Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Academic Freedom the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr.

Grace De Leon, to sign Resolution No. 105 that


Manuelito Isabelo Jr., petitioner would implement, among other things, a 20%
v Perpetual Help College of Rizal and tuition fee increase for the school year 1991-
Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 1992. Manuelito refused to sign the resolution;
respondents instead he asked for a 2-week period to take
the matter up with fellow officers. In this
G.R. No. 103142 meeting, the student council presented to PHCR
November 8, 1993 a 9-point proposal. With an assurance that the
J. Vitug request of the student council would be
considered favorably, the petitioner finally
- - - - - - - - signed Resolution No. 105.

August 6, 1991, PHCR announced that its


Doctine: application for increase in tuition fees and other
Academic Freedom. Court cited Garcia v Loyola school charges for SY 1991-1992, then the
School of Technology, Reitereated in Tangonan student council filed a motion for
v Pano, where: admission to an institution of reconsideration with DECS.
higher learning is discretionary upon the school
and that such an admission is a mere privilege, 28 August 1991, addressed to the President of
rather than a right, on the part of the student. PHCR, advised that the "collection of the
increase (should) be held in abeyance pending
While the court ordinarily would not delve into the resolution of (the) matter.
the exercise of sound judgment, we will not,
however, hesitate to act when we perceive 04 September 1991, PHCR circulated a memo
taints of arbitrariness in the process. that the petitioner was dropped from its list of
students for his (1) non compliance of CMT
Like any other right, however, academic requirements, (2) no NCEE during his admission
freedom has never been meant to be an as Criminilogy student, (3) has not submitted
unabridged license. It is a privilege that assumes official admission credential and (4) void
a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly. An declaration of CMT subjects. The following
equally telling precept is a long recognized morning, he’s no longer allowed to enter the
mandate, so well expressed in Article 19 of the school premises.
Civil Code, that every "person must, in the
exercise of his rights and in the performance of October 15, 1991, DECS issued a statement to
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his PHCR allowing a list of students to continue
due, and observe honesty and good faith." attending their classes to protect their interest
and of the school, and be allowed to take
Facts: examinations pending final resolution of the
Manuelito Isabelo is enrolled at PHCR with a case. PHCR did not comply with the directive,
degree in Bachelor of Science in Criminology. hence this writ of Mandamus, questioning
PHCR’s act of voiding his enrollment.
August 1990, he was elected as the student
council PRO, until September 1991, he was the On June 23, 1992, the Court issued a
holdover PRO and acting Secretary. preliminary injunction ordering and directing
PHCR to readmit petitioner, which was
May 8, 1991, he was invited by the university prohibited by PHCR for motion for clarification s
officials. Prior to this meeting, he was asked by
they need factual assessment by the
administration of the school.

The petitioner claims that the real reason why


PHCR has voided his enrollment as a senior
graduating student had been because of his
active participation in opposing PHCR's
application for tuition fee increase with the
DECS.

The private respondent, on the other hand,


invokes "academic freedom" in dropping the
petitioner from its roll of students. It argues
that the petitioner has only been allowed to
enroll "conditionally" during the first semester
of school year 1991-92 pending the completion
of his remedial classes in CMT, in which he
failed.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner has enough rights
to be readmitted to PHCR and be granted a writ
of Mandamus.

Ruling:

Court would not dig into the grounds of


Academic Freedom, but would do otherwise if
the execution of such is based on unreasonable
autocracy. DECS on the other hand, did the right
thing to do to grant the petition, and in this
case, enlightenment was achieved as to why the
petitioner was expelled.

For a writ to issue, petitioners should have a


clear legal right to the thing demanded, and
there should be an imperative duty on the part
of respondents to perform the act sought to be
mandated.

WHEREFORE, this case is hereby REMANDED to


the department of Education, Culture, and
Sports for its expeditious determination on the
unresolved administrative issues raised in the
instant petition. No costs.