Statement on the Proposed

Magna Carta of Students

"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor. 3:17).

For the growth of the people of God and of society, education plays an absolutely vital and
indispensable role. This is why the Church is deeply and extensively involved in education.
And we are proud that Catholic schools are among the best in the country.

But today the future of our schools is at stake. Their nature as private and Catholic and even
their very existence are seriously threatened.

The source of this grave threat is the proposed Magna Carta of Students, House Bill No.
1378.

Let it be clear to all that we as Bishops on many occasions, especially during Martial Law, the
darkest period of our recent history, have defended and promoted basic human rights and
fundamental freedoms. We still continue to do so.

Therefore, we are certainly for a Magna Carta of Students for we are for the authentic
empowerment of youth, including students. But we are unequivocally against the proposed
Magna Carta in its present form. We strongly oppose it by virtue of those same basic
freedoms and rights that we have consistently defended.

Our reflection in faith affirms that the most fundamental freedom of the human person is a gift
of the Spirit of the Lord. We believe that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

But we hold that this proposed Magna Carta, instead of being infused with God's Spirit, stifles
that same Spirit by its negation of basic rights and its dismissal of wisdom and common
sense. This is the fundamental reason for our opposition.

1. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it rejects the "natural and
primary right of parents" to educate their children as guaranteed by our Constitution,
Art. II, Section 121. Parents entrust their children to school authorities and teachers,
but the bill effectively negates this by practically allowing student governments to run
the schools.

2. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it undermines the religious
nature of our schools. For the bill allows any organization--including those that
contradict the school's philosophy, mission, and objectives--to operate on campus.

3. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it destroys the very nature
of private schools. The proposed bill treats private schools as though they were
public schools and properties of the State. It utterly disregards the basic philosophy,
mission, goals, and objectives of Catholic private schools and makes the confiscatory
move of assigning a seat in the governing boards to a student.

4. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it disregards common
sense principles of governance. It practically hands over to the student government,
already subject to the changing, even ideological, currents of student politics, control
of the school by giving the students the power to veto through a referendum the
decisions made by administration. It likewise transfers from the school administration
to the student government, a body again subject to the vagaries of student politics,
the authority to approve and supervise student organizations.

5. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it subverts simple and tried
wisdom by undermining the financial stability of the school and the authority of the
 governing board. The proposed bill establishes a school fee board where students
are represented, a board that becomes the highest body in the school on the matter
of tuition fees, thus creating two parallel and independent "highest" bodies in the
same school, namely the school governing board and the school fee board.

6. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it imposes on schools a
false philosophy of education which promotes unwarranted freedom and right at the
expense of human responsibility, of a morally guided search for truth, of the spirit of
mutual cooperation, and finally at the expense of quality education itself.

7. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because by laying aside the religious
Catholic goals and objectives of our schools, the proposed bill thwarts the ultimate
good of students themselves in the name of a false understanding of freedom and
right.

For such reasons as the above, we vigorously oppose the Magna Carta of Students.

As Bishops we have been entrusted by the Lord to teach on matters that affect the living of
Christian freedom and responsibility in accord with the Spirit of God. We hereby teach and
declare that the proposed bill is inimical to true freedom and responsibility.

We, therefore, urge legislators to listen to the voice of parents and teachers all over the
country regarding this insidious bill. They have submitted many proposals to our legislators to
improve the bill and promote authentic empowerment of students. Approving the bill in its
present form would surely be catastrophic to the nature and very existence of all private
schools, Catholic or otherwise, and to the good of students themselves.

Ultimately, by ignoring the rights of parents and of private schools, the proposed Magna Carta
is contrary to the very aim of national development itself, the common good of all.

To our honorable legislators then we say: Reject this proposed Magna Carta . Legislate a
better one, based on a true concept of freedom and right, in accord with the Spirit of God.
Where the Spirit is present, there, indeed, is true and responsible freedom.

For and in the name of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines:

+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.

Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
President, CBCP

27 January 1996

Isang Magna Carta para sa mga Mag-aaral ang ipinanunukala sa

Mababang Kapulungan ng Kongreso, ngunit hindi umano tunay
maipagtatanggol ng mga probisyon nito ang karapatan ng mga
mag-aaral, ayon sa mga lider-estudyante.

Kasalukuyang dinidinig sa House committee on higher and

technical education ang Magna Carta for Students na
magkakahiwalay na inihain nina Representatives Edcel Lagman at
Rufus Rodriguez, at Risa-Hontiveros-Baraquel ng Akbayan.
Ayon sa explanatory note ng panukalang-batas, isasabatas umano
ng Magna Carta ang pagkilala sa karapatan ng mga mag-aaral sa
hayskul at kolehiyo sa pagbuo ng mga konseho, organisasyon, at
pahayagan ng mga mag-aaral. Magtatakda rin ito ng mga
pamantayan sa pagtataas ng matrikula.

Ngunit ani Airah Cadiogan, pangalawang tagapangulo ng

University Student Council ng UP Diliman, "Sa halip na mas
makatutulong sa pagsulong ng demokratikong karapatan ng mga
estudyante, [mapanganib] na gamitin ng mga school administrator
ang Magna Carta para gawing ligal ang campus repression at
administration intervention."

Pamantayan sa pagtaas ng matrikula

Ayon sa panukala ni Hontiveros, dapat magkaroon ng pag-

anunsiyo ng pagtataas ng matrikula isang taon bago ang
pagpapatupad nito at konsultasyon sa mga mag-aaral at kanilang
mga magulang. Itinatakda rin ng panukalang bigyan ng mga
dokumento ukol sa pagtataas ng mga bayarin ang konseho ng mga
mag-aaral upang makabuo ito ng posisyon ukol dito.

Ngunit ani Cadiogan, hindi pagkakaroon ng konsultasyon ang

nararapat na gawing pamantayan bago magtaas ng matrikula kundi
ang pagsang-ayon ng mayorya ng mga mag-aaral. Nakita
umanong patuloy ang pagtaas ng mga matrikula sa kabila ng
umiiral na memo ng Commission on Higher Education (CHEd)
ukol sa konsultasyon, ani Cadiogan.

Ayon sa tala ng CHEd, tinatayang 10 porsiyento ng 1,800

pribadong paaralan at halos 10 porsiyento ng mga pampublikong
pamantasan ang nagtaas ng matrikula sa bansa ngayong taon.

Malayang pamamahayag

Maaari naman umanong gamitin ng administrasyon ng mga

paaralan ang probisyon ng panukalang Magna Carta ukol sa
pamamahayag upang isailalim sa censorship ang mga pahayagang
pang-mag-aaral, ani Vanessa Faye Bolibol, tagapangulo ng
National Union of Students of the Philippines-National Capital
Region.

"Ethics in journalism shall be observed by the editorial staff. It

shall be the responsibility of the editorial staff to ensure that the
student paper is not used for purposes contrary to law," ayon sa
panukalang Magna Carta.

Paliwanag ni Bolibol, hindi nakasaad sa panukala ang magtatakda

ng etika sa pamamahayag, kaya maaaring panghimasukan ito ng
administrasyon.

Hindi rin umano mapoporotektahan ng Magna Carta ang mga

estudyanteng manunulat gaya ng kabiguan ng Campus Journalism
Act (CJA) ng 1991 na may probisyong nagbibigay ng kalayaan sa
editorial board ng pahayagan upang magtakda ng mga sariling
palisiya, saad ni Gerg Anrol Cahiles, kasapi ng national secretariat
ng College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP). Aniya, sa
kabila ng CJA, tinatayang 300 kaso na ng pagbabanta ng
expulsion at karahasan sa mga estudyanteng manunulat ang naitala
ng CEGP hanggang sa kasalukuyan.

Dagdag ni Cahiles, dapat ding isama sa Magna Carta ang

pagpaparusa sa mga tagapamahala ng paaralan na lumalabag sa
karapatan sa malayang pamamahayag ng mga estudyanteng
manunulat.

Pagkilala sa mga organisasyon

Pinuna rin ng mga lider-estudyante ang probisyon ng Magna Carta

na magbibigay ng kapangyarihan sa office of student affairs
(OSA) ng mga unibersidad na mamuno sa pag-apruba at pagbawi
ng pagkilala sa mga organisasyon ng mga mag-aaral.

Ani Cadiogan, mas maigi umano kung ang konseho ang mag-
aapruba ng mga organisasyon upang maging magaan at
demokratiko ang proseso. Wala rin umanong karapatan ang mga
OSA na magbawi ng pagkilala sa mga organisasyong hindi na
aktibo dahil maaaring kulang lamang sila sa pondo o mga
miyembro, aniya.

Nakasaad din sa panukalang Magna Carta na hahawakan ng

administrasyon ng paaralan ang pondo ng konseho sa loob ng 15
araw matapos ang enrolment period. Ngunit ayon kay Bolibol,
nararapat ibigay kaagad sa mga konseho ang pondo upang
maiwasan ang pagpigil sa pagpapalabas ng pondo na naranasan
kamakailan ng konseho ng La Consolacion College-Manila.

by Richard Jacob Dy
published in Philippine Collegian on Sept. 30, 2008
ON
HOUSE BILL NOS. 180,
4003 and 6174

entitled
"An Act Providing for a Magna Carta of Students"
(Introduced by Reps. Ranjit Ramos Shahani, Krisel Lagman-Luistro and Imee R.
Marcos)

=========================

House Bill No. 180 introduced by Congressman Krisel Lagman-Luistro, House

Bill No. 4003 introduced by Congressman Ranjit Ramos Shahani and House Bill No.
6174 introduced by Congressman Imee R. Marcos all propose a "Magna Carta for
Students."

This Position Paper consolidates all the principal comments of the Commission
on Human Rights for the three (3) bills.

There is no question on the objectives of enacting a Magna Carta for Students

to promote and protect the rights of the students.

Article XIII (1) of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights reads that:

"They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human
personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all
persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance
and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and
further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." ( Italics
Supplied )

Likewise, Article XIV Section I of the Philippine Constitution reads that:

"The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at
all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such accessible to all." ( Italics
Supplied )

These three (3) bills now pending in Congress all reaffirm the State recognition,
protection and enhancement of the citizen's right to quality education and the rights of
the students to freely organize among themselves and to give their views on the
policies of the schools.

Examining closely, however, some provisions of the three (3) bills several
issues need a reexamination. The major issue in the proposed bills is how to balance
the right of the students to education as against the academic freedom enjoyed by the
educational institutions. The controversial provisions of the three (3) bills are (1) the
rights of students to be admitted to schools and to freely choose their field of study
and to continue their courses up to graduation; (2) the rights of students to
participate in formulating the school policy; (3) the rights of students to participate in
the screening of the employment of faculty member; (4) the rights of students to
participate in the formulation of the curriculum and the review or revision of said
curriculum; and (5) the rights of students to participate in the disciplining or
expulsion of the students.

In all of these matters, the students are to be represented in the policy

determining governing body of schools as a regular member with equal rights as the
regular member.

The Supreme Court had already ruled on most of these issues.

Private schools have the right to establish rules and regulations for the
admission, discipline and promotion of the students. This right extends as well as to
parents are under social and moral if not legal obligation, individually and collectively
to assist and cooperate with schools. (Yap Chin Fa vs. Court of Appeals; Supreme
Court Resolution No. 90063, December 12, 1989, Ateneo de Manila University vs.
Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 100).

The provisions in the bills on the rights of students to participate on the policy
making on the admission of the students might run counter to rights of private schools
on their right to establish rules and regulations for admission, discipline and
promotion of students. Such rules are incident to the very object of incorporation and
indispensable to the successful management of the school. The rule may include those
governing student disciplines. The standard rules governing university students in
relation to the students discipline maybe regarded as vital that may lead to smooth and
efficient operation of the institution but to its very survival. (Ateneo de Manila
University vs. Capulong; 222 SCRA 647 [1993]).

The provisions in these three (3) bills providing that there shall be a student
representative in the Governing Board of the school. The Chairperson/President of the
Student Council or any designated representative and shall have the same rights as
those of a regular member. The students shall also be represented in other policy-
making bodies which includes curriculum review, student discipline and academic
standards deserves some serious consideration. A provision in House Bill No. 180 that
the students have the initiative by a referendum on the formulation or rejection of
school's policy affecting the students might disrupt the smooth functioning of an
educational institution.

Academic freedom according to Justice Felix Frankfurter includes the

determination on (1) who may teach; (2) what may be taught; (3) how it shall be
taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study (Sweezy vs. New Hampshire, 3541 U.S.
234 [1957]).

The Supreme Court in Garcia vs. the Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School
of Theology (68 SCRA 277 [1975]) ruled that the internal conditions for academic
freedom in university are that the academic staff should have de facto control on the
following functions: (1) admission and examination of student; (2) curricula for
course of study; (3) the appointment of tenure of the office and staff; and (4) the
allocation of income among the different categories of expenditures.

It would now be a poor prospect for academic freedom if the universities had to
rely on the literal interpretation of their constitutions in order to acquire for their
academic members, control of the four (4) functions which are laid on the shoulders
of the government body. It is the business of the university to provide that atmosphere
which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere
in which there prevail the four essential freedoms of a university - to determine for
itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be
taught, and who may be admitted to study. (Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission
Committee, Loyola School for Theology; 68 SCRA 277 [1975]).

The Court further held that it is equally difficult to yield conformity to the
approach taken that colleges and universities should be looked upon as public utilities
devoid of any discretion as to whom to admit or reject. Education, especially higher
education, belongs to a different and certainly higher, category.

There are standards that must be met. The Court said that what students possess
is a privilege rather than a right. (Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee,
Loyola School for Theology; 68 SCRA 277 [1975]). The Court also said in Ateneo de
Manila University vs. Capulong, (222 SCRA 647 [1993]), reiterating Garcia vs. The
Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School for Theology; (68 SCRA 277 [1975])
that admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the
same being a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. While under
Education Act of 1982, students have the right "to freely choose their field of study,
subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation,"
such right is subject, as all rights are, to the established academic and disciplinary
standards laid down by the academic institutions. (See also Tangonan vs. Paño, 137
SCRA 245 [1985]]. Magtibay vs. Garcia; 120 SCRA 370 [1983]).

The provisions in the proposed bills concerning the right to publish student
newspapers and other similar publications are already covered by the Campus
Journalism Act (Republic Act No. 7079).

In its constitutional function of promoting and protecting human rights, the

Commission on Human Rights also is concerned with appropriate balancing of the
students' rights with the academic freedom enjoyed by schools. To give rights to
students to participate in the formulation of the basic school policies will equate the
running of colleges and universities as an ordinary business corporation or a public
utility. Education, especially higher education, belongs to a different, and certainly
higher category.

Wherefore, the Commission on Human Rights respectfully manifests its

reservations on some of the provisions of the three (3) bills which need further
consideration.

Quezon City , 18 February 2000

ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 2729

"An Act Providing For Mandatory Training On Human Rights For All Officials And
Employees In The Executive, Legislative And Judicial Branches Of Government
Including Government-Owned And/or Controlled Corporations And Local
Government Units And For Other Purposes" (Introduced by Cong. Edgar R. Lara)

and

HOUSE BILL NO. 3055

"An Act Providing For Mandatory Training On Human Rights For All Officials And
Employees In The Executive, Legislative And Judicial Branches Of Government And
For Other Purposes"
(Introduced by Cong. Heherson T. Alvarez)

========================

"Public office is the right, authority or duty created by law, by which for a given
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of creating power, an individual
is invested with some sovereign power of government to be exercised by him for the
benefit of the public" (Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 116418, March 7, 1995 )

Underscoring the values of public office, Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution begins with "Public office is a public trust." The provision goes on to
state that "public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the
people, shall serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice and live modest lives."

It is the position of the Commission that it is imperative to perpetuate in the

minds and the hearts of all public servants, the nature of the mandate reposed in them
by the people they have committed themselves to serve. Education along human
rights values and principles is key to the creation of a breed of public servants who
will not use their authority for their own ends, but will do so primarily because they
are the servants of the people.
 With House Bill No. 2729 and H.B. No. 3055, workers in the executive,
legislative and judicial branches of the government may hopefully understand, and
appreciate human rights, especially in their position as persons who hold public trust.
Abuse of authority and power is never a remote possibility. Ensuring, through
legislation, that officers and employees of all government agencies are given at least a
working knowledge of human rights, is a commendable initiative.

It is quite depressing to note that local government officials and employees,

together with the military, CPP/NPA, paramilitary and civilian, variably occupy the
second and third ranks in the list of alleged human rights violators, with the police
still ranking first, based on accumulated totals from 1988 to 1 st semester 1996 (CHR
Summary of Statistical Information, 1988 to 1 st semester, 1996,).

It is hoped that with the passage of H.B. No. 2729 and H.B. 3055, the
continuing education of all civil servants on human rights will contribute to the
efficient delivery of services, respect for the rights of others and the rule of law in our
country, and deter the incidence of human rights violations as stated in the bills'
respective Explanatory Notes. It is the Commission's long-term goal to create a
human rights culture in the Philippine society. The effort to legislate and enforce
human rights education among all civil servants will contribute greatly to the
achievement of such goal.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission on Human Rights strongly supports

the early passage into law of both House Bill No. 2729 and H.B. No. 3055.

Quezon City , 1 February 1999

A magna carta for students?

Monday, May 11, 2009

Exchange Rate
Closing: May 8, 2009 Closing

US$=47.25 2
Up 0.2 centavos Up 3

By Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

A “magna carta” for students is in the works in the Lower House. Party-list
Representative Ulan Sarmiento, a colleague at San Beda, furnished me with a copy of
one version. I will not comment on that proposal here, but on the proposal of a
“magna carta” in general. Drawn up by vassals chaffing from the caprice and
arbitrariness of King John, the charter the whimsical monarch begrudgingly set his
hand to has become paradigmatic for all “charters of liberty”. I have my misgivings
about a magna carta for students. It is will certainly win for its proponents, sponsors
and advocates students’ votes in the coming elections, but it does not augur well for
formal education, if it is born of the same tradition of putting one’s foot down against
one’s liege! It is dramatic—to be sure and it can ignite a torrent of polemic that will
be fodder for the blighted media that we have allowed to thrive in this country, but the
whole system of schooling may very well end up being the loser!

A magna carta is by history and often by intent a document of confrontation. It will

empower students, to be sure, and it can hardly be doubted that students already have
tremendous powers. The law governing state universities and colleges, for one, directs
that a student sit as a member of the governing board. The Campus Journalism Act
emancipates student publications on the tertiary level from any form of administrative
control and supervision. Will a confrontational document be helpful to higher
education? To empower the student by disempowering school authority—
because that is many times how the mal-equation goes—is a promise politicians
may make to students that holds no promise at all for the cause of education.

To provide, for example, that higher education institutions may not turn away
students on the basis of ideology, gender (or sexual orientation), religion,
ethnicity, etc. sounds not only politically correct but even noble. But what
happens with the settled jurisprudential doctrine that academic freedom
includes the freedom of the university, college or faculty to determine whom to
teach? Should students be forced on an institution or on a college? The free exercise
clause of the Constitution guarantees religious sects and denominations the right to
activities pursuant to religion that do not run counter to law, and under the
“benevolent neutrality” doctrine articulated by now Chief Justice Reynato Puno in the
Escritor case, this certainly includes the right of a religious denomination to establish
schools for religious purposes. Now then, if a higher education institution will no
longer be at liberty to turn away students on the basis of religion, will that provision
compel a sectarian college or university to admit a student who openly and
unabashedly opposes the doctrines of that religion or sect? In more practical terms,
will Catholic seminaries now be compelled to accept “seminaristresses”, or Muslim
madrasas, to accept Catholic polemicists against Islam?

The Romans were thoughtful people when they chose disco—“I learn” (not “I disco”,
which most of our students would really much prefer!) as the root of the word
disciplina. Not only is there a relation between discipline and learning. No learning
can take place without discipline. Students who do poorly in such demanding
disciplines as law and medicine—and of course, serious (emphasized!) graduate
school work—are those who have not developed the discipline of study. Discipline is
one word that a magna carta for students will assiduously avoid and that, to me, is the
problem with all such proposals: a suspicion that discipline is antithetical to student
rights. Whenever a draft law is a set of rights against it is by logical necessity one-
sided, and it is of such laws that we must, with good reason, be suspicious. Draft
magnae cartae in the past as well as those today read like a litany of what
administration may not do and what a student, by contrast, is free to do. To constrict
the latitude with which an institution may formulate rules of discipline is to presume
that one can, through legislation, determine the optimal conditions for teaching and
learning. As in most things, leave specialized concerns to specialists. Leave education
to educators—and the farther away politicians keep their hands, the better for us all.

Why do we allow military institutions to institute that kind of discipline that goes by
such obviously nonsensical rules as “obey first, question later” and be most unwilling
to impose strictures in our higher education institutions? Is studying no less
demanding than soldiering, and are the stakes of society and social life in the
capacities of a student any lower than its stake in the skills of a soldier?

What a law on schools and students can helpfully do is to create the environment for
meaningful exchange between administration and students so that the rules that are in
place and the discipline that is exacted (as some disciplines should always be exacted)
is accepted because both can advance reasons that either side recognizes as good
reasons. I do not favor unreasonable school policies, and I do not accept the
relativistic proposition that we cannot decide about what is unreasonable. To demand
for example of each student that he or she own a car to be able to enroll is not only
unreasonable; it is an attempt at that putrid elitism that goads the irate mob to lop off
some heads. What the law can and should do is to provide the institutional framework
for that exchange by which rules of discipline, institutional policies, methods of
delivery, systems of evaluation and rating are argued for or against under
circumstances that enable administrators and students alike to treat each other as
unconstrained interlocutors. Once more however, the presupposition of this
communicative exchange is the willingness of persons to be convinced by sound
reasons.

When an institution, for example, proposes a rule against pre-marital sexual relations,
let the school’s administrators be prepared with sound arguments against such liaisons
and for the rule that prohibits them. On the assumption that the students are prepared
to be persuaded by reason (which is an assumption that we tacitly make in most
circumstances that we argue), let them demand further justification if they have
lingering doubts and accept the rule when they are given unassailable reasons.
Certainly, a magna carta that provides that schools may not draw up such prohibitions
does not foster this kind of meaningful exchange.

I think that instead of starting a fresh round of hype and histrionic over a magna carta,
it might be more worth our while to give ourselves to cordes magna and mentes
magnae… great hearts and great minds!
The bill seeks to protect and promote the following rights
and freedoms:
* Right against discrimination on the basis of several grounds. – Discrimination takes
place when there is denial of admission, expulsion from an educational institution,
punishment with disciplinary action, including mandatory counseling, or denial of
welfare services, scholarships and other privileges based on grounds protected by the
UN (sex, gender, ethnicity, disability, etc.)

* Right to competent instruction and relevant quality education. – Schools are

compelled to allow students to evaluate the content of the curriculum and the
performance of their teachers at the end of the semester.

* Right to organize. – The right to organize of students shall be protected and

promoted:

1. the accreditation of orgs shall be administered by the school, but the guidelines
shall be crafted by the students and students have representation in the accreditation
committee;

2. Accreditation shall be granted upon the submission of a letter requesting for

accreditation, constitution, list of activities, and list of officers;

3. Provision of physical space (a hall or building) for student organizations; and

4. Explicit of prohibition of acts that impair the right to organize, such as the signing
of waiver, imposition of excessive membership fees and requirements for
accreditation other than the ones provided by the bill. Note that as an amendment to
the Anti-Hazing Law, the imposition of hazing is taken as a violation of the right to
organize and preventive penalties are introduced in the bill.

* Right to establish a student council/government. –

1.

1. There shall be one student council/gov’t per school, campus, college, or university,
with officers elected annually during popular elections;

2. The charter or constitution of the student council/gov’t shall be crafted and ratified
without the interference of the achool administration;

3. an independent COMELEC to administer the student council/gov’t elections shall

be created;

4. the student council/gov’t shall be financially independent, provided that student

council fees should be approved by the student body and a financial report is
published at the end of the term, and;

5. Student councils/gov’t shall not be barred from joining national student council
alliances and similar inter-school organizations.

* Right to publish a student newspaper. – This is an amendment to the Campus

Journalism Act of 1991 (RA 7079). 1) Student publications shall be free from the
influence of the administration and faculty, be it through interference in terms of
content, financial restrictions, or determining the composition of the editorial board.

* Right to adequate welfare services. – There shall be no denial of access to health

services (physical exams), facilities (lab, library, etc.), counseling, and legal
assistance in cases involving the exercise of the rights stipulated in the bill.

* Right to be represented in the highest policy-making body of the school, the board
of regents or its equivalent in the case of private schools.

* Right to access to information, especially those that affect students’ rights and
welfare. Schools are prohibited from denying students access to official records,
documents that are relevant to their welfare and rights. The right of students to access
their own academic records are protected.

* Right to freedom of expression. – This includes the right to peaceably assemble and
petition the government and school authorities for the redress of their grievances.
Access of students to media, including the publication or release of materials, is
likewise guaranteed. Furthermore, schools are required to designate areas within
school premises where students may hold their activities or organize protest rallies.

* Right to academic freedom. – this provision enumerates elements of academic

freedom, from the right to choose one’s academic interests to the right to be free from
ideological indoctrination.

* Right to due process. – The provision establishes an independent Student

Disciplinary Tribunal comprised of representatives from the administration, student
body, and faculty. The provision imposes minimum standards on due process: right
against self-incrimination, access to evidence, right to confront witnesses, right to
confidentiality, etc. Furthermore, the bill requires the SDT to resolve disciplinary
cases with prompt (some schools use the process to delay the graduation of students).

* Right against illegal searches and right to privacy are also guaranteed under the bill.

On tuition and other school fees

Regulations to tuition and school fees tend to be limited due to the deregulation of the
education sector (thus, incentives like increasing tuition fees annually are given to
private schools) . While there are certain reforms that may be pursued even under a
deregulated framework, AKBAYAN believes that a review and reversal of the
framework has to be undertaken.

In our bill, we tackle the issue of tuition fee increases using the students’ rights and
welfare lens. Essentially, what our bill establishes are minimum guidelines in the
imposition of TFIs: 1) posting of notice of proposal to increase the tuition fee, 2) at
least one public meeting between the school administration and students (including
their parents) on the proposed increase, 3) All documents pertaining to the increase
shall be made available to students, and 4) during the Board deliberations on the
increase, students have the right to present their position.
Education agencies and STRAW

The bill grants CHED, TESDA and Dep Ed the necessary powers to investigate and
impose administrative sanctions on schools that violate the rights stipulated in the bill.
They have the power to revoke the license of erring school, impose a fine not less
than P200,000 but not more than P500,000, and recommend to the DOJ the
prosecution of erring schools before a regular Court.
Penalties

Violators shall be punished by a fine of not less than Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) but not more than One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos or by
imprisonment for not less than one year but not more than five years, or both.
If the violator is a juridical person, the penalties shall be imposed on its officers or on
the person guilty of violating the law.

Refusal of public officials to act on complaints constitutes gross negligence and shall
be punished appropriately, in accordance with civil service laws, rules and
regulations.
Students whose rights under this bill were violated may file civil case/s against the
offender.

Learn more about Magna Carta of Students: www.nochain.wordpress.com