1

Position Paper: MAGNA CARTA FOR STUDENTS

Members:

Blancaflor, Lailani Anne Lingao, Cherylette

Capapas, Rachel Anne Malvar, Michael Andrew

Casipit, ,Phoebe Martir, Nicole

Dujali, Jeffrey Ramos, Cyrill Jason

Gonzales, Jose Ma. Ronaldo Sydiongco, Jacqueline Carlotta

Joaquin, Marc Ryan Ty, John Benedict

Submitted To: Dean Ulpiano Sarmiento III

Date of Submission: August 6, 2009

 2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... 2

SEC. 5. Admission and Non-Discrimination. (a) No student shall be (“unduly”)

denied admission, expelled (“dismissed”) from an educational institution,
punished with disciplinary action, including mandatory counseling, or denied
 3

(welfare services), scholarships and other privileges on the (“sole”) basis of

his/her physical handicap, socio-economic status, ethnicity, political or religious
beliefs, sexual orientation, identity, gender and membership in student
organizations nor shall pregnant students and certified reformed drug users be
discriminated against.

Failure of or refusal by a student to sign waiver documents prepared by the

school administration shall not constitute a ground for his/her non-admission.

A student shall have the right to freely choose his/her field of study subject to
existing curricula and to continue his/her course up to graduation except in case
of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations, which do not
infringe upon the exercise of students’ rights.

We are against the promulgation of the Magna Carta, specifically, section 5 herein, because of
the following reasons:

1. The Constitution expressly provides that: “The State recognizes the complementary
roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise
reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.”

The promulgation of section 5 would encroach on the right of educational

institutions to implement rules and regulations. In our country, it is a given fact that there
are more private educational institutions than those run by the government. As of
September 2008, the Commission on Higher Education lists the total number of HEI’s
(Higher Education Institutions) in the country at 2,060. Out of this number, a dismal 537
are of the public sector, while a whopping 1,523 HEI’s come from the private sector; 276
of these in NCR alone. It would be safe to assume that the same section 5 would not
only encroach on the authority vested in a school as an educational organization, but
also as a private institution as well. It would be more apt if rules and regulations with
 4

regards to admission, non-discrimination, disciplinary sanction among others, would

come from the institution itself.

In the case of Guzman vs. National University, it was explicitly stated that:

“Educational institutions of course have the power to “adopt and enforce such
rules as may be deemed expedient for ** (its) government, *** (this being)”
incident to the very object of incorporation, and indispensable to the successful
management of college.”

The evident encroachment brought about by the Magna Carta intrudes upon the
vested rights of schools and institutions of higher learning that disallows them to function
at an optimal level. If this is allowed to happen, the intrusion made will deteriorate the
quality of education the institution can give, and may lead to the overall demise of the
student and society.

2. The Constitution also provides: “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of
higher learning.” Academic freedom, as defined by Justice Frankfurter, is the ability of a
school “—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. Loyola
School of Theology).”

In the leading case of Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology, the petitioner
(Epicharis T. Garcia) sought to enter into a seminary despite the apprehension of the
latter. The Courts in this case held that:

“That respondent…the Loyola School of Theology thru its Faculty Admission

Committee, necessarily has discretion as to whether to admit and/or to continue
admitting in the said school any particular student, considering not only academic
or intellectual standards but also other considerations such as personality traits
and character orientation in relation with other students as well as considering
the nature of Loyola School of Theology as a seminary.”
 5

The Courts further held that:

"Petitioner cannot compel by mandamus, the respondent to admit her into further
studies in the Loyola School of Theology. For respondent has no clear duty to so
admit the petitioner. The Loyola School of Theology is a seminary for the
priesthood. Petitioner is admittedly and obviously not studying for the priesthood,
she being a lay person and a woman. And even assuming ex gratia argumenti
that she is qualified to study for the priesthood, there is still no duty on the part of
respondent to admit her to said studies, since the school has clearly the
discretion to turn down even qualified applicants due to limitations of space,
facilities, professors and optimum classroom size and component
considerations… There are standards that must be met. There are policies to be
pursued. Discretion appears to be of the essence… "

The same section 5 of the Magna Carta, if passed, would deter schools,
colleges, universities and other similar institutions, of their academic freedom, especially
with regards to who may be admitted to study.

Academic freedom, as noted again in Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology:

“It would follow then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right.
It decides for itself aims and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free
from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public
welfare calls for some restraint.”

It would seem then, that academic freedom is a concept that lies exclusively with
learned institutions. It is easily understood that the institution’s best interest is to promote
an environment conducive for learning, and in turn, produce individuals that would best
embody what the institution stands for. This being the case, it is essential that the ability
of institutions to scrutinize and check the applicability of admitting potential students not
be tampered with, since these same institutions know best.
 6

3. A learned institution, such as a school, university, college and the like, has the need to
uphold certain standards. A school’s standard, be it academic, standards in terms of
discipline and moral upbringing, gives light to the type of students they intend to develop.
They are, in essence the ultimate end the school wants to achieve. It is then essential
that the school be able to screen their prospective students who are compatible with the
program/curriculum of the school. The screening for such is not only for academic
standards, but also other external factors that may ultimately affect the image and
effectiveness not only of the curriculum, but also the whole institution.

Further, a student, by enrolling into an educational institution, can be inferred to

have waived certain personal rights. By entering into a certain institution of learning, a
student subjects himself to the rules, regulations and standards the school has
established. An act in defiance of these regulations, whether incidental or on purpose,
will be dealt by the school according to the same, as a way to safeguard not only their
own interests as a learning institution, but for the welfare of the school body (the
students) as well.

4. If Section 5 of the Magna Carta is allowed to take effect, it would have socio-economic
and educational repercussions. For one, the private educational institutions would
encounter the same problems experienced by our public school system; overpopulation,
a high student-to-teacher ratio, an inability to provide for the necessary facilities needed
for teaching. This would ultimately lead in diminishing the quality of education provided
by the institution and poor performance not only of the school, but also of the student.
 7

SEC. 14. Representation in Policy-Making Process. – There shall be a

student representative in the Governing Board of the school. The
chairman/president of the student council or any designated representative
chosen by the heads of various local college student councils shall be the
student representative and shall have the same rights as those of a regular
member: Provided, that his/her privileges shall be limited to reimbursements for
actual expenses incurred in attending meetings of the aforementioned body:
Provided, further, that the same rights shall be granted to the secondary level.

The students shall also be represented in other policymaking bodies which

directly affect their welfare, especially in curriculum drafting, review and revision,
student discipline, and academic standards. The representatives shall be
designated by the student council; and

Representatives of national student organizations shall actively participate and

possess voting powers in the formulation of national policies by governmental
agencies on matters affecting students’ rights and welfare including tuition.

The school community should not be compared to a political community wherein

students have to participate in policy-making because by freely opting for the school of their
choice, they submit themselves to a voluntary association. By entering a university or college,
one opens himself and accepts what the institution offers. A student already, by enrolling in a
university or college, freely gives his consent to be governed and controlled under the rules,
regulations and policies of that institution. As a consequence of this action, student
representation clearly becomes unnecessary. Freely giving consent to be governed and
controlled clearly spells the lack of necessity to be involved in the process of rule-making.

Although we recognize the rights of students to be informed and consulted about

administrative policies that will affect their rights, the duty to implement the same should only be
afforded to the higher wisdom of the administration and the educators themselves. Student
representation on policy-making undermines the authority of the rule-making body of the
institution. Educational institutions, according to the Corporation Code, “most of them being non-
stock organizations, are only able to act through their board of trustees.” The introduction of
 8

students into the policy-making process would be detrimental, given the lack of experience or
responsibility, as well as the possibility that policies promulgated by the student/representative
would be self-serving, instead of being for the general welfare of the student body. Student
representation will consequently jeopardize and threaten the survival, development and
progress of the education institution. Inadequate representation is almost no representation.
The aim of students to have a voice in the rule-making process is thus diminished, even
extinguished. But this aim is not even shared by majority of the students.

This is embodied in the leading case of Hannah Eunice Serana vs. Sandiganbayan and
the People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008], where a senior student of the
University of the Philippine Cebu appointed by President Joseph Estrada as a student regent of
U.P. to serve a one-year term from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, was charged with
estafa. The petitioner was a high-ranking public officer, being the Student Regent of the
University of the Philippines, Diliman, while in performance of her official functions, fraudulently
represented to former President Joseph Estrada that the Fifteen Million Pesos request was for
the renovation of the Vincent Hall of U.P. She and her brother, Jade Ian Serana, encashed the
check amounting to Php 15,000,000 and misappropriated for their personal use and benefit.
Thus, the renovation of Vinzon’s Hall Annex failed to materialize.

Are these the type of representatives we want to put in the schools’ board of trustees?
The power vested on student representatives has the tendency to be misused because of their
lack of understanding on the responsibilities that the position entails. There is nothing wrong in
creating rules to the advantage of students, but if students are given this capacity, they may well
institute policies which they find advantageous but are actually malevolent towards them and
the whole institution. The lack of experience and sense of responsibility in their part almost
always results into consequences particularly destructive not just to the students themselves but
the whole institution as well. Introducing new policies would become at an arm’s reach. It would
be easier for students to create policies to their advantage. But since conflicts of interests are
inevitable, what would be advantageous to students may not actually be equally beneficial to the
rest of the members of the educational institution.

The same section encroaches on “the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its
aims, and objectives, and how best to attain them” (University of San Agustin vs. CA). This is
supported by BP 232 (An Act Providing for the Establishment and Maintenance of an Integrated
 9

System of Education), which provides, inter alia, that schools shall enjoy “The right… to
determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall
be subjects of the study and research.”

It does not, however, disqualify the fact that the students need representation, as
embodied by their student council, as illustrated in RA 9500 (An Act to Strengthen the University
of the Philippines as the National University), Section 21(a) which states: “The student council
shall serve as the primary student body that shall advance the interests, welfare, and
aspirations of the students of the national university.” But the same student representation is
subservient to a greater power, in this case, the University Council and the Board of Regents.

There are already rules in place that ensure that the student body is able to redress their
ideas and grievances. An illustration of this is the enactment of RA 7079, or the Campus
Journalism Act of 1991, as well as Paragraph 7, Section 9 of BP 232, which states that students
shall enjoy “the right to free expression of opinions and suggestions, and to effective channels
of communication with appropriate academic channels and administrative bodies of the school
or institution.” Moreover, the strengthening of freedom of speech, which may be used as a
means of representation for students is illustrated through Section 21(b) of RA 9500 which
states that “subject due to comprehensive consultation with the students, there shall be a
student publication established in every constituent unit and college.”
 10

SEC. 18. Freedom of Expression. - Subject to existing laws, students shall

have the right to freely express their views and opinions. They shall have the
right to peaceably assemble and petition the government and school authorities
for the redress of their grievances. Pursuant thereto, no school regulation shall
be imposed violating or abridging the students' right to assembly.

Students shall have access to print and broadcast media in their information
activities. They shall also have the right to print, circulate and/or mount leaflets,
newsletters, posters, wall news, petitions and such other materials. Pursuant
thereto, the school authorities shall ensure the provision of facilities such as
bulletin boards for the mounting of the aforementioned materials.

School authorities may designate a certain area on every campus as a freedom

park where students can freely discuss issues directly and indirectly affecting
them, express their grievances or organize activities.

Section 18 of the proposed Magna Carta provides the right of freedom of expression
which covers the freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition. As with other forms and
modes of liberty, completely unrestricted freedom of expression leads to encroachment on the
rights of others and becomes detrimental to the interest of the school. These restrictions are
necessary and inevitable. It is for these reasons that we oppose the said section.

Schools can therefore, in the exercise of its authority, impose certain regulations which
place restraints on freedom of expression. The academe sets and implements rules and
regulations consistent with its recognized mission and vision. As an educational institution,
these regulations are adopted to create an environment for instruction and learning with the end
goal of producing competent and productive citizens. It is in the best interest of the school to
uphold its good name and thwart anything that will tarnish its reputation.

Conversely, it is responsibility of the students to comply with these policies and be made
liable for violations thereof. In the Education Act of 1982 amended by Republic Act 7798
Chapter 3 Section 15 paragraphs 2 and 3 states that every student has the duty to “abide by the
 11

rules and regulations governing his academic responsibilities and moral integrity” and “promote
and maintain the peace and tranquility of the school by observing the rules and discipline XXX”.

Public order is one strong interest of a community. In the case of Areza v. Gregorio
Araneta University Foundation, students of said school held a rally in places around the
university not specified in the permit which caused the disturbance of classes. The Court ruled
that disciplinary action may be taken against students for conduct which “materially disrupts
class work or involves substantial disorder or invokes the rights of others.” The school therefore
can suppress student protests or rallies wherein the said student expression would clearly lead
to considerable disruption of the school environment. In view of this, schools, as a part of their
policy, would normally require students to secure a permit before they can hold any activity, in
this case, demonstrations. This is not an action to completely ban rallies in schools but to adopt
regulatory deterrents which will set the time, place and manner of these assemblies where the
exercise of such right to freedom of assembly may become excessive. This regulation is valid
provided that the interest of the school is in clear jeopardy and the restrictions used to defend
this interest are reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Similarly, more stringent rules have been employed in schools to allow free speech. In
the case of Miriam College Foundation v. Court of Appeals where students published a short
story and poems in the school newspaper which the school considered obscene and sexually
explicit, the Court considered the action of the students as substantial disorder and emphasized
that “rules and regulations are equally necessary for the protection of the students, faculty, and
property and that the school has an interest in teaching the student discipline, a necessary, if
not indispensable, value in any field of learning.”

Schools therefore have the authority to ban or prevent newsletters, leaflets, brochures,
notices, announcements or similar printed materials from being posted and circulated when
such materials violate libel and obscenity laws. Schools can stop students from using lewd,
profane or offensive language. It is a given fact that exposing truth through journalism is noble in
character but to abjectly defame another person is entirely a different case. The school cannot
tolerate such actions for doing so will ultimately reflect on them as educators and will even
discourage future students of the school from enrolling.

It is also not favorable for the school to give the students a designated area as freedom
park for this would only encourage unlawful activity and those that cause injury to the welfare of
the school or the community. Furthermore, issues will only be further sensationalized instead of
 12

arriving at a compromise. These issues should be properly addressed in the appropriate forum
which the school already provides such as in the Office of the Student Affairs.

Schools recognize the rights of students the same way it recognizes the rights of its
faculty and employees. The school emphasizes the saying that “where one right ends, another
right begins.” This means that the exercise of one’s right always comes with responsibility. It is
not the intention of educational institutional institution to repress the exercise for to do so would
mean a curtailment of one of the hallmarks of a democracy. The school takes part in molding
and productive and socially-responsible citizens in training their students to practice their rights
with utmost diligence and in a responsible manner.
 13

SEC. 22. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. - Every

student shall be free from any form of unreasonable search and seizure. Except
for the following instances, no search or seizure of a student shall be deemed
valid:

a. Searches made at the point of ingress and egress by authorized

personnel of the school;
b. Searches and seizures of illegal article or articles falling in the plain view
of duly authorized personnel;
c. Searches and seizures of articles that are illegal, discovered inadvertently
by duly authorized personnel;
d. Searches made when the student is about to commit, is committing or
had just committed a crime or a serious infraction of the school's rules
and regulations;
e. Searches made with a valid search warrant.

Articles seized in violation of the above-mentioned rights shall not be used as

evidence against the student in any disciplinary action that may be brought
against him/her.

Salus populi est suprema lex.

In any situation, general welfare must always be given paramount consideration.

Educational institutions, as private entities, have the responsibility to ensure the safety of every
student inside its premises. The role of educational institutions can be compared to the role of
the state under the doctrine of Parens Patriae. The school exercises special parental authority
over its students in the same way the state acts as guardians of the rights of the people.

However, Section 22 of the proposed Magna Carta places limitations in the fulfilment of
the school of its duty to actually protect its students, teachers and even school personnel. In
times of emergencies where the threat may be real and impending, the security measures
provided in Section 22 become inadequate and impractical deterrents to use. Considering
similar scenarios, unreasonable searches and seizures remain the only option left for schools to
 14

fulfil its duty. Schools are justified in responding through such a process when an actionable
harm is posed upon the well-being and safety of its students.

Schools are generally afforded the right to formulate their own policies which they deem
would promote the best interest of the school. Upon the acceptance and admission in an
educational institution, an individual is required to behave accordingly and therefore allow
authority to search their private properties with the ends of ensuring the safety of every student.

In the case of Gott vs. Berea College, the Court ruled that a “college or university may
prescribe requirements for admission and rules for the conduct of its students, and one who
enters as a student implicitly agrees to conform to such rules of government.” Similarly, San
Beda College Mendiola in Article 2 of its Student Handbook (2004 edition), clearly maintains an
admission policy which accepts students who “meet its academic standards and are willing to
abide by the rules and ideals of the College.”

Furthermore, schools have the right to protect itself from violations of P.D. 1866
(amended by R.A. 8294) which involves illegal possession of firearms and R.A. 9165 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Such violations cause fear on the part of the students and bring
great peril to people’s lives. Schools can protect themselves by creating stricter security
measures in pursuant to the laws mentioned above that are mala prohibita.