You are on page 1of 21

consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

to override the interest claiming protection
WISCONSIN vs. YODER under the Free Exercise Clause. Fundamental
right to religion is protected, sometimes even at
the expense of other interests of admittedly high
social importance. Only those interests of the
FACTS: highest order and those not otherwise served can
overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise
Respondents, members of the Old Order Amish religion of religion.
and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were 2. Respondents have amply supported their
convicted of violating Wisconsin's compulsory school- claim that enforcement of the compulsory formal
attendance law (which requires a child's school education requirement after the eighth grade
attendance until age 16) by declining to send their would gravely endanger if not destroy the free
children to public or private school after they had exercise of their religious beliefs. It was
graduated from the eighth grade. The evidence showed necessary for the court to determine whether the
that the Amish provide continuing informal vocational Amish religious faith and their mode of life are,
education to their children designed to prepare them for as they claim, inseparable and interdependent
life in the rural Amish community (children ages 14 and not merely philosophical nor personal. In this
15). The evidence also showed that respondents case, the Old Order Amish daily life and
sincerely believed that high school attendance was religious practice stem from their faith is shown
contrary to the Amish religion and way of life and that by the fact that it is in response to their literal
they would endanger their own salvation and that of interpretation of the Biblical injunction from the
their children by complying with the law. Epistle of Paul to the Romans, "be not
conformed to this world . . . ." This command is
ISSUE: fundamental to the Amish faith. This virtually
WON the compulsory-attendance law violated their determines their entire way of life. Values and
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. programs of the modern secondary school are in
sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life
HELD: Yes. mandated by the Amish religion. Wisconsin law
contravenes the basic religious tenets and
RATIO: (state supreme court muna total the US SC practice of the Amish faith, both as to the parent
upheld their decision naman) and the child. Furthermore, Wisconsin law
• their children's attendance at high school, public affirmatively compels them, under threat of
criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at
or private, was contrary to the Amish religion
odds with fundamental tenets of their religious
and way of life. It poses danger of the censure of
beliefs. The compulsory-attendance law carries
the church community and endanger their own
with it precisely the kind of objective danger to
salvation and that of their children. These
the free exercise of religion that the First
religious belief were held to be sincere. Expert
Amendment was designed to prevent.
witnesses (scholars on religion) testified that this
3. Aided by a history of three centuries as an
concept of life aloof from the world and its values
identifiable religious sect and a long history as a
is central to their faith. Amish objection to
successful and self-sufficient segment of
formal education beyond the eighth grade is
American society, the Amish have demonstrated
firmly grounded in these central religious
the sincerity of their religious beliefs, the
interrelationship of belief with their mode of life,
• Formal high school education beyond the eighth
the vital role that belief and daily conduct play
grade is contrary to Amish beliefs because it in the continuing survival of Old Order Amish
takes them away from their community, communities, and the hazards presented by the
physically and emotionally. During this period, State's enforcement of a statute generally valid
the children must acquire skills needed to as to others. Beyond this, they have carried the
perform the adult role of an Amish farmer or difficult burden of demonstrating the adequacy
housewife. And, at this time in life, the Amish of their alternative mode of continuing informal
child must also grow in his faith and his vocational education in terms of the overall
relationship to the Amish community. interests that the State relies on in support of its
program of compulsory high school education.
(eto US SC ratio na) In light of this showing, and weighing the
1. The State's interest in universal education is minimal difference between what the State
not totally free from a balancing process when it would require and what the Amish already
impinges on other fundamental rights, such as accept, it was incumbent on the State to show
those specifically protected by the Free Exercise with more particularity how its admittedly
Clause of the First Amendment and the strong interest in compulsory education would
traditional interest of parents with respect to the be adversely affected by granting an exemption
religious upbringing of their children. to the Amish.
In applying strict scrutiny, it was not shown that
there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude
consti 2 all stars 1
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

It is true that activities of individuals, even when affirmed.
religiously based, are often subject to regulation U.S. vs. BALLARD
by the States in the exercise of police power but
religiously grounded conduct is protected by the
Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. FACTS:
Re discrimination: A regulation neutral on its face
may, in its application, nonetheless offend the
- Respondents, Edna W. Ballard and Donald
Ballard were convicted of using and conspiring
constitutional requirement for governmental
to use the mails to defraud.
neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of
Some degree of education is necessary to - The indictment was in twelve counts. It charged
prepare citizens to participate effectively and a scheme to defraud by organizing and
intelligently in our open political system if we are promoting the I Am movement through the use
to preserve freedom and independence. However, of the mails. The charge was that certain
the evidence adduced by the Amish in this case designated corporations were formed, literature
is persuasively to the effect that an additional distributed and sold, funds solicited, and
one or two years of formal high school for Amish memberships in the I Am movement sought 'by
children in place of their long-established means of false and fraudulent representations,
program of informal vocational education would pretenses and promises'
do little to serve those interests. Separated
agrarian community is the keystone of the - Misrepresentations:
Amish faith. That they would become burden to
society should they leave the community and o That the words of 'ascended masters'
join the mainstream world with educational and the words of the alleged divine
shortcomings is highly speculative. entity, Saint Germain, would be
4. The State's claim that it is empowered, as transmitted to mankind through the
parens patriae, to extend the benefit of medium of the said Guy W. Ballard,
secondary education to children regardless of Edna W. Ballard, and Donald Ballard
the wishes of their parents cannot be sustained through their high spiritual attainment
against a free exercise claim of the nature and righteous conduct.
revealed by this record, for the Amish have o That the respondent were able to cure
introduced convincing evidence that hundreds of people of diseases classified
accommodating their religious objections by either curable or incurable.
forgoing one or two additional years of
compulsory education will not impair the
physical or mental health of the child, or result
- Each of them, well knew that all of said
aforementioned representations were false and
in an inability to be self-supporting or to
untrue and were made with the intention on the
discharge the duties and responsibilities of
part of the defendants, and each of them, to
citizenship, or in any other way materially
cheat, wrong, and defraud persons intended to
detract from the welfare of society.
be defrauded, and to obtain from persons
The dissent argues that a child who expresses a
intended to be defrauded by the defendants,
desire to attend public high school in conflict
money, property, and other things of value and
with the wishes of his parents should not be
to convert the same to the use and the benefit of
prevented from doing so. There is no reason for
the defendants, and each of them.
the Court to consider that point since it is not
an issue in the case. The State has at no point
tried this case on the theory that respondents - Defense: There was a demurrer and a motion to
were preventing their children from attending quash each of which asserted among other
school against their expressed desires. Parents things that the indictment attacked the religious
have a right to direct the religious up-bringing of beliefs of respondents and sought to restrict the
their children which may be subject to limitation free exercise of their religion in violation of the
] if it appears that parental decisions will Constitution of the United States.
jeopardize the health or safety of the child, or
have a potential for significant social burdens. - Lower Court: Did not want to rule on the truth
But in this case, the Amish have introduced or validity of the religious claims made by the
persuasive evidence undermining the arguments respondents but rather limited the scope of the
the State has advanced to support its claims in case to this issue: “WON these defendants
terms of the welfare of the child and society as a honestly and in good faith believe those
whole. we cannot accept a parens patriae claim things? If they did, they should be acquitted.
of such all-encompassing scope and with such I cannot make it any clearer than that”
sweeping potential for broad and unforeseeable
application as that urged by the State. o 'If these defendants did not believe those
(overinclusive) things, they did not believe that Jesus

consti 2 all stars 2
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

came down and dictated, the jury on a different course once that one turned out to
should find them guilty. be unsuccessful

- The Lower court convicted the respondents. The o Johnson v. United States, 318 U.S. 189,
latter, initially acquiesced to the verdict but soon 63 S.Ct. 549, 87 L.Ed. 704. That case
filed for a motion for retrial since the withdrawal stands for the proposition that, apart
of the issue of truth and verity would run from situations involving an unfair trial,
contrary to the nature of the indictment itself. an appellate court will not grant a new
“'it was necessary to prove that they trial to a defendant on the ground of
schemed to make some, at least, of the improper introduction of evidence or
(eighteen) representations * * * and that improper comment by the prosecutor,
some, at least, of the representations which where the defendant acquiesced in that
they schemed to make were false” course and made no objection to it. In
fairness to respondents that principle
- Court of Appeals reversed the decision and cannot be applied here
granted a new trial, with one judge dissenting.
- Supreme court: Ruled that Johnson v. United
ISSUE: States cannot be applied in the case at bar. The
real objection of respondents is not that the
WON the 1st Amendment precluded the court truth of their religious doctrines or beliefs
from judging upon the truth, verity, and validity should have been submitted to the jury. Their
of the beliefs of the respondent. demurrer and motion to quash made clear their
position that that issue should be withheld from
Yes, decision of the Court of Appeals reversed. the jury on the basis of the First Amendment.

- Misrepresentations ascertained by the o We do not agree that the truth or verity
Supreme Court: of respondents' religious doctrines or
beliefs should have been submitted to
o (1) A portion of the scheme as to healing the jury. Whatever this particular
which we have already quoted and indictment might require, the First
which alleged that respondents 'had in Amendment precludes such a course, as
fact cured either by the activity of one, the United States seems to concede.
either, or all of said persons, hundreds
of persons afflicted with diseases and o The First Amendment has a dual aspect.
ailments'; It not only 'forestalls compulsion by law
o (2) The portion of the scheme relating to of the acceptance of any creed or the
certain religious experiences described practice of any form of worship' but also
in certain books (Unveiled Mysteries and 'safeguards the free exercise of the
The Magic Presence) and concerning chosen form of religion.' Cantwell v.
which the indictment alleged 'that the State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303,
defendants represented that Guy W. 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128
Ballard, Edna W. Ballard, and Donald A.L.R. 1352.
Ballard actually encountered the
experiences pertaining to each of their o 'Thus the Amendment embraces two
said names as related and set forth in concepts,--freedom to believe and
said books, whereas in truth and in fact freedom to act. The first is absolute but,
none of said persons did encounter the in the nature of things, the second
experiences'; cannot be.' Freedom of thought, which
o (3) The part of the scheme concerning includes freedom of religious belief, is
phonograph records sold by respondents basic in a society of free men
on representations that they would
bestow on purchasers 'great blessings
and rewards in their aim to achieve o The First Amendment does not select
salvation' whereas respondents 'well any one group or any one type of religion
knew that said * * * records were for preferred treatment. It puts them all
manmade and had no ability to aid in in that position.
achieving salvation.'

- The United States contends that respondents
acquiesced in the withdrawal from the jury of
the truth of their religious doctrines or beliefs
and that their consent bars them from insisting

consti 2 all stars 3
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

he considered this belief superior to his obligation to the

U.S. vs. SEEGER Conscientious Objector
'personal scruples against war'
Individual belief--rather than membership in a church or
FACTS: sect--determined the duties that God imposed upon a
person in his everyday conduct; and that 'there is a
Seeger was convicted in the District Court for the higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to
Southern District of New York of having refused to God.' Thus, while shifting the test from membership in
submit to induction in the armed forces. such a church to one's individual belief the Congress
He first claimed exemption as a conscientious objector in nevertheless continued its historic practice of excusing
1957 after successive annual renewals of his student from armed service those who believed that they owed an
classification. Although he did not adopt verbatim the obligation, superior to that due the state, of not
printed Selective Service System form, he declared that participating in war in any form.
he was conscientiously opposed to participation in war ”religious training and belief”
in any form by reason of his 'religious' belief; that he 'belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties
preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a superior to those arising from any human relation.' In
Supreme Being open, 'rather than answer 'yes' or 'no"; assigning meaning to this statutory language we may
that his 'skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God' narrow the inquiry by noting briefly those scruples
did 'not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything expressly excepted from the definition. The section
whatsoever'; that his was a 'belief in and devotion to excludes those persons who, disavowing religious belief,
goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious decide on the basis of essentially political, sociological or
faith in a purely ethical creed. economic considerations that war is wrong and that they
He was convicted and the Court of Appeals reversed, will have no part of it. These judgments have historically
holding that the Supreme Being requirement of the been reserved for the Government, and in matters which
section distinguished 'between internally derived and can be said to fall within these areas the conviction of
externally compelled beliefs' and was, therefore, an the individual has never been permitted to override that
'impermissible classification' under the Due Process of the state.
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 'The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God
involving duties superior to those arising from any
human relation.'
Jakobson was also convicted in the Southern District of By comparing the statutory definition with those words,
New York on a charge of refusing to submit to induction. however, it becomes readily apparent that the Congress
On his appeal the Court of Appeals reversed on the deliberately broaden them by substituting the phrase
ground that rejection of his claim may have rested on 'Supreme Being' for the appellation 'God.' And in so
the factual finding, erroneously made, that he did not doing it is also significant that Congress did not
believe in a Supreme Being as required elaborate on the form or nature of this higher authority
He explained that his religious *168 and social thinking which it chose to designate as 'Supreme Being.' By so
had developed after much meditation and thought. He refraining it must have had in mind the admonitions of
had concluded that man must be 'partly spiritual' and, the Chief Justice when he said in the same opinion that
therefore, 'partly akin to the Supreme Reality'; and that even the word 'God' had myriad meanings for men of
his 'most important religious law' was that 'no man faith:
ought ever to wilfully sacrifice another man's life as a '(P)utting aside dogmas with their particular conceptions
means to any other end of deity, freedom of conscience itself implies respect for
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that his claim an innate conviction of paramount duty.
came within the requirements of s 6(j). Because it could The test might be stated in these words: A sincere and
not determine whether the Appeal Board had found that meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its
Jakobson's beliefs failed to come within the statutory possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those
definition, or whether it had concluded that he lacked admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the
sincerity, it directed dismissal of the indictment. statutory definition. This construction avoids imputing to
Congress an intent to classify different religious beliefs,
Forest Britt Peter was convicted in the Northern District exempting some and excluding others, and is in accord
of California on a charge of refusing to submit to with the well-established congressional policy of equal
induction. In his Selective Service System form he stated treatment for those whose opposition to service is
that he was not a member of a religious sect or grounded in their religious tenets.
organization; he failed to execute section VII of the
questionnaire but attached to it a quotation expressing The test is simple of application. It is essentially an
opposition to war, in which he stated that he concurred objective one, namely, does the claimed belief
In a later form he hedged the question as to his belief in occupy the same place in the life of the objector as
a Supreme Being by saying that it depended on the an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one
definition and he appended a statement that he felt it a clearly qualified for exemption?
violation of his moral code to take human life and that

consti 2 all stars 4
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

Petitioner was being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War.
To avoid it, he requested to be classified as a
ISSUES: ‘conscientious objector’. The local draft board turned
W/O the plaintiffs religious beliefs exempted them from down his request. He appealed. State Appeal Board still
induction in U.S military training? classified him as eligible for unrestricted service then
passed it on to Justice Dep’t. FBI made an inquiry.
Hearing officer recommended that he be classified a
HELD: conscientious objector because of testimony from
Seager ‘inquiry’ of petitioner, parents, attorney and religious
Seeger professed 'religious belief' and 'religious faith.' He minister proved that petitioner was sincere. Nevertheless
did not disavow any belief 'in a relation to a Supreme Justice Dep’t advised denial of request. Appeal Board
Being'; indeed he stated that 'the cosmic order does, denied the request w/o stating reasons for such a claim.
perhaps, suggest a creative intelligence.' He decried the Petitioner refused to be drafted and was convicted.
tremendous 'spiritual' price man must pay for his
willingness to destroy human life. In light of his beliefs ISSUE:
and the unquestioned sincerity with which he held them,
we think the Board, had it applied the test we propose HELD:
today, would have granted him the exemption. We think
it clear that the beliefs which prompted his objection RATIONALE:
occupy the same place in his life as the belief in a
traditional deity holds in the lives of his friends, the In order to be classified as a conscientious objector, a
Quakers. We are reminded once more of Dr. Tillich's registrant must satisfy three basic tests. He must show
thoughts: 1) that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form;
'And if that word (God) has not much meaning for you, 2) that this opposition is based upon religious training
translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the and belief;
source of your being, or your ultimate concern, of what 3) and that this objection is sincere.
you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in
order to do so, you must forget everything traditional In applying the test, the Selective Service System must
that you have learned about God * * *'. Tillich, The be concerned with the registrant as an individual, not
Shaking of the Foundations. with its own interpretation of the dogma of the religious
It may be that Seeger did not clearly demonstrate what sect, if any, to which he may belong.
his beliefs were with regard to the usual understanding
of the term 'Supreme Being.' But as we have said Justice Dep’t believed that Clay did not satisfy any
Congress did not intend that to be the test. We therefore requirement. 1) Clays belief did not preclude war in any
affirm the judgment. form but are limited to service in the US Armed Forces.
He objects to certain types of war in certain
Peter circumstances, rather than a general scruple against
It will be remembered that Peter acknowledged 'some participation in war in any form. 2) Clays religion did not
power manifest in nature * * * the supreme expression' preclude fighting for the US because of political and
that helps man in ordering his life. As to whether he racial objectives to US policies instead of objections to
would call that belief in a Supreme Being, he replied, participate in war in any form. 3) Clay as a conscientious
'you could call that a belief in the Supreme Being or objector only surfaced when drafting was imminent. He
God. These just do not happen to be the words I use.' We has not shown ‘overt manifestation’ of his opposition.
think that under the test we establish here the Board
would grant the exemption to Peter and we therefore However, in this Court, the gov’t has conceded that
reverse the judgment in No. 29 petitioners belief are based on religious training. His
beliefs, like those in US vs Seeger, are clearly founded on
Jakobson the tenets of the Muslim religion as he understands
The Court of Appeals found that the registrant them. The gov’t also conceded that it no longer questions
demonstrated that his belief as to opposition to war was the sincerity of petitioners belief. The hearing officer who
related to a Supreme Being. We agree and affirm that decided on the sincerity of the petitioner with info from
judgment. FBI inquiry was convinced of his sincerity and
recommended his classification as a conscientious
objector. Justice dep’t was wrong to disregard such a
Since the Appeal Board gave no reasons for denying
(1971) Clays request, no one knows which ground he did not
Per curiam pass. But since two of the grounds no longer hold, it is
clear that the dep’t was wrong.
This case then falls in Sicurella vs US. There, the Court
was asked to hold that an error in an advice letter
prepared by the Justice Dep’t did not require reversal of
consti 2 all stars 5
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

a criminal conviction because there was a ground on
which the Appeal Board might properly have denied a
conscientious objector classification. This Court refused
because in cases where it is impossible to determine
exactly which grounds the Appeal Board decided, the BYRNE article: ACADEMIC FREEDOM: A SPECIAL
integrity of the Selective Service System demands, at CONCERN OF THE 1ST AMMENDMENT
least, that the gov’t not recommend illegal grounds. (in
other words: the grounds must be clearly legitimate from J. Peter Byrne
the first and finding a clearly legitimate ground
afterwards won’t work.) I. INTRODUCTION

DISPOSITION: The First Amendment protects academic freedom but
there has been no adequate analysis of what academic
Judgment reversed. Ali is free! freedom the Constitution protects or why it protects it.
Lacking definition or guiding principle, the doctrine
SEPARATE OPINIONS floats in the law.

Douglas, concurs: Author’s definition of academic freedom: non-legal term
referring to the liberties claimed by professors through
Sicurella vs US: Congress couldn’t possibly mean professional channels against administrative or political
conscientious objector must go to ‘participation in war in interference with research, teaching and governance.
any form’.
Of constitutional academic freedom: essence is the
Negre v Larsen: Petitioners church did not oppose war insulation of scholarship and liberal education from
in Vietnam but provided guidelines for unjust wars. His extramural political interference  insulate the
conscience did not allow him to go to Vietnam. Court university in core academic affairs from state
said screw his conscience, go and fight! interference

Clay is different. As a Muslim he follows Koran. Koran II. FIRST AMENDMENT ON CAMPUS
proclaims jihad by believers against non-believers. All
other wars are unjust. Clays believes only in war Concern is only with the substantive protection of
sanctioned by the Koran. Therefore, it becomes a matter academic freedom by the 1st Amendment isolating which
of belief, of conscience, of religious principle. has been difficult because 1) courts have used legal
doctrines not based on academic freedom to protect
Harlan, concurs in the result: liberties of professors and students; 2) courts have
declined to recognize a constitutional shield for many
Justice dep’t gives bad advice. Not all conscientious forms of classroom speech that seem at first blush to
objectors are weasels trying to get out of fighting in implicate general principles of free expression.
Central paradox: The institutional right seems to give a
university the authority to hire and fire without
government interference those very individuals
apparently granted a personal right to write and teach
without institutional hindrance.
 Nonetheless, this paradox should be seen as neither
collateral nor embarrassing; academic discourse benefits
Academic Freedom from the tension between the independence of a
scholar's judgment and the university's
evaluation of her professional competence.
EDUCATION A. Academic Speech

Sec 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of Students and junior professors (considered neophytes in
all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall the field) suffer real punishment for speech deemed
take appropriate steps to make such education inadequate by the masters. Compared to general civil
accessible to all. society where the 1st Amendment opposes prior and
subsequent restraint based on determination if the
speech is valuable or not.
Sec 5(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning. The First Amendment value of academic speech rests on
its commitment to truth (however partially understood
by the discipline), its honesty and carefulness, its
richness of meaning, its doctrinal freedom, and its

consti 2 all stars 6
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

invitation to criticism.  society ought to strive towards B. The Rise of the Scientific Research Value
speech that is truthful.
Higher education began to be seen as scientific training
Academic freedom resembles other free expression for practical jobs rather than moral training of
values insofar as it protects the individual scholar's gentlemen for elite professions.  The change is
point of view; it is distinct insofar as it protects those usefully, if simple-mindedly, expressed as a movement
structures that permit the individual scholar to engage from a paradigm of fixed values vouchsafed by religious
with others in collective scholarship faith to one of relative truths continuously revised by
scientific endeavor.
B. Student Speech and Extracurricular Political
Activity Changes in the structure enlarged the status of the
faculty – now highly-trained professionals. Yet low salary
The term "academic freedom" should be reserved for and uncertain tenure remained  They were no longer
those rights necessary for the preservation of the unique dependent on the will of clergymen but answerable to
functions of the university, particularly the goals of businessmen. Academic freedom became rallying cry for
disinterested scholarship and teaching. professors seeking more control over their professional
First Amendment rights w/c should not properly be a
part of constitutional academic freedom: C. Development of the Concept of Academic
1) no recognized student rights of free speech are Freedom
properly part of constitutional academic
freedom, because none of them has anything to Problem was the interference by the lay board of trustees
do with scholarship or systematic learning (e.g. or regents. Professors demanded that no ideological test
wearing of armbands, demonstrations, etc.) be applied and evaluation done by professional peers.
 while the Constitution affords students at
public institutions extensive civil rights, it The American concept of academic freedom emerged
affords them no rights of academic freedom at from this ideological and practical conflict between
all. academic social scientists and their lay employers.
2) the right of a professor to participate in political
activity off campus and on her own time without American Assoc. of University Professors (AAUP) insisted
institutional reprisal should not be viewed as a on a clear distinction between speech that was academic
matter of constitutional academic freedom and that which was merely political or sectarian.

 academic freedom should be understood to include AAUP’s vision of academic freedom:
only rights unique or necessary to the functions of 1) noble vision of the academic calling;
higher education; exist as a necessary incident to 2) eliminates gravest evils of lay control over
university's commitment to the pursuit of truth and the universities;
controvertibility of dogma. 3) concept of peer review according to professional
C. Tenure
D. The Challenge of other Academic Values
Tenure is not equal to academic freedom but it promotes
academic freedom since it requires public airing of
explicit and categorically neutral reasons for dismissal. Humanistic values: valuable knowledge includes ideas
that aren’t scientifically demonstrable and that students
 does not protect academic freedom of untenured since
must receive a coherent education in the traditions of
they will direct their scholarship to those likely to be
civilized thought, writing and art.
accepted by the tenured.

The democratic value in higher education reflects the
demands placed on our colleges and universities by the
society at large that they help fulfill broad goals of social
A. Early History and Structure mobility and general prosperity.

The structural elements that would give shape to
academic freedom were established early: legal control
E. Professional Competence as a Regulatory
by non-academic trustees; effective governance by
administrators set apart from the faculty by political
allegiance and professional orientation; dependent and The integrity of academic freedom depends on the good
insecure faculty. faith of the professorate and on its collective ability to
distinguish between scholars who disagree with accepted
findings and those who do not understand them.  what

consti 2 all stars 7
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

defines competence? When this question arises trouble rights against their institutions while faculty and
develops. students at private institutions enjoy none. Thus, the
state action doctrine mandates judicial enforcement of
Without agreement about basic paradigms, competence constitutional liberties against institutional
loses much of the neutrality that might ordinarily be infringements for half the nation's academics and denies
assumed, as there may be no shared criterion for it to the other half for reasons which, if desirable at all,
evaluation. are very far removed from the realities of academic life

The Proper Scope of Judicial Intervention
Courts seem entirely ill-equipped to resolve these
disputes. Asked to protect the academic freedom of a
Concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Sweezy: candidate denied tenure by faculty vote, a court would
university freedom for teaching and scholarship without need to determine what, in fact, are the requirements for
interference from government is a positive right and that tenure, whether the candidate met the requirements,
the state here had failed to provide a compelling and whether the faculty rejected the candidate for some
justification for questioning an academic about the non-academic reason. Such an inquiry, backed by the
content of a lecture coercive power of the state, would put the department or
school into intellectual receivership, with the court
 the four essential freedoms" of a university--to determining the appropriate paradigms of thought.
determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach,  Courts then should only ascertain if the
what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who administrators can establish that they in good faith
may be admitted to study rejected the candidate on academic grounds.

Three significant oddities about the plurality and The Court has come to limit the judiciary's role to
concurring opinions in Sweezy: excluding non-academics from imposing ideological
1) never before had the Court suggested that criteria on academic decision-making, while refusing to
academic freedom was protected by the 1st impose substantive limits on academic administrators
Amendment. who in good faith penalize faculty for academic speech
2) Frankfurter’s decision looks solely to non-legal
sources to describe the contents of acad. V. CONSTITUTIONAL ACADEMIC FREEDOM
3) Although the content of acad. freedom was INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY
drawn from non-legal sources, they praised acad
freedom by stressing the social utility of free While the right to institutional academic freedom has
universities. arisen at the time in our history when universities have
been most subject to federal regulation, no federal
regulation has been invalidated under the right. As in
Sweezy endowed the new constitutional right of
Sweezy and Keyishian, the new turn in academic
academic freedom with a legacy of triumphant rhetoric
freedom has flowered in dicta and rhetoric more than in
but also with an ambiguous description of the
holdings and rules
relationship between academic custom and positive legal
right. The Court's decision not to ground its ruling on a
positive right of academic freedom, moreover, presaged A. The Supreme Court and Institutional Academic
the Court's refusal to give this right the practical force Freedom
that its rhetorical enthusiasms promised.
Academic freedom is described by Frankfurter not as a
Also in other cases, Barenblatt and Keyishian, the limitation on the grounds or procedures by which
Court's use of rhetoric to define the content of academic academics may be sanctioned but as "the exclusion of
freedom increases the ambiguity already created by governmental intervention in the intellectual life of a
basing the case's holding upon vagueness. However, university."
despite their analytical shortcomings, Sweezy and
Keyishian contributed substantially to the virtual Justice Stevens' concurring opinion in Widmar v.
extinction of overt efforts by non-academic government Vincent represents both a refreshing acknowledgment
officials to prescribe political orthodoxy in university that universities must and should distinguish among
teaching and research. speakers on the basis of the content of their speech and
a pioneering inquiry into which university administrative
Constitutional Academic Freedom and the State decisions the First Amendment should protect.
Action Doctrine: An Aside
Thus, core academic administrative decisions--
Faculty and students at state universities enjoy determining who may teach, what may be taught, how it
extensive substantive and procedural constitutional shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study--
consti 2 all stars 8
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

cannot be interfered with by civil authorities without 3) The university aspires to instill in those entering
impairing the unique virtues of academic speech. adulthood a capacity for mature and
independent judgment.
When judges are asked to review the substance of a
genuinely academic decision, such as this one, they Preserving the fundamental academic values of
should show great respect for the faculty's professional disinterested inquiry, reasoned and critical discourse,
judgment. Plainly, they may not override it unless it is and liberal education justifies a constitutional right of
such a substantial departure from accepted academic academic freedom. These goals give intellectual and
norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee educational expression to the vision of human reason
responsible did not actually exercise professional implicit in the Constitution.
Who are do be protected by constitutional academic
Academic Abstention freedom?

It describes the traditional refusal of courts to extend Universities that do not respect the academic freedom of
common law rules of liability to colleges where doing so professors (understood as the core of the doctrine
would interfere with the college administration's good developed by the AAUP) or the essential intellectual
faith performance of its core functions. The recognition freedom of students (a concept barely developed) ought
of authority over internal affairs and the exclusion of not to be afforded institutional autonomy.
judicial governance go hand in hand; they amount to a
substantial degree of common law autonomy. VI. CONCLUSION

Institutional academic freedom can be viewed as Through repetition, the scope of institutional autonomy
academic abstention raised to constitutional status, so has come to be understood as the four freedoms offered
that judges can consider whether statutes or regulations by Justice Frankfurter: "'to determine for itself on
fail to give sufficient consideration to the special needs academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught,
or prerogatives of the academic community. how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to
study. The four freedoms adequately express the degree
State Constitutional Law of autonomy necessary for a university to harbor liberal
studies. The great virtue of these freedoms is that they
recognize that liberal studies involve more than the
The tradition of constitutional autonomy for state simple act of speaking--that they require "'that
universities seems to have contributed to the atmosphere which is most *340 conducive to
development of the federal right of institutional academic speculation, experiment and creation. This requires
freedom. At a minimum, it confirms the persistence of security, stimulation, tolerance, generosity of mind, the
the view, inherent in academic abstention, that civil hiring of competent people, and the reward of excellence.
authorities ought to respect the special needs and values Constitutional protection can preserve the possibility
of universities, even when erected and supported by the that academics might attain the goals of learning and
state. scholarship. It cannot do more; it should not do less.
Constitutional academic freedom can perhaps best be
seen as a principle that regulation should not proceed so
far as to deprive the university of control over its
academic destiny. This principle has been fashioned by SWEEZY vs. NEW HAMPSHIRE
courts, explaining why they restrain themselves from
imposing farreaching constitutional or common law
duties on the university. As such, it represents academic June 15, 1957
abstention raised to a constitutional level. Ponente: Warren, CJ:

Institutional Academic Freedom and the First  Defendant, Paul Sweezy, was convicted of
Amendment contempt for failure to answer questions asked
by the Attorney General of New Hampshire
And what are the indigenous values served by
universities?  In 1951 a statute was passed by the New
Hampshire legislature to regulate subversive
1) the university is the preeminent institution in acts. In 1953, legislature adopted a joint
our society where knowledge and understanding resolution authorizing the attorney general to
are pursued with detachment or make full and complete investigations with
disinterestedness. respect to violations of the subversive activities
2) The disinterested search for knowledge fosters a act of 1951 which includes among others
manner of discourse that, at its best, is careful, authorizing him “to act upon his own motion
critical, and ambitious and upon such information as in his judgment
may be reasonable or reliable.”
consti 2 all stars 9
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

o Statute defines a person to be
subversive if he, by any means, aids in  Whether the Attorney General of New Hampshire
the commission of any act intended to acted within the scope of the authority given him
assist in the alteration of the by the state legislature is not for the US SC to
constitutional form of gov’t by force or determine but is a matter for the decision of the
violence. courts of that State.
 Sweezy was summoned to appear on two  Petitioner as mentioned answered most of the
separate occasions in 1954 under suspicion of questions asked of him, making it known that
subversion in connection with the membership he had never been a Communist, never taught
of his wife in the Progressive Party, an article he the violent overthrow of the Government, never
wrote wherein he affirmed that “he styled knowingly associated with Communists in the
himself as a ‘classical Marxist’ and a ‘socialist’”, State, but was a socialist believer in peaceful
and a lecture he delivered on March 22, 1954 for change…
a humanities course at the university.
 He refused to answer questions regarding: 1) a
 Petitioner answered most of the questions but lecture given by him at the University of New
declined to answer certain questions about his Hampshire, 2) activities of himself and others in
knowledge regarding the Progressive Party in his the Progressive political organizations, and 3)
1st appearance and about the lecture he “opinions and beliefs,” invoking the
delivered and his opinions or beliefs in his 2nd constitutional guarantees of free speech
appearance stating only that he hat never been a
member of the Communist Party. Because of his  SC stated that: For society’s good – if
continuous decline to answer he was cited in understanding be essential need of society—
contempt. inquiries and speculations into the natural
sciences, into anthropology, economics, law, etc.
must be left as unfettered as possible except for
ISSUE: W/N the investigation deprived Sweezy of due reasons that are exigent and obviously
process of law under the 14th Amendment compelling.  exclusion of governmental
intrusion into the intellectual life of a university.
HELD: Yes.
 Cites a quote from the Open Universities in
 It is recognized that the right to lecture or South Africa:
associate are civil liberties guaranteed by the “In a university knowledge is its own end, not
Constitution but they are not absolute rights. merely a means to an end… A university is
o In this case, it is believed that there was characterized by the spirit of free inquiry, it ideal
an unquestionable invasion of the being the ideal of Socrates – ‘to follow the
petitioner’s liberties in the areas of argument where it leads.’ This implies the right
academic freedom and political to examine, question, modify or reject traditional
expression – areas in which the ideas and beliefs… Freedom to reason and
government should be extremely reticent freedom for disputation on the basis of
to tread. observation and experiment are the necessary
conditions for the advancement of scientific
 To impose any strait jacket knowledge… It is the business of a university to
upon the intellectual leaders in provide that atmosphere which is most
our colleges and universities conducive to speculation, experiment and
would imperil the future of our creation. It is an atmosphere in which prevail
Nation. ‘the four essential freedoms’ of a university –
to determine for itself on academic grounds
 In this case, the record does no reveal what who may teach, what may be taught, how it
reasonable or reliable information led the shall be taught, and who may be admitted to
Attorney General to question petitioner (no study.”
showing of probable cause) therefore, if the
interrogation of the Attorney General was in fact  The inviolability of privacy belonging to a
entirely unrelated to the object of the legislature citizen’s political loyalties has so overwhelming
in authorizing such inquiry, the Due Process an importance to the well-being of our kind
Clause would preclude the endangering of of society that it cannot be constitutionally
constitutional liberties and can be treated as an encroached upon on the basis of so meager a
absence of authority to conduct the inquiry. countervailing interest of the State as may be
Because of this there can be no showing of a argumentatively found in the remote, shadowy
sufficient state interest to infringe the threat to the security of New Hampshire
constitutional rights of the petitioner. allegedly presented in the origins and
contributing elements of the Progressive Party
Concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter: and the petitioner’s relations to these.

consti 2 all stars 10
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

Issues: WON the Faculty Admissions Committee had
authority and discretion in allowing Pet. to continue
studying or not?
Held: Yes. Being a particular educational institution
(seminary). Petition dismissed for lack of merit
Epicharis (wat a name) Garcia vs. The Faculty
Admission Committee represented by Fr. Lambino Ratio:
1. Pet. cannot compel the res by mandamus to admit
1. That in summer, 1975, Respondent admitted her into further studies since the respondent had no
Petitioner for studies leading to an M.A. in Theology; clear duty to admit the pet.
2. That on May 30, 1975, when Petitioner wanted to -That respondent Fr. Antonio B. Lambino, S.J.,
enroll for the same course for the first semester, 1975- and/or the Loyola School of Theology thru its
76, Respondent told her about the letter he had written Faculty Admission Committee, necessarily has
her, informing her of the faculty's decision to bar her discretion as to whether to admit and/or to
from re-admission in their school; continue admitting in the said school any
reason in the letter: Pet.’s frequent questions particular student, considering not only academic
and difficulties had the effect of slowing down or intellectual standards but also other
the progress of the class although she ahd the considerations such as personality traits and
requisite intellectual capability character orientation in relation with other
3. That the reasons stated in said letter, dated May 19, students as well as considering the nature of
1975 ... do not constitute valid legal ground for Loyola School of Theology as a seminary.
expulsion, for they neither present any violation of any of
the school's regulation, nor are they indicative of gross
4. That from June 25, 1975, Petitioner spent much time - technical aspect of admissions:
and effort in said school for the purpose of arriving at a
compromise that would not duly inconvenience the the Chairman of the Faculty Admission
professors and still allow her to enjoy the benefits of the Committee of the Loyola School of Theology, which
kind of instruction that the school has to offer, but all in is a religious seminary situated in Loyola Heights,
vain; she was in fact told by Fr. Pedro Sevilla, the Quezon Cityis in in collaboration with the Ateneo
school's Director, that the compromises she was offering de Manila University, the Loyola School of
were unacceptable, their decision was final, and that it Theology allows some lay students to attend its
were better for her to seek for admission at the UST classes and/or take courses in said Loyola School
Graduate School; of Theology but the degree, if any, to be obtained
5. Petitioner then subsequently made inquiries in said from such courses is granted by the Ateneo de
school, as to the possibilities for her pursuing her Manila University and not by the Loyola School of
graduate studies for an for M.A. in Theology, and she Theology; For the reason above given, lay students
was informed that she could enroll at the UST admitted to the Loyola School of Theology to take
Ecclesiastical Faculties, but that she would have to fulfill up courses for credit therein have to be officially
their requirements for Baccalaureate in Philosophy in admitted by the Assistant Dean of the Graduate
order to have her degree later in Theology — which School of the Ateneo de Manila University in order
would entail about four to five years more of studies — for them to be considered as admitted to a degree
whereas in the Loyola School of Studies to which she is program
being unlawfully refused readmission, it would entail
only about two years more; Petitioner in the summer of 1975 was
6. Considering that time was of the essence in her case, admitted by respondent to take some courses for
and not wanting to be deprived of an opportunity for credit but said admission was not an admission to
gaining knowledge necessary for her life's work, enrolled a degree program because only the Assistant Dean
as a special student at said UST Ecclesiastical Faculties, of the Ateneo de Manila Graduate School can
even if she would not thereby be credited with any make such admission; That in the case of
academic units for the subject she would take; petitioner, no acceptance by the Assistant Dean of
7. That Petitioner could have recourse neither to the the Ateneo de Manila Graduate School was given,
President of her school, Fr. Jose Cruz, he being with the so that she was not accepted to a degree program
First Couple's entourage now in Red China, nor with the but was merely allowed to take some courses for
Secretary of Education, since this is his busiest time of credit during the summer of 1975;
the year, and June 11, 1975 is the last day for
registration; ... "
Being admitted to the school is a privilege and
8. She prayed for a writ of mandamus for the purpose of
not a right.
allowing her to enroll in the current semester

-There are standards that must be met. There are
policies to be pursued. Discretion appears to be of
the essence. In terms of Hohfeld's terminology,
consti 2 all stars 11
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

what a student in the position of petitioner discussions of the problems of freedom, that the
possesses is a privilege rather than a right. She collective liberty of an organization is by no means the
cannot therefore satisfy the prime and same thing as the freedom of the individual members
indispensable requisite of a mandamus within it; in fact, the two kinds of freedom are not even
proceeding. Such being the case, there is no duty necessarily connected. In considering the problems of
imposed on the Loyola School of Theology. In a academic freedom one must distinguish, therefore,
rather comprehensive memorandum of petitioner, between the autonomy of the university, as a corporate
who unfortunately did not have counsel, an body, and the freedom of the individual university
attempt was made to dispute the contention of teacher." (2 types)
respondent. There was a labored effort to sustain
her stand, but it was not sufficiently persuasive. It - "the four essential freedoms" of a university —
is understandable why. It was the skill of a lay to determine for itself on academic grounds who may
person rather than a practitioner that was evident. teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and
While she pressed her points with vigor, she was who may be admitted to study.
unable to demonstrate the existence of the clear
legal right that must exist to justify the grant of
this writ. 4. The decision is not to be construed as in any way
reflecting on the scholastic standing of petitioner. There
was on the part of respondent due acknowledgment of
2. the recognition in the Constitution of institutions of her intelligence. Nonetheless, for reasons explained in
higher learning enjoying academic freedom. the letter of Father Lambino, it was deemed best,
considering the interest of the school as well as of the
-It is more often identified with the right of a other students and her own welfare, that she continue
faculty member to pursue his studies in his particular her graduate work elsewhere. There was nothing
specialty and thereafter to make known or publish the arbitrary in such appraisal of the circumstances deemed
result of his endeavors without fear that retribution relevant. It could be that on more mature reflection, even
would be visited on him in the event that his conclusions petitioner would realize that her transfer to some other
are found distasteful or objectionable to the powers that institution would redound to the benefit of all concerned.
be, whether in the political, economic, or academic At any rate, as indicated earlier, only the legal aspect of
establishments the controversy was touched upon in this decision.

- For the sociologist, Robert McIver it is "a right
claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as
investigator, to interpret his findings and to
communicate his conclusions without being subjected to ISABELO vs. PERPETUAL HELP
any interference, molestation, or penalization because
these conclusions are unacceptable to some constituted J. Vitug
authority within or beyond the institution
- philosopher Sidney Hook, this is his version:
"What is academic freedom? Briefly put, it is the freedom Petitioner Isabelo was a criminology student in Perpetual
of professionally qualified persons to inquire, discover, Help College of Rizal (PHCR). Being the PRO and acting
publish and teach the truth as they see it in the field of Secretary of the student council, he was asked to sign
their competence. It is subject to no control or authority Resolution No. 105, which would increase tuition
except the control or authority of the rational methods payments by 20%. He refused to sign and asked for a 2-
by which truths or conclusions are sought and week period to talk it over with his fellow officers. After
established in these disciplines they met on the matter, the council presented a 9-point
proposal. With an assurance that the request of the
3. Court further discusses “academic freedom” that its student council would be considered favorably, the
reference is to the "institutions of higher learning" as the petitioner finally signed Resolution No. 105. PHCR then
recipients of this boon. announced that its application to increase school fees
was approved by DECS. The student council then filed a
motion for consideration. DECS then put the
- Former President Vicente G. Sinco of the
implementation on hold pending talks on the matter.
University of the Philippines, in his Philippine Political
Law, is similarly of the view that it "definitely grants the
In the meantime the CMT commandant gave a list of
right of academic freedom to the university as an
students with CMT deficiencies, with petitioner Isabelo
institution as distinguished from the academic freedom
being on the list. As such, he was expelled and not
of a university professor."
allowed to enroll for the next semester on the following
- Dr. Marcel Bouchard, Rector of the University
of Dijon, France, "It is a well-established fact, and yet * Non compliance of CMT requirement as per DECS
one which sometimes tends to be obscured in Order No. 9, S. 1990 and DECS Memorandum No. 80, S.

consti 2 all stars 12
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

1991 and PHCR Internal Memo. No. 891-007; Case remanded to DECS for further proceedings.

* No NCEE during the admission in the BS Criminology
* Official Admission Credential not yet submitted;
(Ponente: Medialdea, 1991)
* Void declaration of CMT subjects (MS 11, 12, 21 and
22) which are docketed in the registration card.
Not being allowed into the school premises, Isabelo sent
a letter to DECS. Director Rosas of DECS then issued Respondent-students as then applicants to the
Order No. 9 which stated: University of the Philippines College of Medicine (UPCM)
obtained scores higher than 70 percentile in the NMAT
. . . concerning the dropping from the rolls without due which was the cutoff score prescribed for academic year
process of the students petitioners . . . , Manuelito 1986-1987 by the UPCM Faculty in its meeting of
Isabelo, Jr., . . ., please be advised that pending January 17, 1986 as approved by the University Council
resolution thereof, the propriety of allowing the students (UC) on April 8, 1986.
to continue attending their classes to protect their
interest as well as that of the school, is hereby enjoined. However, their scores were lower than the 90 percentile
cut-off score prescribed by the UPCM Faculty in its
In this connection, it is hereby directed that the above- meeting of October 8, 1986 effective for academic year
named students be re-admitted to classes and be 1987-88. Upon appeal of some concerned Pre-Med
allowed to take all examinations that they have missed students, the BOR in its 996th resolution reverted to the
pending final resolution of this case/issue. NMAT cut-off score of 70 percentile.

PHCR did not comply with the directive.
The Dean of the UPCM and the Faculty did not heed the
BOR directive for them to admit the students. This
Petitioner claims that the reason why he was not being
prompted the students to file a petition for mandamus
admitted was due to his being against the increase on
with the RTC. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary
tuition payments. Respondent school invokes academic
injunction for their admission.
freedom in the expulsion of Isabelo.

ISSUE: After the RTC issued the writ of preliminary injunction,
the BOR in its 1001st meeting resolved that "the act of
WON Isabelo’s expulsion was within the school’s fixing cut-off scores in any entrance examination
academic freedom. required in any college of the University is within the
authority of the College Faculty. Any question regarding
HELD: the exercise of such act should be elevated and resolved
NO finally by the University Council of the autonomous
In the interim, the RTC's order was questioned before
Here the court sites Garcia v. Faculty Admission the SC by the UPCM Committee on Admissions, which
Committee, which upheld the rule that admission to an was dismissed. Hence, the students were admitted to the
institution of higher learning is discretionary upon the UPCM and passed three years in the college.
school and that such an admission is a mere privilege,
rather than a right, on the part of the student. Like any
Before the onset of school year 1990-91, the students,
other right, however, academic freedom has never been
upon advice of the U.P. President and burdened with
meant to be an unabridged license. It is a privilege that
"three agonizing years of uncertain relationship in the
assumes a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly.
College" as well as the BOR's 1001st resolution, wrote a
letter to the UPCM Faculty where they manifested that
With regards to contracts, the court said that the
they never intended to question the Faculty's right to
contract between student and school is not one that is
academic freedom; that they believed the issue was
only on a semestral basis, but the student has a right to
simply on the question of observance of the proper
be enrolled for the entire period in order to complete his
procedure in implementing admission requirements; that
they felt they no longer have any moral right to pursue
the court action; that they would leave to the Faculty the
Finally the court says that the punishment of expulsion
determination of humanitarian consideration of their
appears to us rather disproportionate to his having had
case; that they apologized for offending the Faculty and
some deficiencies in his CMT course. There is, however,
that they would like to appeal for a chance to remain in
an administrative determination to be made whether
the college.”
petitioner does indeed deserve to be a senior in PHCR.

consti 2 all stars 13
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

The students filed with the RTC a motion to dismiss and 5. The UC has the final say in admission
attached was the letter to the UPCM Faculty. The RTC requirements provided the same conforms with
dismissed their case with prejudice. In view of this law, rules and regulations of the university. In
development, the UPCM Faculty held an emergency the event the power is abused or misused, it
meeting where it denied the appeal of the students by a becomes the duty of the BOR, being the highest
vote of 86 on the ground that they were not qualified for governing body in the university, to step in and
admission to the UPCM. The students filed with the RTC to correct the anomaly.
a motion to reconsider its order of dismissal. The RTC 6. The questioned order of the Board of Regents in
issued an order for the admission of the students to the upholding the admission requirement approved
college. by the University Council in 1986 is supportive
of right of the University Council to fix or
The BOR in its 1031st meeting resolved to approve the approve admission requirements, against the
admission of the students in the interest of justice and UPCM faculty and Dean who changed the
equity and to order the petitioners to admit them. admission requirements approved by the
University Council without following the
prescribed rules and procedures of the
The petitioners questioned the said BOR order with the University.
CA. The Dean and Secretary of the UPCM refused to
follow the BOR directive. Consequently, the UP President 7. We are, likewise, unconvinced by petitioners'
issued a formal charge of Grave Misconduct against arguments that the BOR's 1031st is contrary to
them and later, issued an Order for their Preventive justice and equity because the students
Suspension. The CA dismissed the petition of the themselves judicially confessed that they have
petitioners. The petitioners brought the issue before the no right to admission. In their letter to the
SC. Faculty, The student's aforesaid feeling does not
amount to a categorical admission of the
absence of a legal right. Considering such
ISSUE: antagonistic conditions, We can empathize with
the students' mental anxiety and emotional
WoN the BOR violated the academic freedom of the strain in their three years in college in the
petitioners. – company of some professors who looked down
on them as academic pretenders. Furthermore,
NO. The BOR could validly direct the petitioners to admit the students were pressed for time as they have
the students to the college of medicine. only one more year before graduation. These
circumstances combined with the advice of the
U.P. President unduly influenced the students to
RATIO: write this reconciling letter.

1. The powers vested in the BOR and the UC by the
UP Charter (Act No. 1870) are clear: to the BOR
belongs the governance and the general powers
of administration of the university and to the UC U.P. vs. COURT of APPEALS
the power to fix the admission requirements to
any college in the university. The University
Code grants to the College Faculty the power to Ponente: J. Romero
determine the entrance requirements of the
college subject to the approval of the autonomous FACTS:
2. Any entrance requirement that may be imposed Petitioner UP questions, in this petition for review on
by the College Faculty must bear the UC's certiorari the Order of the lower court denying the motion
approval. Otherwise, the same becomes to dismiss the complaint for damages filed against two of
unenforceable. its professors for alleged derogatory statement uttered
3. At the time the students took the NMAT, the new concerning the Tasadays, the cave-dwelling inhabitants
UPCM Faculty prescribed NMAT cut-off score of of the rain forest of Mindanao.
90 percentile was without the UC'S and
University President’s approval. August 15-17, 1986: The "International Conference on
4. Under the UP Charter, the power to fix the Tasaday Controversy and Other Urgent
admission requirements is vested in the Anthropological Issues" was held at the Philippine
University Council of the autonomous campus Social Science Center in Diliman, Quezon City. Jerome
which is composed of the President of the Bailen, Professor of the University of the Philippines (UP)
University of the Philippines and of all Dept of Anthropology was the designated conference
instructors holding the rank of professor, chairman. He presented therein the "Tasaday Folio," a
associate professor or assistant professor collection of studies on Tasadays done by leading
(Section 9, Act 1870). anthropologists who disputed the authenticity of the
Tasaday find and suggested that the "discovery" in 1971

consti 2 all stars 14
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

by a team led by former Presidential Assistant on 1. WON res judicata applies as regards the denial of the
National Minorities (PANAMIN) Minister Manuel Elizalde, UP profs’ petition for certiorari  NO
Jr. was nothing more than a fabrication made possible
by inducing Manobo and T'boli tribesmen to pose as 2. WON the UP professors are covered by the protective
primitive, G-stringed, leaf-clad cave dwellers. mantle of Academic Freedom  YES, but UP should
have defended its profs in the course of the trial
In the same conference, UP history professor, Zeus case, instead of trying to terminate the proceedings
Salazar, traced in a publication the actual genealogy of prematurely
the Tasadays to T'boli and Manobo ethnic groups. He Hence, the CA’s denial of the profs’ motion to
likewise presented ABC's "20/20" videotaped television dismiss is AFFIRMED and the case is remanded.
documentary showing interviews with natives claiming to
have been asked by Elizalde to pose as Tasadays. RATIO:
1. Super daming procedural crap… nakakahilo.
Almost a year later or in July 1988, UP allegedly sent While it is true that the instant petition and the previous
Salazar and Bailen to Zagreb, Yugoslavia to attend the case revolve around the issue of WON the lower court
12th Int’l Congress of Anthropological and correctly denied the motion to of the UP profs, there is
Ethnological Sciences. There, Salazar and Bailen an aspect of the case which takes it out of the ambit of
reiterated their claim that the Tasaday find was a hoax. the principle of res judicata (final judgment by a court of
Their allegations were widely publicized in several competent jurisdiction is conclusive upon the parties in
dailies. any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of
action). The said principle applies when there is, among
In their complaint, plaintiffs allege the ff causes of others, identity of parties and subject matter in two
action: cases. Concededly, the fact that UP is the petitioner here
1. defendants' conduct and statements that the while Salazar and Bailen were the petitioners in the
Tasadays were nonexistent or frauds deprived them previous case is not a hindrance to the application of res
of their peace of mind and defiled the Tasadays' judicata because the situation is akin to the adding of
“dignity and personality” other parties to a case which had been finally resolved in
2. defendants' contention that Elizalde caused the a previous one. UP was not an original party-defendant
Tasadays to pose and pretend was defamatory and in the original suit, but it intervened and made common
pictured the plaintiffs as dishonest and publicity- cause with Bailen and Salazar in alleging that the case
seeking persons, thereby besmirching their should be dismissed in order to hold inviolate academic
reputation and causing them serious anxiety freedom, both individual and institutional. There is,
3. defendants' "concerted efforts to publicly deny therefore, a resultant substantial identity of parties, as
plaintiff Tasadays' personality and their existence as both UP, on the one hand, and Bailen and Salazar, on
a distinct ethnic community within the forest area the other hand, represent the same interests in the two
reserved under the Proclamation (No. 995) unjustly petitions.
becloud or tend to becloud their rights thereunder
4. defendants' "deliberate and continuing campaign to However, the requisite of identity of subject matter in the
vex and annoy" the Tasadays and the use of "false two petitions is wanting. Private respondents identify the
and perjured 'evidence' to debase and malign" them, subject matter as "the trial judge's refusal . . . to dismiss
caused them to incur attorney's fees and expenses of the complaint against Bailen and Salazar. It should be
litigation. noted, however, that two motions to dismiss the same
The plaintiffs invoked Art. 26 of the Civil Code and complaint were filed in this case and they were
pegged their claims for moral and nominal damages at separately resolved. The first was the one filed by Bailen
the "amount equivalent to defendants' combined salaries and Salazar. The second motion to dismiss was filed by
for two (2) months, estimated at P32,000.00." UP but on February 15, 1989, the lower court struck it
off the record. Thus, to hold that res judicata applies to
Procedural crap: herein facts would be stretching to its limits the
Plaintiffs (defendants herein) filed a complaint for requirement of identity of subject matter.
damages and declaratory relief against the UP professors
stating the above causes of action. UP filed a motion to 2. Academic Freedom
intervene, stating that the UP profs were under their UP has no cause of action because there are insufficient
supervision. Salazar and Bailen filed a motion to allegations in its new complaint. It cannot invoke the
dismiss, which was denied. With the MFR denied in the same allegations in its original complaint because that
lower court, they filed a petition for certiorari for gadalej, has been previously struck off the record by the lower
which was dismissed by the SC. Meanwhile, UP filed a court. On its face, herein complaint, however, does not
motion to dismiss in the lower court, but it was struck allege any right or interest of the petitioner that is
off the record. In the CA, everything else was denied, affected by the complaint simply because it was not an
because petitioners’ allegations were not stated in the original defendant. As correctly observed by the lower
complaint. Hence, this instant petition. court, the complaint does not even show that petitioner
authorized Bailen and Salazar to conduct a study on the
ISSUE  HELD: Tasaday. Neither does it even appear that the trip to
Zagreb, Yugoslavia of Bailen and Salazar was sanctioned
or sponsored by the petitioner. Hence, by filing the
consti 2 all stars 15
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

motion to dismiss the complaint against Salazar and FACTS:
Bailen or by alleging defenses in its answer which Roberto Rey C. San Diego is a graduate of the
amounted to invoking lack of cause of action as a University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of
ground for dismissal, the petitioner confined itself to the Science in Zoology. He took the NMAT THREE times and
allegations of the complaint. flunked all of them [Court found that he actually failed
FOUR times – a ‘misplaced persistence’ like a ‘hopeless
On the other hand, a cause of action against Bailen and love’]. When he applied for the FIFTH time, the DECS
Salazar can be made out from the complaint: their acts and the Director of Center for Educational Measurement
and utterances allegedly besmirched the reputation of rejected his application on the basis of the ‘three-flunk
the plaintiffs as they were shown therein to have staged rule’:
a fraud.
MECS [Minister of Education, Culture and Sports] Order
This is not to say, however, that UP's intervention was No. 12, Series of 1972:
improper. Coming to the defense of its faculty members,
it had to prove that the alleged damaging acts and
utterances of Bailen and Salazar were circumscribed by ‘A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take
the constitutionally-protected principle of academic the NMAT. After three (3) consecutive failures, a student
freedom. However, it should have championed the shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth
cause of Bailen and Salazar in the course of the trial time.’
of the case. It erred in trying to abort the
proceedings at its inception through the device of San Diego went to the RTC to compel his
filing the motion to dismiss. This procedural lapse, admission to the test. Through a petition for mandamus,
notwithstanding, no irremediable injury has been he invoked his rights to academic freedom and quality
inflicted on the petitioner as, during the trial, it may still education. He also raised the issues of due process and
invoke and prove the special defense of institutional equal protection. By agreement of the parties, he was
academic freedom as defined in Tangonan v. Paño and in allowed to take the NMAT.
Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School
of Theology. RTC declared the Order invalid because it
deprived San Diego’s of his right to pursue a medical
Since Bailen and Salazar had defaulted and thereby education through an arbitrary exercise of police power.
forfeited their right to notice of subsequent proceedings
and to participate in the trial, petitioner's answer in
intervention shall be the gauge in determining whether ‘Angles’ of the Case :
issues have been joined. With respect to the prayer of
the complaint for "judgment declaring plaintiff Tasadays 1. MECS Order No. 12 creating the ‘three-flunk rule’
to be a distinct ethnic community within the territory is a valid exercise of police power.
defined under Presidential Proclamation No. 995" the - In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, which upheld the
lower court is cautioned that the same is akin to a constitutionality of the NMAR in limiting the admission
prayer for a judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship to medical schools to those that initially proved their
which may not be granted in a petition for declaratory competence and preparation for a medical school,
relief. Justice Florentino Feliciano raised the following point:

The issue of WON Bailen and Salazar infringed on - The test is the reasonable relation between the lawful
plaintiffs' civil and human rights when they maliciously method, which is prescribing the passing of the NMAR
and falsely spoke and intrigued to present plaintiffs as condition for admission to medical schools, and the
Tasaday as fakers and impostors collaborating in a hoax lawful subject – the securing of the health and safety of
or fraud upon the public with and under the supervision the general community.
of plaintiff Elizalde, is not within the province of the
court to make pronouncements on for these are matters
- The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its
beyond its expertise.
branches has long been recognized as a reasonable
method of protecting the health and safety of the public.

- The power to regulate and control the practice of
DECS vs. SAN DIEGO medicine includes also covers the admission to the
J. Cruz
- For MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, the lawful subject
The basic issue of the case is whether or not a person is the improvement of the professional and technical
who failed the National Medical Admission Test quality of the graduates of medical schools by upgrading
(NMAT) thrice, in violation of the ‘three-flunk rule’, is through selectivity in the process of admission like
entitled to take it again. limiting admission to those who passed the NMAT
(lawful method).

consti 2 all stars 16
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

- Furthermore, the use of admission tests is widely used
in the United States (Medical College Admission Test) TABLARIN vs. GUTIERREZ
and in other countries with more educational resources
than that of the Philippines.
J. Feliciano
- Ultimately, the measure contributes to the protection of
the public from the potentially deadly effects of FACTS:
incompetence and ignorance that could infiltrate the
medical profession. Teresita Tablarin and other students, in their
behalf and in behalf of other applicants for admission
- Test for the valid exercise police power involves the into the Medical Colleges who have not taken or taken
concurrence between: but failed the NMAT during 1987-88 and for the future
years to come, wants to be admitted into schools of
a. the interest of the of public generally, as medicine for the school year 1987-1988. However,
distinguished from those of a particular class, Tablarin and company either did not take or failed the
require the interference of the State; NMAT which is required by the Board of Medical
b. the means employed are reasonably necessary to Education (Board) and conducted by the Center for
the attainment of the object sought to be Educational Measurement (CEM).
accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals. The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical
Education and the CEM from:
2. Right to quality education is not absolute
- While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, a. enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No.
he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor… A 2382, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 4224 and
person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a 5946, known as the ‘Medical Act of 1959’ provides
menace to his patients. If one who want to be a lawyer that one of its objectives the standardization and
may prove better a plumber, he should be so advised regulation of the medical education. It created the
and advised. Board of Medical Education composed by
representatives from education government
- San Diego must yield to the rule and the fact that institutions, private medical specialty societies,
there are other people who are more prepared than him, association of medical schools and dean of the UP
considering the crowded medical schools that we have College of Medicine. The one of the administrative
today. functions of the Board is to prescribe requirements
for admission with necessary rules and regulations
for proper implementation.
The Medical Act of 1959 provides that one of the
minimum requirements is certificate of eligibility
3. The order does not violate the equal protection given by the Board.
- A law does not have to operate with equal force on all b. requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a
persons or things. There are substantial distinctions condition for securing certificates of eligibility for
between medical students and other students who are admission. MECS Order No. 52, s. of 1985
not required to take the NMAT and not subjected to the provided a uniform admission test called the NMAT
three-flunk rule. The medical profession have a delicate as an additional requirement for the issuance of
responsibility towards society that warrants a different the certificate of eligibility.
treatment towards them. c. proceeding with accepting applications for taking the
NMA, and
d. administering the NMAT.

Holding: The three-flunk rule is a valid exercise of police
power. Court said that San Diego’s intellectual capacity The petition was denied by the RTC and the
is not ‘depreciated’, rather, he may be meant for another NMAT was conducted and administered. It was noted
calling. The rule is intended to avoid a nation of misfits that the petitioners were not able to present a case of
– square pegs trying to fit into round holds. unconstitutionality strong enough to overcome the
presumption of constitutionality.
The decision of the RTC declaring MECS Order
No. 12 invalid is reversed. ‘Angles’ of the case:

1. Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382 , as
amended [Medical Act of 1959], and MECS Order No.

consti 2 all stars 17
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

52, s. of 1985 do not violate the provisions of the 4. The provisions questioned are part of the valid
1987 Constitution presented by the petitioners. exercise of the police power of the State.

- The petitioners cited ‘State Policies’ which include - Police power is the pervasive and non-waivable power
Article II, Section 11 on the dignity of every human of the sovereign to promote the important interests and
person and human rights, Article II, Section 13 on the needs – the general order of the general community.
vital role of the youth in nation building, Article II,
Section 17 on the priority to education. They also cited - The provisions pass the test for the valid exercise of
Article XIV, Section 1 giving emphasis to the phrase police power: concurrence test between lawful subject
‘right of ALL citizens to quality education.’ Furthermore, and lawful method.
the NMAT requirement is challenged as a violation of the
‘fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements’ stated by Article XIV, Section 5 (3). 5. The flexible cut-off score that can be changed by
the Board after consultation with the Association of
Philippine Medical Colleges does not violate the
- Court said that the petitioners did not demonstrated equal protection clause.
how the measures provided by the Board collide with
these relatively specific State policies. In short, they
were not able to present a prima facie case with regards - The measure is not arbitrary or capricious. It is a
to the State Policies angle. flexible measure that takes into consideration changes of
different factors that would merit a commensurate
change in the cut-off score like: number of students who
- About the ‘right of all citizens to quality education’, this reached the cut-off score in the previous year, available
phrase should not be construed as compelling to State to slots, average scores, level of difficulty of the
make quality education available across the board. examination. Setting a permanent cut-off scores would
Quality education, will be shouldered by the State in so result to unreasonable rigidity.
far that the citizens were able to quality under ‘fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements.’ HOLDING:

2. Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382 , as Prescribing the NMAT and requiring to pass
amended [Medical Act of 1959], is not an undue successfully pass it as requirements for entering medical
delegation of legislative power. schools are not unconstitutional impositions.

- The general principle of non-delegation of powers Decision of the RTC DENYING the petition for a
(delegates non potest delegare or delegati potestas non writ of preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.
potest delegare – a delegated power may not be further
delegated by the person to whom such power is
delegated) flows from the fundamental rule of the
separation of and allocation of powers among the three
great departments of government. However, this rule was
made to adapt to the complexities of the modern NON vs. JUDGE DAMES
government referred to by Justice Laurel in
Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public FACTS:
Service Commission. This is known as the principle of
• Petitioner students of Mabini Colleges were not
subordinate legislation.
allowed to re-enroll because they participated in
student mass actions against their school the
- Standards for subordinate legislation may be preceding sem
expressed or implied. The body of the statute and the • On Feb 22, 1988, the date of the resumption of
goal to standardize and regulate the medical profession classes at Mabini College, petitioners continued
satisfy the necessary standards required. their rally picketing, even though without any
renewal permit, physically coercing students not
3. The NMAT is not an “unfair, unreasonable and to attend their classes, thereby disrupting the
inequitable requirement” which results in a denial of scheduled classes and depriving a great majority
due process. of students of their right to be present in their
- The petitioners did not specify what factors in the • Together with the abovementioned fact, the
NMAT support their claim. If they are questioning the lower court considered that in signing their
burden imposed by the NMAT, which would pertain to enrollment forms, they waived the privilege to be
the utility and wisdom of the NMAT, then these are re-enrolled. “The Mabini College reserves the
matters that should be addressed by the administrative right to deny admission of students xxx whose
and legislative bodies – not by the Court. activities unduly disrupts or interfere with the
efficient operation of the college xxx”

consti 2 all stars 18
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

• In addition the students signed pledges saying • The nature of contract between a school and its
they respect their alma matter, that they will students is not an ordinary contract but is imbued
conduct themselves in a manner that would not with public interest. The Consti allows the State
put the college in a bad light. supervisory and regulatory powers over all
• Judge Dames’ decision considering these facts educational institutions. [see art XIV sec1-2, 4(1)
said that what the students assert is a mere ]. According to par 107 and 137 of the
privileges not a legal right. Respondent Mabini respondent school’s manual, a student is
College is free to admit or not to admit the enrolled not just for one sem but for the entire
petitioners for re-enrollment in view of the period necessary for the student to complete
academic freedom enjoyed by the school. his/her course. BP blg 232 gives the students
the right to continue their course up to
ISSUE/HELD: graduation.

WON the doctrine laid down in Alcuaz insofar as it • Academic freedom not a ground for denying
allowed schools to bar the re-admission or re-enrollment students’ rights. In Villar, the right of an
of students on the ground of termination of contract institution of higher learning to set academic
should be reversed. The re-admission or re-enrollment of standards cannot be utilized to discriminate
students on the ground of termination of contract should against students who exercise their
be reversed. YES constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for
otherwise there will be a violation of their right
RATIO: to equal protection.
• In Alcuaz, it was said that enrollment is a • School said most of them had failing grades
written contract for one semester and contracts anyway. In answer students say they are
are respected as the law between the contracting graduating students and if there are any
parties. At the end of each sem, the contract is deficiencies these do not warrant non-
deemed terminated. readmission. Also there are more students with
• However, this case is not a simple case about a sores deficiencies who are re-admitted. And
some of the petitioners had no failing marks.
school refusing re-admission. The refusal to
readmit or to re-enroll petitioners was decided • The court held that the students were denied
upon and implemented by school authorities as due process in that there was no due
a reaction to student mass actions investigation. In fact it would appear from the
• This is a case that focuses on the right to speech pleadings that the decision to refuse them re-
enrollment because of failing grades was a mere
and assembly as exercised by students vis-à-vis
the right of school officials to discipline them.
• Discipline may be warranted but penalty shld be
• The student does not shed his constitutionally commensurate to the offense committed with
protected rights at the schoolgate. In protesting due process.
grievances disorder is more or less expected • But penalty, if any is deserved should not
because emotions run high. That the protection anymore be enforced. Moot and academic.
to the cognate rights of speech and assembly They’ve already suffered enough.
guaranteed by the Consti is similarly available to
students is well-settled in our jurisdiction. Right
to discipline cannot override constitutional
safeguards. Citing Malabanan and Villar the
court reiterated that the exercise of the freedom
of assembly could not be a basis for barring
students from enrolling. Under academic Justice Paras:
freedom, students my be barred from re-
enrollment based on academic deficiencies. FACTS:
• Students and some teachers of PSBA rallied and
• Permissible limitations on student exercise of
barricaded the school because they wanted to
constitutional rights within the school.
admin to hear their grievances with regards to
Constitutional freedom of free speech and
“not being able to participate in the policy-
assembly also not absolute. However, imposition
making of the school”, despite the regulations
of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of
set by the admin with regards to protest actions
procedural due process and penalty imposed
• During the regular enrollment period, petitioners
must be proportionate to the offense committed.
and other students similarly situated were allegedly
(procedural due process: right to be informed in
blacklisted and denied admission for the second
writing, right to ans the charges, right to be
semester of school year 1986-1987.
informed of the charges against them, right to
adduce evidence, and for this evidence to be • court ordered the school authorities to create a
duly considered) special investigating committee to conduct an
investigation, who made recommendations which
the school adopted

consti 2 all stars 19
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

• a lot of procedural crap, petitioners and respondents e.the evidence must be duly considered by the
filing and answering the complaints investigating committee or official designated by the
• petitioners claim that they have been deprived of due school authorities to hear and decide the case.
process when they were barred from re-enrollment
and for intervenors teachers whose services have 3. Printed Rules and Regulations of the PSBA-Q.C. were
been terminated as faculty members, on account of distributed at the beginning of each school
their participation in the demonstration or protest
charged by respondents as "anarchic" rallies, and a Enrollment in the PSBA is contractual in nature
violation of their constitutional rights of expression and upon admission to the School, the Student is
and assembly. deemed to have agreed to bind himself to all
• Petitioners allege that they have been deprived of rules/regulations promulgated by the Ministry of
procedural due process which requires that there be Education, Culture and Sports. Furthermore, he
due notice and hear hearing and of substantive due agrees that he may be required to withdraw from
process which requires that the person or body to the School at any time for reasons deemed
conduct the investigation be competent to act and sufficiently serious by the School Administration.
decide free from bias or prejudice.
Petitioners clearly violated the rules set out by the school
ISSUE: with regard to the protest actions. Necessary action was
taken by the school when the court issued a temporary
A. Whether or not there has been deprivation of mandatory injunction to accept the petitioners for the
due process ? first sem & the creation of an investigating body.
B. WON there was contempt of Court by the
respondents 4. The Court, to insure that full justice is done both to
the students and teachers on the one hand and the
HELD: school on the other, ordered an investigation to be
conducted by the school authorities, in the resolution of
A. NO. there was no deprivation of due process. November 12, 1986.

1. There is no existing contract between the two parties. Findings of the investigating committee:
Par 137 of Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
states that when a college student registers in a school, 1. students disrupted classes
it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire 2. petitioners involved were found to be
semester. Likewise, it is provided in the Manual, that the academically deficient & the teachers are found
"written contracts" required for college teachers are for to have committed various acts of misconduct.
'one semester. after the close of the first semester, the
PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with 5. The right of the school to refuse re-enrollment of
the students or with the intervening teachers. It is a students for academic delinquency and violation of
time-honored principle that contracts are respected as disciplinary regulations has always been recognized by
the law between the contracting parties The contract this Court Thus, the Court has ruled that the school's
having been terminated, there is no more contract to refusal is sanctioned by law. Sec. 107 of the Manual of
speak of. The school cannot be compelled to enter Regulations for Private Schools considers academic
into another contract with said students and delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations vs
teachers. "The courts, be they the original trial court or as valid grounds for refusing re-enrollment of students.
the appellate court, have no power to make contracts for The opposite view would do violence to the academic
the parties." freedom enjoyed by the school and enshrined under the
2. The Court has stressed, that due process in
disciplinary cases involving students does not entail Court ordinarily accords respect if not finality to factual
proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed findings of administrative tribunals, unless :
for actions and proceedings in courts of justice.
1. the factual findings are not supported by evidence;
Standards of procedural due process are: 2. where the findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or
a. the students must be informed in writing of the 3. where the procedure which led to the factual findings
nature and cause of any accusation against them; is irregular;
b. they shall have the right to answer the charges 4. when palpable errors are committed; or
against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired: 5. when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or
c. they shall be informed of the evidence against them; capriciousness is manifest.
d. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their
own behalf and

consti 2 all stars 20
consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom

investigation conducted was fair, open, exhaustive
and adequate.

.B. No. The urgent motion of petitioners and intervenors
to cite respondents in contempt of court is likewise

1. no defiance of authority by mere filing of MOR coz
respondent school explained that the intervenors were
actually reinstated as such faculty members after the
issuance of the temporary mandatory injunction.

2. respondent school has fully complied with its
duties under the temporary mandatory injunction
The school manifested that while the investigation was
going on, the intervenors-faculty members were teaching
and it was only after the investigation, that the
recommendations of the Committee were adopted by the
school and the latter moved for the dismissal of the case
for having become moot and academic

consti 2 all stars 21