Up Bor Vs Ca

Due Process/Academic Freedom/Article 2, Section 1 The Philippines is a democratic and republican
State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Ph is a
democratic state and one manifestation of it is the observance of the rule of majority.
G.R. No. 134625. August 31, 1999
UP Board of Regents vs. CA
UP Board of Regents VS Court of Appeals and AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE
Facts:
This case revolves around the academic life of private respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret
Celinen (Indian citizen who holds a Philippine visitor’s visa) the case specifically started when she has
already completed the units of her doctoral program in the University of the Philippines and finished her
dissertation.
Before graduation, there was an issue about her committing plagiarism by not giving proper
acknowledgement from the sources of some portions in her dissertation. Despite such issue of
plagiarizing and series of clarifications and disapproval relating to her paper, she was still able to
graduate.
After graduation, she was formally charged with plagiarism wherein a committee was formed to
investigate and recommend for the withdrawal of her doctorate degree. After establishing the facts that
the private respondent got some portions of her dissertation from published sources and that she also
admitted that she plagiarized several portions from various sources since the beginning.
It was then resolved to withdraw her doctorate degree after the College Assembly unanimously
approved the recommendation of withdrawing her degree.
Issue:
Whether or not the university can rightfully withdraw the degree from the private respondent.
Held:
Yes. The Art. 14, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that “academic freedom shall be enjoyed
in all institutions of higher learning.”
The court ruled that if such institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it,
it can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being graduates. Where it is
shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has the
right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. This freedom of a university
does not terminate upon the “graduation” of a student, as the Court of Appeals held. For it is precisely
the “graduation” of such a student that is in question. It is noteworthy that the investigation of private
respondent’s case began before her graduation. If she was able to join the graduation ceremonies, it was
because of too many investigations conducted before the Board of Regents finally decided she should
not have been allowed to graduate. Under the U.P. Charter; the Board of Regents is the highest
governing body of the University of the Philippines. (Act No. 1870, Â§ 4) It has the power to confer
degrees upon the recommendation of the University Council. It follows that if the conferment of a
degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the observance
of due process, to withdraw what it has granted without violating a student’s rights. An institution of
higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers that an academic degree it has conferred is not
rightfully deserved. Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a university’s highest academic
degree upon an individual who has obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic
excellence is the university’s concern. It should be empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take
measures to protect itself from serious threats to its integrity.
This falls under the police power of the state to safeguard education.
But before defending the dissertation, when the panel members reviewed the paper, one of them
alleged that she plagiarized some portions of it and came from different sources without giving proper
acknowledgement from their sources---she was still able to continue her oral defense and received 4 out
of 5 passing marks but she was directed to revise the paper by indicating or by citing the sources.
Despite such issue, her name was still included in the list of candidates for graduation even though her
submission of the final revised copies of the dissertation was still pending that time. Then a month later,
she submitted the revised copies without obeying the directives of citing the proper sources, which
resulted in the disapproval of her papers. Due to disappointments because of such disapproval, she
expressed her disappointments over the faculty administration (of maliciously working for the
disapproval of her dissertation) and warned the faculty dean about this matter. The faculty dean tried to
exclude her name from the list of candidates for graduation because there were still clarifications of
charges against panel members and accusations relating to her dissertation. Private respondent still
graduated as the letter of the dean requesting the exclusion of her name did not reach the recipient on
time. After that, the Dean wrote another letter saying that respondent would not be granted an
academic clearance unless she substantiated the accusations. In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, Dr.
Medina formally charged private respondent with plagiarism and recommended for the withdrawal of
her doctorate degree.

Up Bor Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Up Bor Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Up Bor Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Due Process/Academic Freedom/Article 2, Section 1 The Philippines is a democratic and republican

G.R. No. 134625. August 31, 1999

UP Board of Regents vs. CA

UP Board of Regents VS Court of Appeals and AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE

You might also like