ON
HOUSE BILL NOS. 180,
4003 and 6174

entitled
"An Act Providing for a Magna Carta of Students"
(Introduced by Reps. Ranjit Ramos Shahani, Krisel Lagman-Luistro and Imee R. Marcos)

=========================

           House Bill No. 180 introduced by Congressman Krisel Lagman-Luistro, House Bill No. 4003 introduced by Congressman Ranjit Ramos Shahani and House Bill No. 6174 introduced by Congressman Imee R. Marcos all propose a "Magna Carta for Students."

          This Position Paper consolidates all the principal comments of the Commission on Human Rights for the three (3) bills.

          There is no question on the objectives of enacting a Magna Carta for Students to promote and protect the rights of the students.

          Article XIII (1) of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads that:

"They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." ( Italics Supplied )

           Likewise, Article XIV Section I of the Philippine Constitution reads that:

"The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such accessible to all." ( Italics Supplied )

          These three (3) bills now pending in Congress all reaffirm the State recognition, protection and enhancement of the citizen's right to quality education and the rights of the students to freely organize among themselves and to give their views on the policies of the schools.

          Examining closely, however, some provisions of the three (3) bills several issues need a reexamination. The major issue in the proposed bills is how to balance the right of the students to education as against the academic freedom enjoyed by the educational institutions. The controversial provisions of the three (3) bills are (1) the rights of students to be admitted to schools and to freely choose their field of study and to continue their courses up to graduation; (2) the rights of students to participate in formulating the school policy; (3) the rights of students to participate in the screening of the employment of faculty member; (4) the rights of students to participate in the formulation of the curriculum and the review or revision of said curriculum; and (5) the rights of students to participate in the disciplining or expulsion of the students.

          In all of these matters, the students are to be represented in the policy determining governing body of schools as a regular member with equal rights as the regular member.

          The Supreme Court had already ruled on most of these issues.

          Private schools have the right to establish rules and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of the students. This right extends as well as to parents are under social and moral if not legal obligation, individually and collectively to assist and cooperate with schools. (Yap Chin Fa vs. Court of Appeals; Supreme Court Resolution No. 90063, December 12, 1989, Ateneo de Manila University vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 100).

          The provisions in the bills on the rights of students to participate on the policy making on the admission of the students might run counter to rights of private schools on their right to establish rules and regulations for admission, discipline and promotion of students. Such rules are incident to the very object of incorporation and indispensable to the successful management of the school. The rule may include those governing student disciplines. The standard rules governing university students in relation to the students discipline maybe regarded as vital that may lead to smooth and efficient operation of the institution but to its very survival. (Ateneo de Manila University vs. Capulong; 222 SCRA 647 [1993]).

         The provisions in these three (3) bills providing that there shall be a student representative in the Governing Board of the school. The Chairperson/President of the Student Council or any designated representative and shall have the same rights as those of a regular member. The students shall also be represented in other policy-making bodies which includes curriculum review, student discipline and academic standards deserves some serious consideration. A provision in House Bill No. 180 that the students have the initiative by a referendum on the formulation or rejection of school's policy affecting the students might disrupt the smooth functioning of an educational institution.

          Academic freedom according to Justice Felix Frankfurter includes the determination on (1) who may teach; (2) what may be taught; (3) how it shall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study (Sweezy vs. New Hampshire, 3541 U.S. 234 [1957]).

 The Supreme Court in Garcia vs. the Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology (68 SCRA 277 [1975]) ruled that the internal conditions for academic freedom in university are that the academic staff should have de facto control on the following functions: (1) admission and examination of student; (2) curricula for course of study; (3) the appointment of tenure of the office and staff; and (4) the allocation of income among the different categories of expenditures.

          It would now be a poor prospect for academic freedom if the universities had to rely on the literal interpretation of their constitutions in order to acquire for their academic members, control of the four (4) functions which are laid on the shoulders of the government body. It is the business of the university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail the four essential freedoms of a university - to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. (Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School for Theology; 68 SCRA 277 [1975]).

          The Court further held that it is equally difficult to yield conformity to the approach taken that colleges and universities should be looked upon as public utilities devoid of any discretion as to whom to admit or reject. Education, especially higher education, belongs to a different and certainly higher, category.

          There are standards that must be met. The Court said that what students possess is a privilege rather than a right. (Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School for Theology; 68 SCRA 277 [1975]). The Court also said in Ateneo de Manila University vs. Capulong, (222 SCRA 647 [1993]), reiterating Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School for Theology; (68 SCRA 277 [1975]) that admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. While under Education Act of 1982, students have the right "to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation," such right is subject, as all rights are, to the established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic institutions. (See also Tangonan vs. Paño, 137 SCRA 245 [1985]]. Magtibay vs. Garcia; 120 SCRA 370 [1983]).

           The provisions in the proposed bills concerning the right to publish student newspapers and other similar publications are already covered by the Campus Journalism Act (Republic Act No. 7079).

           In its constitutional function of promoting and protecting human rights, the Commission on Human Rights also is concerned with appropriate balancing of the students' rights with the academic freedom enjoyed by schools. To give rights to students to participate in the formulation of the basic school policies will equate the running of colleges and universities as an ordinary business corporation or a public utility. Education, especially higher education, belongs to a different, and certainly higher category.

          Wherefore, the Commission on Human Rights respectfully manifests its reservations on some of the provisions of the three (3) bills which need further consideration.

          Quezon City , 18 February 2000

ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 2729

"An Act Providing For Mandatory Training On Human Rights For All Officials And Employees In The Executive, Legislative And Judicial Branches Of Government Including Government-Owned And/or Controlled Corporations And Local Government Units And For Other Purposes" (Introduced by Cong. Edgar R. Lara)

and

HOUSE BILL NO. 3055

"An Act Providing For Mandatory Training On Human Rights For All Officials And Employees In The Executive, Legislative And Judicial Branches Of Government And For Other Purposes"
(Introduced by Cong. Heherson T. Alvarez)

========================

"Public office is the right, authority or duty created by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of creating power, an individual is invested with some sovereign power of government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public" (Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 116418, March 7, 1995 )

Underscoring the values of public office, Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution begins with "Public office is a public trust." The provision goes on to state that "public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, shall serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and live modest lives."

          It is the position of the Commission that it is imperative to perpetuate in the minds and the hearts of all public servants, the nature of the mandate reposed in them by the people they have committed themselves to serve. Education along human rights values and principles is key to the creation of a breed of public servants who will not use their authority for their own ends, but will do so primarily because they are the servants of the people.

          With House Bill No. 2729 and H.B. No. 3055, workers in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government may hopefully understand, and appreciate human rights, especially in their position as persons who hold public trust. Abuse of authority and power is never a remote possibility. Ensuring, through legislation, that officers and employees of all government agencies are given at least a working knowledge of human rights, is a commendable initiative.

          It is quite depressing to note that local government officials and employees, together with the military, CPP/NPA, paramilitary and civilian, variably occupy the second and third ranks in the list of alleged human rights violators, with the police still ranking first, based on accumulated totals from 1988 to 1 st semester 1996 (CHR Summary of Statistical Information, 1988 to 1 st semester, 1996,).

          It is hoped that with the passage of H.B. No. 2729 and H.B. 3055, the continuing education of all civil servants on human rights will contribute to the efficient delivery of services, respect for the rights of others and the rule of law in our country, and deter the incidence of human rights violations as stated in the bills' respective Explanatory Notes. It is the Commission's long-term goal to create a human rights culture in the Philippine society. The effort to legislate and enforce human rights education among all civil servants will contribute greatly to the achievement of such goal.

          In view of the foregoing, the Commission on Human Rights strongly supports the early passage into law of both House Bill No. 2729 and H.B. No. 3055.

          Quezon City , 1 February 1999