CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Ateneo de Davao University Case Digests

Atty. Gil Garcia College of Law

Constitutional Law II Philippine Political Law, is similarly of
the view that it "definitely grants the
Academic Freedom right of academic freedom to the
university as an institution as
distinguished from the academic
Garcia v Faculty Admission freedom of a university professor." 11 He
68 SCRA 277 cited the following from Dr. Marcel
Bouchard, Rector of the University of
Article III, 1987 Constitution Dijon, France, President of the
FACTS: Robert McIver it is "a right conference of rectors and vice-
claimed by the accredited educator, as chancellors of European universities: "
teacher and as investigator, to interpret "It is a well-established fact, and yet one
his findings and to communicate his which sometimes tends to be obscured
conclusions without being subjected to in discussions of the problems of
any interference, molestation, or freedom, that the collective liberty of an
penalization because these conclusions organization is by no means the same
are unacceptable to some constituted thing as the freedom of the individual
authority within or beyond the members within it; in fact, the two
institution." 9 As for the educator and kinds of freedom are not even
philosopher Sidney Hook, this is his necessarily connected. In considering the
version: "What is academic freedom? problems of academic freedom one must
Briefly put, it is the freedom of distinguish, therefore, between the
professionally qualified persons to autonomy of the university, as a
inquire, discover, publish and teach the corporate body, and the freedom of the
truth as they see it in the field of their individual university teacher."
competence. It is subject to no control
or authority except the control or Also: "To clarify further the distinction
authority of the rational methods by between the freedom of the university
which truths or conclusions are sought and that of the individual scholar, he
and established in these disciplines." says: "The personal aspect of freedom
consists in the right of each university
That is only one aspect though. Such teacher — recognized and effectively
a view does not comprehend fully the guaranteed by society — to seek and
scope of academic freedom recognized by express the truth as he personally sees
the Constitution. For it is to be noted it, both in his academic work and in his
that the reference is to the "institutions capacity as a private citizen. Thus the
of higher learning" as the recipients of status of the individual university teacher
this boon. It would follow then that the is at least as important, in considering
school or college itself is possessed of academic freedom, as the status of the
such a right. It decides for itself its institutions to which they belong and
aims and objectives and how best to through which they disseminate their
attain them. It is free from outside learning."' 13 He likewise quoted from
coercion or interference save possibly the President of the Queen's University
when the overriding public welfare calls in Belfast, Sir Eric Ashby: "'The internal
for some restraint. It has a wide sphere conditions for academic freedom in a
of autonomy certainly extending to the university are that the academic staff
choice of students. should have de facto control of the
following functions: (i) the admission and
This constitutional provision is not to be examination of students; (ii) the
construed in a niggardly manner or in a curricula for courses of study; (iii) the
gradging fashion. That would be to appointment and tenure of office of
frustrate its purpose, nullify its intent. academic staff; and (iv) the allocation of
Former President Vicente G. Sinco of income among the different categories of
the University of the Philippines, in his expenditure. It would be a poor prospect
Page 1 of 8
Nikki Louise O. Tan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Ateneo de Davao University Case Digests
Atty. Gil Garcia College of Law
for academic freedom if universities had the Resolution of expulsion of the DLSU-
to rely on the literal interpretation of CSB Joint Discipline Board .
their constitutions in order to acquire
for their academic members control of The following day, June 6, 1995,
these four functions, for in one respondent Judge issued a TRO directing
constitution or another most of these DLSU, its subordinates, agents,
functions are laid on the shoulders of representatives and/or other persons
the law governing body .'" 14 Justice acting for and in its behalf to refrain
Frankfurter, with his extensive and desist from implementing the
background in legal education as a Resolution. On June 19, 1995, petitioner
former Professor of the Harvard Law Sales filed a motion to dismiss in behalf
School, referred to what he called the of all petitioners, except James Yap. On
business of a university and the four June 20, 1995, petitioners filed a
essential freedoms in the following supplemental motion to dismiss the
language: "It is the business of a petitions-in-intervention. On September
university to provide that atmosphere 20, 1995, respondent Judge issued an
which is most conducive to speculation, Order denying petitioners' (respondents
experiment and creation. It is an there) motion to dismiss and its
atmosphere in which there prevail "the supplement, and granted private
four essential freedoms" of a university respondents' (petitioners there) prayer for
— to determine for itself on academic a writ of preliminary injunction. Despite
grounds who may teach, what may be the said order, private respondent
taught, how it shall be taught, and who Aguilar was refused enrollment by
may be admitted to study." Thus is petitioner DLSU when he attempted to
reinforced the conclusion reached by us enroll on September 22, 1995 for the
second term of SY 19951996. Thus, on
September 25, 1995, Aguilar filed with
DLSU v CA
541 SCRA 22 respondent Judge an urgent motion to
cite petitioners (respondents there) in
contempt of court. Aguilar also prayed
that mandamus does not lie in this case. that petitioners be compelled to enroll
FACTS: PRIVATE respondents Alvin him at DLSU in accordance with
Aguilar, James Paul Bungubung, respondent Judge's Order dated
Richard Reverente and Roberto Valdes, September 20, 1995. On September 25,
Jr. are members of Tau Gamma Phi 1995, respondent Judge issued a writ of
Fraternity who were expelled by the De preliminary injunction. On May 14, 1996,
La Salle University (DLSU) and College the CHED issued its questioned
of Saint Benilde (CSB) Joint Discipline Resolution No. 181-96, summarily
Board because of their involvement in disapproving the penalty of expulsion for
an offensive action causing injuries to all private respondents. As for Aguilar,
petitioner James Yap and three other he was to be reinstated, while other
student members of Domino Lux private respondents were to be excluded.
Fraternity. This is the backdrop of the Despite the directive of CHED, petitioner
controversy before Us pitting private DLSU again prevented private
respondents' right to education vis-a-vis respondent Aguilar from enrolling
the University's right to academic and/or attending his classes
freedom. On June 5, 1995, private
respondent Aguilar filed with the RTC, Prefatorily, there is merit in the
Manila, against petitioners a petition for observation of petitioners[53] that while
certiorari and injunction under Rule 65 CHED Resolution No. 181-96
of the Rules of Court with prayer for disapproved the expulsion of other
temporary restraining order (TRO) private respondents, it nonetheless
and/or writ of preliminary injunction. authorized their exclusion from petitioner
The petition essentially sought to annul DLSU. However, because of the dismissal
Page 2 of 8
Nikki Louise O. Tan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Ateneo de Davao University Case Digests
Atty. Gil Garcia College of Law
of the CA case, petitioner DLSU is now free choice of students for admission to
faced with the spectacle of having two its school.
different directives from the CHED and
the respondent Judge CHED ordering It is the CHED, not DECS, which has
the exclusion of private respondents the power of supervision and review over
Bungubung, Reverente, and Valdes, Jr., disciplinary cases decided by institutions
and the Judge ordering petitioner DLSU of higher learning.
to allow them to enroll and complete their
degree courses until their graduation. On May 18, 1994, Congress approved
R.A. No. 7722, otherwise known as An
ISSUE: Can petitioner DLSU invoke its Act Creating the Commission on Higher
right to academic freedom? Education, Appropriating Funds Thereof
and for other purposes. Section 3 of the
RULING:Petitioner DLSU, as an said law, which paved the way for the
institution of higher learning, possesses creation of the CHED, provides: Section 3.
academic freedom which includes Creation of the Commission on Higher
determination of who to admit for study. Education. In pursuance of the
Section 5(2), Article XIV of the abovementioned policies, the Commission
Constitution guaranties all institutions of on Higher Education is hereby created,
higher learning academic freedom. This hereinafter referred to as Commission. The
institutional academic freedom includes Commission shall be independent and
the right of the school or college to separate from the Department of
decide for itself, its aims and objectives, Education, Culture and Sports (DECS)
and how best to attain them free from and attached to the office of the
outside coercion or interference save President for administrative purposes
possibly when the overriding public only. Its coverage shall be both public
interest calls for some restraint. and private institutions of higher
According to present jurisprudence, education as well as degree-granting
academic freedom encompasses the programs in all post secondary educational
independence of an academic institution institutions, public and private. The
to determine for itself (1) who may powers and functions of the CHED are
teach, (2) what may be taught, (3) how enumerated in Section 8 of R.A. No.
it shall teach, and (4) who may be 7722. They include the following: Sec. 8.
admitted to study. It cannot be gainsaid Powers and functions of the Commission.
that "the school has an interest in The Commission shall have the following
teaching the student discipline, a powers and functions: x x x x n)
necessary, if not indispensable, value in promulgate such rules and regulations
any field of learning. By instilling and exercise such other powers and
discipline, the school teaches discipline. functions as may be necessary to carry
Accordingly, the right to discipline the out effectively the purpose and objectives
student likewise finds basis in the of this Act; and o) perform such other
freedom "what to teach." Indeed, while functions as may be necessary for its
it is categorically stated under the effective operations and for the continued
Education Act of 1982 that students enhancement of growth or development of
have a right "to freely choose their field higher education.
of study, subject to existing curricula Clearly, there is no merit in the
and to continue their course therein up contention of petitioners that R.A. No.
to graduation," such right is subject to 7722 did not transfer to the CHED the
the established academic and DECS power of supervision/review over
disciplinary standards laid down by the expulsion cases involving institutions of
academic institution. Petitioner DLSU, higher learning. First, the foregoing
therefore, can very well exercise its provisions are all-embracing. They make
academic freedom, which includes its no reservations of powers to the DECS
insofar as institutions of higher learning
Page 3 of 8
Nikki Louise O. Tan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Ateneo de Davao University Case Digests
Atty. Gil Garcia College of Law
are concerned. They show that the student disciplinary cases. In fact, the
authority and supervision over all public responsibilities of other government
and private institutions of higher entities having functions similar to those
education, as well as degree-granting of the CHED were transferred to the
programs in all post-secondary CHED.[62]
educational institutions, public and Section 77 of the MRPS[63] on the
private, belong to the CHED, not the process of review in student discipline
DECS. cases should
therefore be read in conjunction with the
Second, to rule that it is the DECS provisions of R.A. No. 7722. Fifth, Section
which has authority to decide 18 of R.A. No. 7722 is very clear in
disciplinary cases involving students on stating that [j]urisdiction over DECS-
the tertiary level would render nugatory supervised or chartered state-supported
the coverage of the CHED, which is both post-secondary degree-granting
public and private institutions of higher vocational and tertiary institutions shall
education as well as degree granting be transferred to the Commission [On
programs in all post secondary Higher Education]. This provision does
educational institutions, public and not limit or distinguish that what is being
private. That would be absurd. It is of transferred to the CHED is merely the
public knowledge that petitioner DLSU formulation, recommendation, setting and
is a private educational institution which development of academic plans, programs
offers tertiary degree programs. Hence, it and standards for institutions of higher
is under the CHED authority. Third, the learning, as what petitioners would have
policy of R.A. No. 7722[61] is not only us believe as the only concerns of R.A.
the protection, fostering and promotion No. 7722. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
of the right of all citizens to affordable distinguere debemus: Where the law does
quality education at all levels and the not distinguish, neither should we. To Our
taking of appropriate steps to ensure mind, this provision, if not an explicit
that education shall be accessible to all. grant of jurisdiction to the CHED,

The law is likewise concerned with

CSC v SOJOR
ensuring and protecting academic
554 SCRA 160
freedom and with promoting its exercise
and observance for the continued
intellectual growth of students, the necessarily includes the transfer to the
advancement of learning and research, CHED of any jurisdiction which the
the development of responsible and DECS might have possessed by virtue of
effective leadership, the education of B.P. Blg. 232 or any other law or rule for
high-level and middle-level professionals, that matter.
and the enrichment of our historical and
cultural heritage. II. In administrative cases, such as
investigations of students found violating
It is thus safe to assume that when school discipline, [t]here are withal
Congress passed R.A. No. 7722, its minimum standards which must be met
members were aware that disciplinary before to satisfy the demands of
cases involving students on the tertiary procedural due process and these are:
level would continue to arise in the that (1) the students must be informed
future, which would call for the in writing of the nature and cause of
invocation and exercise of institutions of any accusation against them; (2) they
higher learning of their right to academic shall have the right to answer the
freedom. Fourth, petitioner DLSU cited no charges against them and with the
authority in its bare claim that the assistance if counsel, if desired; (3) they
Bureau of Higher Education, which CHED shall be informed of the evidence against
replaced, never had authority over them; (4) they shall have the right to
Page 4 of 8
Nikki Louise O. Tan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Ateneo de Davao University Case Digests
Atty. Gil Garcia College of Law
adduce evidence in their own behalf; and body in state colleges. The BOT of
(5) the evidence must be duly considered CVPC appointed respondent as
by the investigating committee or official president, with a four-year term
designated by the school authorities to beginning September 1998 up to
hear and decide the case. September 2002. Upon the expiration
of his first term of office in 2002, he
Where a party was afforded an was appointed president of the
opportunity to participate in the institution for a second four-year term,
proceedings but failed to do so, he expiring on September 24, 2006.
cannot complain of deprivation of due
process.[67] Notice and hearing is the On June 25, 2004, CVPC was converted
bulwark of administrative due process, into the Negros Oriental State University
the right to which is among the primary (NORSU). A Board of Regents (BOR)
rights that must be respected even in succeeded the BOT as its governing body.
administrative proceedings.[68] The Meanwhile, three (3) separate
essence of due process is simply an administrative cases against respondent
opportunity to be heard, or as applied to were filed by CVPC faculty members
administrative proceedings, an before the CSC Regional Office (CSC-RO)
opportunity to explain ones side or an No. VII in Cebu City, namely: (1)
opportunity to seek reconsideration of Dishonesty, Misconduct, and
the action or ruling complained of.[69] Falsification of Official Document; (2)
So long as the party is given the Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and
opportunity to advocate her cause or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
defend her interest in due course, it of the Service; and (3) Nepotism.
cannot be said that there was denial of
due process. ISSUE: Does the assumption by the
CSC of jurisdiction over a president
Private respondents were duly informed of a state university violate academic
in writing of the charges against them freedom?
by the DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline Board
through petitioner Sales. They were given RULING: HELD: Respondent, a state
the opportunity to answer the charges university president with a fixed term
against them as they, in fact, submitted of office appointed by the governing
their respective answers. They were also board of trustees of the university, is a
informed of the evidence presented against non-career civil service officer. He was
them as they attended all the hearings appointed by the chairman and members
before the Board. Moreover, private of the governing board of CVPC. By
respondents were given the right to clear provision of law, respondent is a
adduce evidence on their behalf and non-career civil servant who is under
they did. Lastly, the Discipline Board the jurisdiction of the CSC.
considered all the pieces of evidence
submitted to it by all the parties before II. The power of the BOR to discipline
rendering its resolution in Discipline Case officials and employees is not exclusive.
No. 9495-3-25121. CSC has concurrent jurisdiction over a
FACTS: On August 1, 1991, respondent president of a state university. Section
Sojor was appointed by then President 4 of R.A. No. 8292, or the Higher
Corazon Aquino as president of the Education Modernization Act of 1997,
Central Visayas Polytechnic College under which law respondent was
(CVPC) in Dumaguete City. In June appointed during the time material to
1997, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8292, or the present case, provides that the
the “Higher Education Modernization Act school’s governing board shall have the
of 1997,” was enacted. This law general powers of administration granted
mandated that a Board of Trustees to a corporation. In addition, Section 4
(BOT) be formed to act as the governing of the law grants to the board the
Page 5 of 8
Nikki Louise O. Tan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Ateneo de Davao University Case Digests
Atty. Gil Garcia College of Law
power to remove school faculty Measured by the foregoing yardstick,
members, administrative officials, and there is no question that administrative
employees for cause: power over the school exclusively belongs
to its BOR. But does this exclusive
Section 4. Powers and Duties of administrative power extend to the power
Governing Boards. – The governing to remove its erring employees and
board shall have the following specific officials?
powers and duties in addition to its
general powers of administration and the In light of the other provisions of R.A.
exercise of all the powers granted to the No. 9299, respondent’s argument that
board of directors of a corporation under the BOR has exclusive power to remove
Section 36 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 68, its university officials must fail. Section
otherwise known as the Corporation 7 of R.A. No. 9299 states that the
Code of the Philippines: power to remove faculty members,
employees, and officials of the university
h) to fix and adjust salaries of faculty is granted to the BOR "in addition to
members and administrative officials its general powers of administration."
and employees subject to the provisions This provision is essentially a
of the revised compensation and reproduction of Section 4 of its
classification system and other pertinent predecessor, R.A. No. 8292,
budget and compensation laws governing demonstrating that the intent of the
hours of service, and such other duties lawmakers did not change even with the
and conditions as it may deem proper; enactment of the new law. For clarity,
to grant them, at its discretion, leaves the text of the said section is
of absence under such regulations as it reproduced below: Sec. 7. Powers and
may promulgate, any provisions of Duties of the Board of Regents. – The
existing law to the contrary not Board shall have the following
withstanding; and to remove them for specific powers and duties in addition to
cause in accordance with the its general powers of administration and
requirements of due process of law. the exercise of all the powers granted to
(Emphasis supplied) the Board of Directors of a corporation
The above section was subsequently under existing laws: i. To fix and adjust
reproduced as Section 7(i) of the salaries of faculty members and
succeeding law that converted CVPC into administrative officials and employees,
NORSU, R.A. No. 9299. Notably, and in subject to the provisions of the Revised
contrast with the earlier law, R.A. No. Compensation and Position Classification
9299 now provides that the System and other pertinent budget and
administration of the university and compensation laws governing hours of
exercise of corporate powers of the board service and such other duties and
of the school shall be exclusive: conditions as it may deem proper; to
grant them, at its discretion, leaves of
Sec. 4. Administration. – The University absence under such regulations as it
shall have the general powers of a may promulgate, any provision of
corporation set forth in Batas Pambansa existing law to the contrary
Blg. 68, as amended, otherwise known notwithstanding; and to remove them for
as "The Corporation Code of the cause in accordance with the
Philippines." The administration of the requirements of due process of law.36
University and the exercise of its (Emphasis supplied) Verily, the BOR of
corporate powers shall be vested NORSU has the sole power of
exclusively in the Board of Regents and administration over the university. But
the president of the University insofar this power is not exclusive in the matter
as authorized by the Board. of disciplining and removing its
employees and officials. Although the
BOR of NORSU is given the specific
Page 6 of 8
Nikki Louise O. Tan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Ateneo de Davao University Case Digests
Atty. Gil Garcia College of Law
power under R.A. No. 9299 to discipline are classified as grave offenses under
its employees and officials, there is no civil service rules, punishable with
showing that such power is exclusive. suspension or even dismissal.45 This
When the law bestows upon a Court has held that the guaranteed
government body the jurisdiction to hear academic freedom does not give an
and decide cases involving specific institution the unbridled authority to
matters, it is to be presumed that such perform acts without any statutory
jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be basis.46 For that reason, a school
proved that another body is likewise official, who is a member of the civil
vested with the same jurisdiction, in service, may not be permitted to commit
which case, both bodies have concurrent violations of civil service rules under the
jurisdiction over the matter.37 All justification that he was free to do so
members of the civil service are under under the principle of academic
the jurisdiction of the CSC, unless freedom. Lastly, We do not agree with
otherwise provided by law. Being a non- respondent’s contention that his
career civil servant does not remove appointment to the position of president
respondent from the ambit of the CSC. of NORSU, despite the pending
Career or non-career, a civil service administrative cases against him, served
official or employee is within the as a condonation by the BOR of the
jurisdiction of the CSC. alleged acts imputed to him. The
doctrine this Court laid down in
Salalima v. Guingona, Jr.47 and
III. Academic freedom may not be Aguinaldo v. Santos48 are inapplicable
invoked when there are alleged violations to the present circumstances.
of civil service laws and rules. Certainly, Respondents in the mentioned cases are
academic institutions and personnel are elective officials, unlike respondent here
granted wide latitude of action under the who is an appointed official. Indeed,
principle of academic freedom. Academic election expresses the sovereign will of
freedom encompasses the freedom to the people.49 Under the principle of vox
determine who may teach, who may be populi est suprema lex, the re-election
taught, how it shall be taught, and who of a public official may, indeed,
may be admitted to study.42 Following supersede a pending administrative case.
that doctrine, this Court has recognized The same cannot be said of a re-
that institutions of higher learning has appointment to a non-career position.
the freedom to decide for itself the best There is no sovereign will of the people
methods to achieve their aims and to speak of when the BOR re-appointed
objectives, free from outside coercion, respondent Sojor to the post of
except when the welfare of the general university president.
public so requires.43 They have the
independence to determine who to Although the BOR of NORSU is given
accept to study in their school and they the specific power under R.A. No. 9299
cannot be compelled by mandamus to to discipline its employees and officials,
enroll a student.44 That principle, there is no showing that such power is
however, finds no application to the exclusive.
facts of the present case. Contrary to
the matters traditionally held to be When the law bestows upon a
justified to be within the bounds of government body the jurisdiction to hear
academic freedom, the administrative and decide cases involving specific
complaints filed against Sojor involve matters, it is to be presumed that such
violations of civil service rules. He is jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be
facing charges of nepotism, dishonesty, proved that another body is likewise
falsification of official documents, grave vested with the same jurisdiction, in
misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to which case, both bodies have concurrent
the best interest of the service. These jurisdiction over the matter. All members
Page 7 of 8
Nikki Louise O. Tan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Ateneo de Davao University Case Digests
Atty. Gil Garcia College of Law
of the civil service are under the
jurisdiction of the CSC, unless otherwise
provided by law. Being a noncareer
civil servant does not remove
respondent from the ambit of the CSC.
Career or non-career, a civil service
official or employee is within the
jurisdiction of the CSC. Academic
institutions and personnel are granted
wide latitude of action under the
principle of academic freedom. Academic
freedom encompasses the freedom to
determine who may teach, who may be
taught, how it shall be taught, and who
may be admitted to study. Following
that doctrine, this Court has recognized
that institutions of higher learning has
the freedom to decide for itself the best
methods to achieve their aims and
objectives, free from outside coercion,
except when the welfare of the general
public so requires. They have the
independence to determine who to
accept to study in their school and they
cannot be compelled by mandamus to
enroll a student. That principle, however,
finds no application to the facts of the
present case. Contrary to the matters
traditionally held to be justified to be
within the bounds of academic freedom,
the administrative complaints filed
against Sojor involve violations of civil
service rules.

He is facing charges of nepotism,

dishonesty, falsification of official
documents, grave misconduct, and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service. These are classified as
grave offenses under civil service rules,
punishable with suspension or even
dismissal. This Court has held that the
guaranteed academic freedom does not
give an institution the unbridled
authority to perform acts without any
statutory basis. For that reason, a
school official, who is a member of the
civil service, may not be permitted to
commit violations of civil service rules
under the justification that he was free
to do so under the principle of academic
freedom.

Page 8 of 8
Nikki Louise O. Tan