ACADEMIC FREEDOM- Sec. 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution provides that “[a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.” 2 TYPES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM as stated in Camacho vs Coresis
Aca cad dem emic ic Fr Free eedo dom m Of Of the the Le Lear arn nin ing g Ins Insti titu tuti tio on
Acad Ac ade emic Fr Free eedo dom m of of the the Teac ache herr
Institutional academic freedom includes the right of The right to pursue his studies in his particular the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and specialty. It is defined as: objectives and the methods on how best to attain 1. a right claimed by the the accredited educator educator,, as them, free from outside coercion or interference save teacher and as investigator, possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for 2. to interpret his his findings and to communicate communicate his some restraint. It encompasses the freedom to conclusions determine for itself on academic grounds: 3. without being being subjected subjected to any interference, interference, 1. who may may teach teach,, molestation, or penalty because these conclusions are unacceptable to some constituted 2. what may be taught, authority within or beyond the institution. 3. how it shall shall be taught taught,, and 4. who may be admitted to study.”
Morales vs UP BOR-up student, shiftee,rules of conferment of honors. 1. Nadine morales a language major who shifted from one major to another was delisted from the list of those to graduate with honors 2. The reason for which is under the rules of UP elective subjects that do not form part of the course to be conferred upon a student is not included in the computation of the grade that will serve as basis for the grant of honors.
WON rules on conferment of honors is part of the school’s academic freedom.
HELD: Sec. 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution provides that “[a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.” Academic freedom accords an institution of higher learning the right to decide for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them. The wide sphere of autonomy given to universities in the exercise of academic freedom extends to the right to confer academic honors. Thus, exercise of academic freedom grants the University the exclusive discretion to determine to whom among its graduates it shall confer academic recognition, based on its established standards. And the courts may not interfere with such exercise of discretion unless there is a clear showing that the University has arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its judgment. As enunciated by this Court in the case of University of San Carlos v. Court of Appeals, the discretion of schools of learning to formulate rules and guidelines in the granting of honors for purposes of graduation forms part of academic freedom. And such discretion may not be disturbed much less controlled by the courts, unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise. Therefore, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the courts may not disturb the University’s decision not to confer honors to petitioner. In the case of University of the Philippines v. Ayson, UP has been likened to an administrative agency whose findings must be accorded respect within its areas of competence. Well-settled is the principle that by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon; thus, their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts.
Benguet State University vs COA-RICE SUBSIDY TO TEACHERS 1. the university gave rice subsidy to the faculty Whether Or Not The Grant Of Rice Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where a due to its interpretation of R.A. No. 8292 Subsidy A Valid Exercise Of statute describes things of a particular class or kind entitled An Act Providing for the Uniform Academic Freedom. accompanied by words of a generic character, the Composition and Powers of the Governing generic word will usually be limited to things of a Boards, the Manner of Appointment and Term similar nature with those particularly enumerated, of Office of the President of Chartered State unless there be something in the context of the Universities and Colleges, and for Other statute which would repel such inference. The COA Purposes, commonly known as the Higher correctly ruled that the “other programs/projects” Education Modernization Act of 1997 . Pursuant under R.A. No. 8292 and its Implementing Rules to Section 4 (d) of the said law, “ should be of the same nature as instruction, Sec. 4. Powers and Duties of Governing Boards research, and extension. In BSU’s case, the “d) x x x disbursements were for rice subsidy. Any provision of existing laws, rules and regulations to HELD: BSU cannot find solace in the academic the contrary notwithstanding, any income generated by the university or college, from tuition fee and other freedom clause of the Constitution. Academic charges, as well as from the operation of auxiliary freedom as adverted to in the Constitution and in services and land grants, shall be retained by the R.A. No. 8292 only encompasses the freedom of university or college, and may be disbursed by the the institution of higher learning to determine for itself, on academic grounds, who may teach, what Board of Regents/Trustees for instruction, research, extension or other programs/projects of the may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may university or collegex x x”” be admitted to study. The guaranteed academic freedom does not grant an institution of higher 2. The Board of Regents of BSU passed and learning unbridled authority to disburse its funds approved Board Resolution No. 794 on October 31, 1997, granting rice subsidy and health care and grant additional benefits sans statutory basis . allowance to BSU’s employees. The sums were Unfortunately for BSU, it failed to present any taken from the income derived from the sound legal basis that would justify the grant of operations of BSU and were given to the these additional benefits to its employees. employees at different periods in 1998.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs Henry Sojor- Nepotism, Other Illegal Acts, Not Exercise Of Academic Freedom 1. The BOT of CVPC appointed respondent as Whether or not Sojor may invoke president, with a four-year term beginning Academic freedom September 1998 up to September 2002.3 Upon the expiration of his first term of office in 2002, he was appointed president of the institution for a second four-year term, expiring on September 24, 2006. 2. administrative cases against respondent were filed by CVPC faculty members before the CSC Regional Office (CSC-RO) No. VII in Cebu City, to wit: ADM DC No. 02-20—Complaint for dishonesty, misconduct and falsification of official documents ADM DC No. 02-21—Complaint for nepotism It was alleged that respondent appointed his halfsister, Estrellas Sojor-Managuilas, as casual clerk, in violation of the provisions against nepotism under the Administrative Code 3. Sojor avers that such are within his right to academic freedom. •
• •
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.
THE Right belong to the institution and the faculty.
DECS VS SAN DIEGO MED STUDENT, 3 FLUNK RULE,-ARTICLE 14 SECTION 3-RIGHT TO SELECT PROFESSION
ARTICLE 14 SECTION 5 (3)-every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.
1. SAN DIEGO GRADUATEDwith a degree on zoology and wants to be come a doctor. 2. He took the NMAT but flunked three times. He cannot take a fourth time because there is a 3 flunk rule that bars persons who failed to pass three times from taking the exam again. 3. San diego avers that his right to select a profession is violated by the three flunk rule.
Whether Or Not The 3 Flunk Rule Is Unconstitutional
The issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the applicant. This may be gauged at least initially by the admission test and, indeed with more reliability, by the three-flunk rule.. There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it to repeat that the power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
HELD: NO, IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT IS A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER. proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health. The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor. This is true of any other calling in which the public interest is involved; and the closer the link, the longer the bridge to one’s ambition. The State has the responsibility to harness its human resources and to see to it that they are not dissipated or, no less worse, not used at all. These resources must be applied in a manner that will best promote the common good while also giving the individual a sense of satisfaction .
IN RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED "RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT-AM NO. 10-10-04-SC 1.
38 LAW professors who accused a member of the supreme court of plagiarism avers that they cannot be charged administratively by SC due to the protection given by their right to academic freedom. 2. According to Attys. Roque and Bagares, the works allegedly plagiarized in the Vinuya vs EXECUTIVE SEC. decision were namely: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent’s article "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens;"9 (2) Christian J. Tams’ book Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law;10 and (3) Mark Ellis’ article "Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime. 3. While the statement was meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an established fact, but a truth.. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence of the judiciary. The court must "insist on being permitted to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice." The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration
Academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by respondents in this case. The constitutional right to freedom of expression of members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as Established jurisprudence will undeniably lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to support our view that when lawyers speak uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice system. To our mind, the reason that their minds, they must ever be mindful of their sworn oath to observe ethical freedom of expression may be so delimited in the standards of their profession, and in case of lawyers applies with greater force to the particular, avoid foul and abusive language academic freedom of law professors. to condemn the Supreme Court, or any It would do well for the Court to remind respondents court for that matter, for a decision it has that, in view of the broad definition in Cayetano v. rendered, especially during the pendency Monsod, lawyers when they teach law are of a motion for such decision’s considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike reconsideration. professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers While most agree that the right to criticize who do not teach law, respondents are bound by their the judiciary is critical to maintaining a oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal free and democratic society, there is also a profession. Thus, their actions as law professors must general consensus that healthy criticism be measured against the same canons of professional only goes so far. Many types of criticism responsibility applicable to acts of members of the leveled at the judiciary cross the line to Bar as the fact of their being law professors is become harmful and irresponsible attacks. inextricably entwined with the fact that they are lawyers. Whether or not the up law faculty may invoke academic freedom in their conduct.
PTA OF St. Matthews vs Metrobank-intervenors, private school building subject to mortgage, right to quality education and academic freedom. Article 14 section 1.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 education accessible to all. 1. Private school land Whether or not the right to quality building of st Matthews education was violated. is subject to real estate mortgage. 2. Metrobank proceeded to foreclose the property with a writ of possession 3. Pta intervened saying it will violate the right of their children to quality education.
The constitutional mandate to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels is directed to the State and not to the school. On this basis, the petitioner-students cannot prevent the MBTC from acquiring possession of the school premises by virtue of a validly issued writ of possession. There is likewise no violation of the so-called academic freedom. Article XIV, Section 5(2) of the Constitution mandates "that academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." Academic freedom did not go beyond the concept of freedom of intellectual inquiry, which includes the freedom of professionally qualified persons to inquire, discover, publish and teach the truth as they see it in the field of their competence subject to no control or authority except of rational methods by which truths and conclusions are sought and established in these disciplines . It also pertains to the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them - the grant being given to institutions of higher learning - free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint .
In this case, except for their bare allegation that if the school will be ejected because of the writ of possession, the students will necessarily be ejected also and thereby their learning process and other educational activities shall have been disrupted, petitioners miserably failed to show the relevance of the right to quality education and academic freedom to their case or how they were violated by the Order granting the writ of possession to the winning bidder in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale .
