be exempted from executing
the formal salute, singing of the National Anthem and the reciting of
the patriotic pledge, giving their reason for the same. On December
16, 1955 the Secretary of Education wrote to counsel for
petitioners denying the petition, making it clear that the denial was
the final and absolute stand of the Department of Education on the
matter and that counsel may thereafter feel free to seek a judicial
determination of the constitutionality or interpretation of Republic
Act No. 1265 as construed and applied to Jehovah's Witnesses. The
letter also informed petitioners' counsel that with reference to his
letter of December 1, 1955 relative to the request for reinstatement
of petitioners' children who had been expelled from school for non-
compliance with Department Order No. 8, no favorable action could
be taken thereon. So, on March 27, 1957 petitioners commenced the
present action asking that a writ of preliminary injunction issue to
restrain the Secretary of Education and the Director of Public
Schools from enforcing Department Order No. 8 "as applied to
petitioners and all others of Jehovah's Witnesses for whom this
action is brought and to restrain them from excluding from the
public schools the children of the petitioners on account of their
refusal to execute a formal salute to the flag, sing the national
anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, and that after hearing, the
trial court declare Department Order No. 8 invalid and contrary to
the Bill of Rights and that the preliminary injunction prayed for be
made permanent.
Petitioners-appellants belong to what is called the JEHOVAH'S
WITNESS, an unincorporated body teaching that the obligation
imposed by law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by the
State. Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus,
Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which say: "Thou shalt not make unto
thee any

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 9

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or

that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
[Link] 6/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." They
consider that the flag is an "image within this command. For this
reason they refuse to salute it
To further make clear the stand of petitioners as to the relative
position and priority of religious teaching on the one hand and laws
promulgated by the State on the other, we quote from appellant's
brief on page 50 thereof:

"In Halter vs. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34, 41, 27 S. Ct. 419, 51 L. Ed. 696
(1907), the United States Supreme Court held that the flag 'is an emblem of
National sovereignty.'
"To many persons the saluting of a national flag means nothing. To a
sincere person who believed in God and the Bible as his Word, and who is
in a covenant with Almighty God to do his will exclusively, it means much.
To such person 'sovereignty' means the supreme authority or power. Many
believe that 'the higher powers,' mentioned in the Bible at Romans 13:1,
means the 'sovereign state'; but to the Christian this means Jehovah God
and his son, Christ Jesus, Jehovah's anointed King. They, Father and Son
are the higher powers, to whom all must be subject and joyfully obey."
(Italics supplied)

The question involved in this appeal is a highly important one. We

are called upon to determine the right of a citizen as guaranteed by
the Constitution about freedom of religious belief and the right to
practice it as against the power and authority of the State to limit or
restrain the same. Our task is lessened by the fact that petitioners do
not challenge the legality or constitutionality of Republic Act 1265.
All that they question is the legality or constitutionality of
Department Order No. 8, series of 1955 of the Department of
Education implementing said Republic Act
The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded
only by one's imagination and thought. So is the freedom of belief,
including religious belief, limitless and without bounds. One may
believe in most any-

10

10 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

thing, however strange, bizarre and unreasonable the same may

appear to others, even heretical when weighed in the scales of
orthodoxy or doctrinal standards, But between the freedom of belief
and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road to
travel. If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with the
established institutions of society and with the law, then the former
must yield and give way to the latter. The Government steps in and
either restrains said exercise or even prosecutes the one exercising it.
One may believe in polygamy because it is permitted by his
religion, but the moment he translates said religious belief into an
overt act, such as engaging or practising plural marriages, he may be
prosecuted for bigamy and he may not plead or invoke his religious
[Link] 7/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

belief as a defense or as a matter of exemption from the operation of

the law.
In the case of Reynolds vs. U. S. (98 U.S. 145) the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld the validity of a law prohibiting and punishing
polygamy even as against the claim of religious belief of the
Mormons. Said the Court:

"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive

dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not
be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his
religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of
religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every
citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name
under such circumstances." (Italics supplied)

Again, one may not believe in the payment of taxes because he may
claim that according to his religious belief, the payment of taxes
means service to one other than God. As long as he confines himself
to mere belief, well and good. But when he puts said belief into
practice and he actually refuses to pay taxes on his property or on
his business, then the State steps in, compels payment, and enforces
it either by court action or levy and distraint.

11

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 11

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

One of the important questions to determine here is the true meaning

and significance of the Filipino flag. Petitioners believe and maintain
that it is an image and therefore to salute the same is to go against
their religious belief. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven . . .
thou shalt not bow down thyself to them or serve them." They also
claim that the flag salute is a religious ceremony, participation in
which is forbidden by their religious belief. We disagree. Appellants
themselves (page 51 of their brief) concede that the flag is a symbol
of the State. They give the meaning of the word "image" on page 51
of their brief as follows:

"Under the word 'image' this comment is given by Webster: 'lmage, in

modern usage, commonly suggests religious veneration.' " (Italics supplied)

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. The flag salute,
particularly the recital of the pledge of loyalty is no more a religious
ceremony than the taking of an oath of office by a public official or
by a candidate for admission to the bar. In said oath, taken while his

[Link] 8/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

right hand is raised, he swears allegiance to the Republic of the

Philippines, promises to defend the Constitution and even invokes
the help of God; and it is to be doubted whether a member of
Jehovah's Witness who is a candidate for admission to the Philippine
Bar would object to taking the oath on the ground that it is religious
ceremony.
After all, the determination of whether a certain ritual is or is not
a religious ceremony must rest with the courts. It cannot be left to a
religious group or sect, much less to a follower of said group or sect;
otherwise, there would

12

12 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

be confusion and misunderstanding for there might be as many

interpretations and meanings to be given to a certain ritual or
ceremony as there are religious groups or sects or followers, all
depending upon the meaning which they, though in all sincerity and
good faith, may want to give to such ritual or ceremony.
We understand that petitioners, during the flag ceremony, are
willing to remain silent and stand at attention with their arms and
hands down straight at the sides, and they agree that boys, members
of Jehovah's Witness who have been taking part in military training
or Boy Scout activities, and are in uniform, may execute the salute
to the flag prescribed by the Circular for them. So, the requirement
contained in Department Order No. 8 that during the flag ceremony
those without hats may stand with their arms and hands down and
straight at the sides, including the formal salute by boys in military
and Boy Scout uniform, meets with the conformity of petitioners. Of
course, there is the other requirement that boys and men with hats
shall salute the flag by placing their hats over the heart, but
petitioners and other members of the Jehovah's Witness could well
solve this requirements or avoid it by putting away their hats just as
pupils holding books, may put them away, at command (Rules and
Regulations, Sec. 2, par. [a]). Consequently, the opposition of
petitioners to the flag salute may be reduced to their objection to
singing the National Anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge.
After a careful and conscientious examination of the patriotic
pledge as reproduced at the beginning of this decision, frankly we
find nothing, absolutely nothing, objectionable, even from the point
of view of religious belief. The school child or student is simply
made to say that he loves the Philippines because it is the land of his
birth and the home of his people; that because it protects him, in
return he will heed the counsel of his parents, obey the rules and
regulations of his school, perform the duties of a patriotic and law-
abiding citizen; and serve his country

13

[Link] 9/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 13
Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

unselfishly and faithfully, and that he would be a true Filipino in

thought, in word, and in deed. He is not even made to pledge
allegiance to the flag or to the Republic for which it stands. So that
even if we assume for a moment that the flag were an image,
connoting religious and veneration instead of a mere symbol of the
State and of national unity, the religious scruples of appellants
against bowing to and venerating an image are not interfered with or
otherwise jeopardized.
And as to the singing of the National Anthem, which we
reproduce below:

Land of the morning,

Child of the sun returning.
With fervor burning,
Thee do our souls adore.
Land clear and holy,
Cradle of noble heroes,
Ne'er shall invaders,
Trample thy sacred shores.
Ever within thy skies and through thy clouds,
and o'er thy hills and sea,
Do we behold the radiance, feel the throb
of glorious liberty.
Thy banner, dear to all our hearts,
Its sun and stars alight.
O—never shall its shining field
Be dimmed by tyrant's might.
Beautiful land of love,
O—land—of—light,
In thine embrace 'tis rapture to lie.
But it is glory ever, when thou art wronged,
For us, thy sons to suffer and die.

the same thing may be said; that it speaks only of love of country, of
patriotism, liberty and the glory of suffering and dying for it. It does
not even speak of resorting to force and engaging in military service
or duty to defend the country, which service might meet with
objection on the part of conscientious objectors. Surely, petitioners
do not disclaim or disavow these noble and sacred feelings

14

14 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

of patriotism, respect, even veneration for the flag and love of

country for which the flag stands.

[Link] 10/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

Men may differ and do differ on religous beliefs and creeds,

government policies, the wisdom and legality of laws, even the
correctness of judicial decisions and decrees; but in the field of love
of country, reverence for the flag, national unity and patriotism, they
can hardly afford to differ, for these are matters in which they are
mutually and vitally interested, for to them, they mean national
existence and survival as a nation or national extinction.
In enforcing the flag salute on the petitioners, there was
absolutely no compulsion involved, and for their failure or refusal to
obey school regulations about the flag salute they were not being
persecuted. 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.
According to a popular expression, they could take it or leave it.
Having elected not to comply with the regulations about the flag
salute, they forfeited their right to attend public schools.
In the case of Hamilton vs. University of California, 293 U.S.
243, 79 L. Ed. 343, quite similar to the present case, appellants
therein were taxpayers and citizens of the United States and of
California. The University of California received endowment and
support from the State legislature under certain conditions such as
that any resident of California of the age of 14 years or upward of
approved moral character shall have the right to enter the University
as a student and receive instructions therein. The University as part
of its curriculum and instruction required military science and tactics
in the Reserve Officers Training Corps. Appellants conformed to all
requirements of the University except taking the course in military
science and tactics and for this the regents of the University
suspended them. Appellants were members of the

15

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 15

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

Methodist Episcopal Church and of the Epworth League. For many

years their fathers have been ordained ministers of that church. They
believed that war and preparation for war is a violation of their
religious belief. In other words, they were conscientious objectors to
war. They believed that war, training for war, and military training
were immoral, wrong and contrary to the letter and spirit of the
teaching of God and precepts of the Christian religion. They
petitioned for exemption from the military science and tactics course
but the regents refused to make military training optional or to
exempt them and they were suspended. So they initiated court action
with the California Supreme Court to compel the regents of the
University to admit them. In that action they assailed the validity of
the State law providing for military training in the University. Their
petition was denied by the State Supreme Court. In affirming the

[Link] 11/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

decision of the State Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the

United States held that:

"* * *. California has not drafted or called them to attend the University.
They are seeking education offered by the State and at the same time
insisting that they be excluded from the prescribed course solely upon
grounds of their religious beliefs and conscientious objections to war,
preparation for war and military education. Taken on the basis of the facts
alleged in the petition, appellants' contentions amount to no more than an
assertion that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a
safeguard of 'liberty' confers the right to be students in the state university
free from obligation to take military training as one of the conditions of
attendance.
"Viewed in the light of our decisions that proposition must at once be put
aside as untenable. * * *
"In United States vs. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 75 L. ed. 1302, 51 S. Ct.
570, a later naturalization case, the applicant was unwilling, because of
conscientious objections, to take unqualifiedly the statutory oath of
allegiance which contains this statement: 'That he will support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.' U.S.C. title 8,
Sec. 381. His petition stated that he was willing if necessary to take up arms
in defense of this

16

16 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

country, 'but I should want to be free to judge of the necessity.' In

amplification he said: 'I do not undertake to support "my country, right or
wrong" in any dispute which may arise, and I am not willing to promise
beforehand, and without knowing the cause for which my country may go to
war, either that I will or that I will not "take up arms in defense of this
country," however "necessary" the war may seem to be to the government of
the day.' The opinion of this court quotes from petitioner's brief a statement
to the effect that it is a fixed principle of our Constitution, zealously guarded
by our laws, that a citizen cannot be forced and need not bear arms in a war
if he has conscientious religious scruples against doing so.' And, referring to
that part of the argument in behalf of the applicant this court said (p. 623):
'This, if it means what it seems to say, is an astonishing statement. Of
course, there is no such principle of the Constitution, fixed or otherwise. The
conscientious objector is relieved from the obligation to bear arms in
obedience to no constitutional provision, express or implied; but because,
and only because, it has accorded with the policy of Congress thus to relieve
him. . . . The privilege of the native-born conscientious objector to avoid
bearing arms comes not from the Constitution but from the acts of Congress.
That body may grant or withhold the exemption as in its wisdom it sees fit;
and if it be withheld, the native-born conscientious objector cannot
successfully assert the privilege. No other conclusion is compatible with the
well-nigh limitless extent of the war powers as above illustrated, which
include by necessary implication, the power, in the last extremity, to compel
[Link] 12/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
the armed service of any citizen in the land, without regard to his objections
or his views in respect of the justice or morality of the particular war or of
war in general. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29; 49 L. ed.
643, 651, 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas, 765, this Court (upholding a state
compulsory vaccination law) speaking of the liberties guaranteed to the
individual by the Fourteenth Amendment, said: ". . . and yet he may be
compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his
personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political
convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk
the chance of being shot down in its defense." '
"And see University of Maryland v. Coale, 165 Md. 224, 167 A. 54, a
case, similar to that now before us, decided against the contention of a
student in the University of Maryland who on conscientious grounds
objected to military training there required. His appeal to this Court was
dismissed for the want of a substantial federal questions. 290 U.S. 597, 78
L. ed. 525, 54 S. Ct. 131.
"Plainly there is no ground for the contention that the regents'

17

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 17

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

order, requiring able-bodied male students under the age of twentyfour as a

condition of their enrollment to take the prescribed instruction in military
science and tactics, transgresses any constitutional right asserted by these
appellants."

Mr. Justice Cardozo in his concurring opinion said:

"I assume for present purposes that the religious liberty protected by the
First Amendment against invasion by the nation is protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment against invasion by the states.
"Accepting that premise, I cannot find in the respondents' ordinance an
obstruction by the state to 'the free exercise' of religion as the phrase was
understood by the founders of the nation, and by the generations that have
followed. Davis vs. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 342, 33 L. ed. 637, 10 S. Ct.
299.
"There is no occasion at this time to mark the limits of governmental
power in the exaction of military service when the nation is at peace. The
petitioners have not been required to bear arms for any hostile purpose,
offensive or defensive, either now or in the future. They have not even been
required in any absolute or peremptory way to join in courses of instruction
that will fit them to bear arms. If they elect to resort to an institution for
higher education maintained with the state's moneys, then and only then
they are commanded to follow courses of instruction believed by the state to
be vital to its welfare. This may be condemned by some unwise or illiberal
or unfair when there is violence to conscientious scruples, either religious or
merely ethical. More must be shown to set the ordinance at naught. In
controversies of this order courts do not concern themselves with matters of
legislative policy, unrelated to privileges or liberties secured by the organic
law. The first Amendment, if it be read. into the Fourteenth, makes invalid

[Link] 13/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
any state law 'respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.' Instruction in military science is not instruction in the
practice or tenets of a religion. Neither directly nor indirectly is government
establishing a state religion when it insists upon such training. Instruction in
military science, unaccompanied here by any pledge of military service, is
not an interference by the state with the free exercise of religion when the
liberties of the constitution are read in the light of a century and a half of
history during days of peace and war. * * *
"Manifestly a different doctrine would carry us to lengths that have never
yet been dreamed of. The conscientious objector, if his liberties were to be
thus extended, might refuse to contribute taxes in furtherance of a war,
whether for attack or for defense, or in furtherance of any other end,
condemned by his conscience

18

18 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

as irreligious or immoral. The right of private judgment has never yet been
so exalted above the powers and the compulsion of the agencies of
government. One who is a martyr to a principle—which may turn out in the
end to be a delusion or an error—does not prove by his martyrdom that he
has kept within the law."

We are not unmindful of the decision of the United States Federal

Supreme Court on similar set of facts. In the case of Minersville
School District vs. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 84 L. ed. 1375, two
Jehovah Witnesses children were expelled from the public school of
Minersville for refusing to salute the national flag in accordance
with the regulations promulgated by the school board for the daily
flag ceremony. Their father Gobitis on behalf of his two children and
in his own behalf brought suit to enjoin the school authorities from
continuing to exact the execution of the flag ceremony as a condition
of his children's admittance in school. After trial, the District Court
gave him relief and this decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of
Appeals. On appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, the decrees of
both the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals were
reversed with the lone dissent of Chief Justice Stone, on the ground
that the requirement of participation of all pupils in the public
schools in the flag ceremony did not infringe the due process law
and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly the one
referring to religious freedom and belief. Three years later, that is,
on June 14, 1943, the ruling laid down in the Minersville School
District vs. Gobitis case, was in the case of West Virginia State
Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624-671 reversed by a
sharply divided court, the majority opinion being penned by Mr.
Justice Jackson in which Justices Black, Douglas and Murphy
concurred; while Mr. Justice Frankfurter who wrote the opinion in
the Gobitis case, filed a long dissenting opinion, and Justices
Roberts and Reed adhered to the views expressed in the Gobitis
case,
[Link] 14/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

Neither attempting to justify the ruling laid down in the

Minersville vs. Gobitis case nor desiring to criticize

19

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 19

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

the doctrine of the West Virginia vs. Barnette case, frankly, we are
more inclined to favor the former as more in keeping with the spirit
of our Constitution and the government policy as laid down in
Republic Act No. 1265 entitled "An Act Making Flag Ceremony
Compulsory In All Educational Institutions".
We cannot help thinking that one reason that may have possibly
influenced the decision in the West Virginia State Board of
Education vs. Barnette case, was that the children involved in said
case and their parents found themselves in a serious dilemma for
refusing to salute the flag as required by the regulations of the
School Board. They were expelled by the School Board and their
absence was considered unlawful and because of the law of
compulsory school attendance of all children of school age, they
were considered as truants and the school officials threatened to send
them to reformatories maintained for criminally inclined juveniles.
Parents of such children have been prosecuted or were threatened
with prosecution for cause such as alleged delinquency and if
convicted, were subject to fine not exceeding $50.00 and a jail term
not exceeding 30 days. That is why in the majority opinion it was
stated:

"* * * The sole conflict is between authority and rights of the individual.
The state asserts power to condition access to public education on making a
prescribed sign and profession and at the same time to coerce attendance by
punishing both parent and child. * * *"

Such a grave and embarrassing situation, however, does not obtain

in the Philippines. True, we have a law (Republic Act 896) requiring
compulsory enrollment of children of school age, but said law
contains so many exceptions and exemptions that it can be said that
a child of school age is very seldom compelled to attend school, let
alone the fact that almost invariably, there is school crisis every year
wherein the pupils applying for admission in public schools could
not be accommodated, and what is equally important is that there is
no punishment or penal sanc-
20

20 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

tion either for the pupil who fail to attend school or is expelled for
failure to comply with school regulations such as the compulsory

[Link] 15/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

flag salute ceremony, or his parents.

In the case of re Summers, 325 U. S. 561-578, decided on June
11, 1945, that is, two years after the decision in the case of West
Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a decision
of the Illinois Supreme Court refusing admission of petitioner Clyde
Wilson Summers to the Illinois Bar. Summers had complied with all
the prerequisites to admission to the Bar of that state, but he was a
conscientious objector who did not believe in the use of force or war
because of his religious belief. He described this attitude of his as
follows:

"The so-called 'misconduct' for which petitioner could be reproached for is

his taking the New Testament too seriously. Instead of merely reading or
preaching the Sermon on the Mount, he tries to practice it. The only fault of
the petitioner consists in his attempt to act as a good Christian in accordance
with his interpretation of the Bible, and according to the dictates of his
conscience. We respectfully submit that the profession of law does not shut
its gates to persons who have qualified in all other respects even when they
follow in the footsteps of that Great Teacher of mankind who delivered the
Sermon on the Mount. "We respectfully submit that under our Constitutional
guarantees even good Christians who have met all the requirements for the
admission to the bar may be admitted to practice law"

The Constitution of Illinois required service in the militia in time of

war of men of petitioner's age group. The Federal Supreme Court
defined the position of Summers as a conscientious objector in the
following words:

"* * *. Without detailing petitioner's testimony before the Committee or his

subsequent statements in the record, his position may be compendiously
stated as one of non-violence. Petitioner will not serve in the armed forces.
"While he recognizes a difference between the military and police forces, he
would not act in the latter to coerce threatened violations. Petitioner would
not use force to meet aggression against himself or his family, no matter
how aggravated or whether or not carrying a danger of bodily harm to
himself or others. He is a believer in passive resistance. We need to consider
only his attitude toward service in the armed forces.

21

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 21

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

It was not denied that Summers was unwilling to serve in the militia
of Illinois because of his religious belief. In affirming the decision of
the Illinois Supreme Court excluding Summers from the practice of
law in that state, the Federal Supreme Court held that the action of
the State Supreme Court did not violate the principle of religious
freedom contained in the Constitution.
If a man lived, say on an island, alone and all by himself without
neighbors, he would normally have complete and absolute rights as
to the way he lives, his religion, including the manners he practices
[Link] 16/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

his religious beliefs. There would be no laws to obey, no rules and

regulations to follow. He would be subject only to Nature's physical
laws. But man is gregarious by nature and instinct and he gravitates
toward community life, to receive and enjoy the benefits of society
and of social and political organization. The moment he does this
and he becomes a member of a community or nation, he has to give
up some of his rights for the benefit of his fellow citizens and for the
general welfare, just as his fellow men and companions also agree to
a limitation of their rights in his favor. So, with his religion. He may
retain his freedom or religious belief, but as to practising the same,
he would have to give up some of those practices repugnant to the
general welfare and subordinate them to the laws and sovereignty of
the State. In other words, the practice of religion or religious belief
is subject to reasonable and non-discriminatory laws and regulations
by the state.
In the case of Prince vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 88 L.
ed. 645, the United States Supreme Court affirmed a decision
convicting Sarah Prince of a violation of the Child Labor Law of
Massachusetts. Mr. Justice Rutledge who wrote the opinion tersely
described the case thus:

"The case brings for review another episode in the conflict between
Jehovah's Witnesses and state authority. This time Sarah Prince

22

22 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

appeals from- convictions for violating Massachusetts' child labor laws, by

acts said to be a rightful exercise of her religious convictions.
"When the offenses were committed she was the aunt and custodian of
Betty M. Simmons, a girl nine years of age." * * * (italics supplied)

The defendant in this case allowed Betty, under here legal custody
who was at the same time her niece, to distribute religious
pamphlets intended to propagate the religion of Jehovah Witness.
The question involved was whether or not the law in question
contravened the Fourteenth Amendment by denying appellant
freedom of religion and denying to her the equal protection of the
law. Defendant claimed that the child was exercising her God given
right and her constitutional right to preach the gospel and that no
preacher of God's commands should be interfered with. She rested
her case squarely on freedom of religion. In affirming the judgment
of conviction and upholding the law as against the claim of religion
and the exercise of religious belief, the court said:

"* * *. And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond
limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth's well-being, the
state as parents patriae may restrict the parent's control by requiring school
attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor, and in many other
ways. Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his

[Link] 17/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience.
Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child
more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion
freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to
communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. * * * It is too late
now to doubt that legislation appropriately designed to reach such evils is
within the state's police power, whether against the parent's claim to control
of the child or one that religious scruples dictate contrary action."

Incidentally, it must be noted that this case was decided after that of
West Virginia vs. Barnette, supra. In requiring school pupils to
participate in the flag salute, the State thru the Secretary of
Education was not

23

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 23

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on said

students. It was merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school
regulation applicable to all alike whether Christian, Moslem,
Protestant or. Jehovah's Witness. The State was 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. (Art.
XIV, section 5 of the Constitution). It does nothing more than try to
inculcate in the minds of the school population during the formative
period of their life, love of country and love of the flag, all of which
make for united and patriotic citizenry, so that later in after years
they may be ready and willing to serve, fight, even die for it. It is
well known that whatever is taught to the youth during this period,
such as love of God, of parents, respect for elders, love of the truth,
loyalty, honoring one's word and respecting the rights of other,
becomes a habit or second nature that will remain with them always.
School children of kingdoms and empires are taught early to respect
and love the king or the emperor for these rulers and sovereigns
symbolize the nation, and the children as future citizens or subjects
will come to love their country.
Petitioners do not question the right of public schools to conduct
the flag salute ceremony regularly but they do "question the attempt
to compel conscientious objectors guided by the word of God to
salute the flag or participate in the ceremony to specific
commandment of Jehovah God. It is perfectly proper and lawful for
one not bound by a covenant with Jehovah to salute the flag when
that person desires to salute it. It is entirely wrong to interfere with
that right or prevent such one from saluting the flag. Conversely, it is
also true that it' is wrong and illegal to compel one who, for
conscience' sake, cannot participate in the ceremony." (p. 85,
Appellant's Brief)
[Link] 18/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

24

24 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

The trouble with exempting petitioners from participation in the flag

ceremony aside from the fact that they have no valid right to such
exemption is that the latter would disrupt school discipline and
demoralize the rest of the school population which by far constitutes
the great majority. If the children of Jehovah Witnesses are
exempted, then the other pupils, especially the young ones seeing no
reason for such exemption, would naturally ask for the same
privilege because they might want to do something else such as play
or study, instead of standing at attention saluting the flag and singing
the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, all of which
consume considerable time; and if to avoid odious discrimination
this exemption is extended to others, then the flag ceremony would
soon be a thing of the past or perhaps conducted with very few
participants, and the time will come when we would have citizens
untaught and uninculcated in and not imbued with reverence for the
flag and love of country, admiration for national heroes, and
patriotism—a pathetic, even tragic situation, and all because a small
portion of the school population imposed its will, demanded and was
granted an exemption. In a way that might be regarded as tyranny of
the minority, and a small minority at that.
In a few cases, such exemptions in a limited way have been
afforded members of a religious group. Conscientious objectors in
the United States who because of their religion were unwilling to
serve in the war particularly as regards actual fighting or field duty,
were allowed to do some work in relation to the war, but not
involving combat duty or the use of force. But that was by special
legislation. If that is possible here as regards exemption from
participation in the flag ceremony, then petitioners would have to
look to the Legislature, not the courts for relief.
The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution
does not and cannot mean exemption from or non-compliance with
reasonable and non-discriminatory laws, rules and regulations
promulgated by competent au-

25

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 25

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

thority. As was said by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in his dissent in West

Virginia vs. Barnette, supra:

"The constitutional protection of religious freedom * * * gave religious

equality, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity to
religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious
dogma. Religious loyalties may be exercised without hindrance from the
[Link] 19/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
State, not the State may not exercise that which except by leave of religious
loyalties is within the domain of temporal power. Otherwise, each individual
could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously
deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws."
(West Virginia State Board vs. Barnette, supra, at p. 653; italics supplied)

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 provision 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 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.
In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is affirmed. The
writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is ordered dissolved.
No costs.

Parás, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,

and Endencia, JJ., concur.

26

26 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

BARRERA, J., concurring:

I am in substantial accord with the well-thought and well-expressed

opinion of Mr. Justice Montemayor.
As much reliance has been placed by appellants on the Barnette
case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (West
Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 87 L.
ed. 1628), two fundamental features distinguishing that case from
the one before us, bear some stressing.
The underlying and, I believe, compelling consideration that
impelled the majority in the Barnette case to overrule the Gobitis
decision (Minersville School District vs. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 84
L. ed 1375) was the compulsory nature of the order of the State
Board of Education making non-compliance therewith virtually
unlawful in the sense that under the West Virginia Code, upon
expulsion of the disobeying pupil,
1 his parents or guardian become
liable to criminal prosecution for such absence due to expulsion
[Link] 20/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

and if convicted are subjected

2 to fine not exceeding $50 and jail term
not exceeding thirty days. The delinquent pupil may be proceeded
against and3 sent to reformatories maintained for criminally inclined
juveniles. Hence, the Court treated the case as one where "the sole
conflict is between authority and rights of the individual. The State
asserts power to condition access to public education on making a
prescribed sign and profession, and at the same time to coerce
attendance (in school) by punishing both parent and child". As thus
presented, really the conflict there between authority and liberty
became deeply sharpened and has attained the proportion of
repugnance to a degree that left no choice to the Court except to
apply the rationale of the grave-and-imminent-danger rule and to
enjoin, under the circumstances, the enforcement of the West
Virginia School Regulation.

_______________

1 Section 1851 (1) West Virginia Code.

2 Section 1847. 1851. Idem.
3 Section 4904 (4), Idem.

27

VOL. 106, AUGUST 12, 1959 27

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

Fortunately the problem the instant case presents to us is

unaccompanied by such dire consequences. Non-compliance with
our prescribed flag ceremony does not result in criminal prosecution
either of the pupil or of the parent. All that the unwilling pupil
suffers is inability to continue his studies in a public school. If this
and nothing else is the consequence, as it presently appears to be the
complaint of appellants in this case, then I perceive no clear offense
is done to the Constitution.
One other significant distinction between the Barnette case and
the one before us is the substantial difference in the manner the flag
salute is to be executed under the two laws, and of course, the
varying reaction and attitude taken by the Jehovah's Witnesses in
relation thereto. In West Virginia, the law requires the "stiff-arm"
salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up
while the following is repeated: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of
the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands;
one Nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all". The
Jehovah's Witnesses considered this posture of raising the hand at
the same time reciting the pledge as an act of obeisance contrary to
their religious beliefs.
Here, what is required of all persons present during the flag
ceremony is to stand at attention while the f lag is being raised and
the National Anthem is being played or sung. Boys and men with
hats shall place the hat over the heart. Those without hats may stand
with their arms and hands down and straight at the sides. Those in

[Link] 21/22
9/14/24, 5:44 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

military or Boy Scout uniform shall give the salute prescribed by

their regulations.
Appellants here have manifested through counsel, both in their
brief and, I understand, in the course of the oral argument, that they
do not object to this requirement of standing at attention with their
arms and hands down and straight at the sides. Consequently, there
seems to be no irreconciliable fundamental conflict, except perhaps
as

28

28 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Elnar vs. Hon. Santos and Valencia, et al.

regards the singing of the National Anthem and the recital

(unaccompanied by any particular physical position) of the patriotic
pledge near the close of the ceremony. As to the import of the
National Anthem and the Patriotic Pledge, I can add nothing to the
very sober and well-considered opinion of Justice Montemayor.
As I see the issue, disentangled as it should and could be from
the stress and strain of counsels' doctrinal discussion and
argumentation on the fundamentals of the freedom of religion about
which there could be no serious disagreement, and if viewed and
interpreted rationally—in a spirit of harmony, goodwill and in
keeping with an appropriate sense of nationalism—I find no
reasonable consideration making the flag ceremony executed in the
manner prescribed by the questioned Department order and
regulation, clearly repugnant to the Constitution.
Judgment affirmed.

____________

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Link] 22/22