Dear PAO,
My nephew, a high school student who is enrolled in a private school, has been involved in several gang-related altercations within the campus. As a result, he was subjected to disciplinary action several times. The school principal informed his parents that he will no longer be allowed to enroll for the upcoming school year. Despite his parents’ assurance that he will undergo a series of interventions, including therapy and behavioral assessments, the school has maintained its decision and declined to accept his reenrollment. May the school prohibit the reenrollment of a student on the basis of prior misconduct? Thank you.
Igor
Dear Igor,
Before resolving your query, it is necessary to discuss the contractual relationship between the school and the student. In Jose Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University (GR 179337, April 30, 2008), the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, held that “[w]hen an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is a established contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school’s academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations.”
Moreover, in De La Salle University Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (GR 127980, Dec. 19, 2007), the High Court, through Associate Justice Ruben Reyes, held that “the Constitution guarantees all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. This institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public interest calls for some restraint. Academic freedom encompasses the independence of an academic institution to determine for itself (1) who may teach, (2) what may be taught, (3) how it shall teach and (4) who may be admitted to study.”
In the same De La Salle University case, the Supreme Court further underscored that the authority to discipline students is inherent in academic freedom, particularly under the prerogative of determining “what to teach,” as discipline is an indispensable component of education. While Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, or the Education Act of 1982, recognizes the right of students to pursue their chosen course up to graduation, such right is expressly subject to compliance with the academic and disciplinary standards prescribed by the institution.
Applying the foregoing jurisprudence to your case, the school’s refusal to allow your nephew’s readmission is generally within its legal rights, particularly when grounded on repeated violations of school rules and policies. While the parents’ willingness to have your nephew undergo therapy reflects an effort toward reformation, the school is not legally compelled to readmit him. Its decision to deny reenrollment, if based on valid grounds and made in accordance with due process, is a legitimate exercise of its academic freedom and contractual rights.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
