Statement on the ProposedMagna Carta of Students

"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor. 3:17).

For the growth of the people of God and of society, education plays an absolutely vital and indispensable role.  This is why the Church is deeply and extensively involved in education.  And we are proud that Catholic schools are among the best in the country.

But today the future of our schools is at stake.  Their nature as private and Catholic and even their very existence are seriously threatened.

The source of this grave threat is the proposed Magna Carta of Students, House Bill No. 1378.

Let it be clear to all that we as Bishops on many occasions, especially during Martial Law, the darkest period of our recent history, have defended and promoted basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.  We still continue to do so.

Therefore, we are certainly for a Magna Carta of Students for we are for the authentic empowerment of youth, including students.  But we are unequivocally against the proposed Magna Carta in its present form.  We strongly oppose it by virtue of those same basic freedoms and rights that we have consistently defended.

Our reflection in faith affirms that the most fundamental freedom of the human person is a gift of the Spirit of the Lord.  We believe that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

But we hold that this proposed Magna Carta, instead of being infused with God's Spirit, stifles that same Spirit by its negation of basic rights and its dismissal of wisdom and common sense.  This is the fundamental reason for our opposition.

1. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it rejects the "natural and primary right of parents" to educate their children as guaranteed by our Constitution, Art. II, Section 121.   Parents entrust their children to school authorities and teachers, but the bill effectively negates this by practically allowing student governments to run the schools. 

2. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it undermines the religious nature of our schools.   For the bill allows any organization--including those that contradict the school's philosophy, mission, and objectives--to operate on campus. 

3. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it destroys the very nature of private schools.  The proposed bill treats private schools as though they were public schools and properties of the State.  It utterly disregards the basic philosophy, mission, goals, and objectives of Catholic private schools and makes the confiscatory move of assigning a seat in the governing boards to a student. 

4. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it disregards common sense principles of governance.  It practically hands over to the student government, already subject to the changing, even ideological, currents of student politics, control of the school by giving the students the power to veto through a referendum the decisions made by administration.  It likewise transfers from the school administration to the student government, a body again subject to the vagaries of student politics, the authority to approve and supervise student organizations. 

5. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it subverts simple and tried wisdom by undermining the financial stability of the school and the authority of the governing board.  The proposed bill establishes a school fee board where students

are represented, a board that becomes the highest body in the school on the matter of tuition fees, thus creating two parallel and independent "highest" bodies in the same school, namely the school governing board and the school fee board. 

6. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because it imposes on schools a false philosophy of education which promotes unwarranted freedom and right at the expense of human responsibility, of a morally guided search for truth, of the spirit of mutual cooperation, and finally at the expense of quality education itself. 

7. God's Spirit is not in this proposed Magna Carta because by laying aside the religious Catholic goals and objectives of our schools, the proposed bill thwarts the ultimate good of students themselves in the name of a false understanding of freedom and right.

For such reasons as the above, we vigorously oppose the Magna Carta of Students.

As Bishops we have been entrusted by the Lord to teach on matters that affect the living of Christian freedom and responsibility in accord with the Spirit of God.  We hereby teach and declare that the proposed bill is inimical to true freedom and responsibility.

We, therefore, urge legislators to listen to the voice of parents and teachers all over the country regarding this insidious bill.  They have submitted many proposals to our legislators to improve the bill and promote authentic empowerment of students.  Approving the bill in its present form would surely be catastrophic to the nature and very existence of all private schools, Catholic or otherwise, and to the good of students themselves.

Ultimately, by ignoring the rights of parents and of private schools, the proposed Magna Carta is contrary to the very aim of national development itself, the common good of all.

To our honorable legislators then we say:  Reject this proposed Magna Carta .  Legislate a better one, based on a true concept of freedom and right, in accord with the Spirit of God.  Where the Spirit is present, there, indeed, is true and responsible freedom.

For and in the name of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines:

+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.Archbishop of Lingayen-DagupanPresident, CBCP

27 January 1996

Isang Magna Carta para sa mga Mag-aaral ang ipinanunukala sa Mababang Kapulungan ng Kongreso, ngunit hindi umano tunay maipagtatanggol ng mga probisyon nito ang karapatan ng mga mag-aaral, ayon sa mga lider-estudyante.

Kasalukuyang dinidinig sa House committee on higher and technical education ang Magna Carta for Students na magkakahiwalay na inihain nina Representatives Edcel Lagman at Rufus Rodriguez, at Risa-Hontiveros-Baraquel ng Akbayan.

Ayon sa explanatory note ng panukalang-batas, isasabatas umano

ng Magna Carta ang pagkilala sa karapatan ng mga mag-aaral sa hayskul at kolehiyo sa pagbuo ng mga konseho, organisasyon, at pahayagan ng mga mag-aaral. Magtatakda rin ito ng mga pamantayan sa pagtataas ng matrikula.

Ngunit ani Airah Cadiogan, pangalawang tagapangulo ng University Student Council ng UP Diliman, "Sa halip na mas makatutulong sa pagsulong ng demokratikong karapatan ng mga estudyante, [mapanganib] na gamitin ng mga school administrator ang Magna Carta para gawing ligal ang campus repression at administration intervention."

Pamantayan sa pagtaas ng matrikula

Ayon sa panukala ni Hontiveros, dapat magkaroon ng pag-anunsiyo ng pagtataas ng matrikula isang taon bago ang pagpapatupad nito at konsultasyon sa mga mag-aaral at kanilang mga magulang. Itinatakda rin ng panukalang bigyan ng mga dokumento ukol sa pagtataas ng mga bayarin ang konseho ng mga mag-aaral upang makabuo ito ng posisyon ukol dito.

Ngunit ani Cadiogan, hindi pagkakaroon ng konsultasyon ang nararapat na gawing pamantayan bago magtaas ng matrikula kundi ang pagsang-ayon ng mayorya ng mga mag-aaral. Nakita umanong patuloy ang pagtaas ng mga matrikula sa kabila ng umiiral na memo ng Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) ukol sa konsultasyon, ani Cadiogan.

Ayon sa tala ng CHEd, tinatayang 10 porsiyento ng 1,800 pribadong paaralan at halos 10 porsiyento ng mga pampublikong pamantasan ang nagtaas ng matrikula sa bansa ngayong taon.

Malayang pamamahayag

Maaari naman umanong gamitin ng administrasyon ng mga paaralan ang probisyon ng panukalang Magna Carta ukol sa pamamahayag upang isailalim sa censorship ang mga pahayagang pang-mag-aaral, ani Vanessa Faye Bolibol, tagapangulo ng National Union of Students of the Philippines-National Capital

Region.

"Ethics in journalism shall be observed by the editorial staff. It shall be the responsibility of the editorial staff to ensure that the student paper is not used for purposes contrary to law," ayon sa panukalang Magna Carta.

Paliwanag ni Bolibol, hindi nakasaad sa panukala ang magtatakda ng etika sa pamamahayag, kaya maaaring panghimasukan ito ng administrasyon.

Hindi rin umano mapoporotektahan ng Magna Carta ang mga estudyanteng manunulat gaya ng kabiguan ng Campus Journalism Act (CJA) ng 1991 na may probisyong nagbibigay ng kalayaan sa editorial board ng pahayagan upang magtakda ng mga sariling palisiya, saad ni Gerg Anrol Cahiles, kasapi ng national secretariat ng College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP). Aniya, sa kabila ng CJA, tinatayang 300 kaso na ng pagbabanta ng expulsion at karahasan sa mga estudyanteng manunulat ang naitala ng CEGP hanggang sa kasalukuyan.

Dagdag ni Cahiles, dapat ding isama sa Magna Carta ang pagpaparusa sa mga tagapamahala ng paaralan na lumalabag sa karapatan sa malayang pamamahayag ng mga estudyanteng manunulat.

Pagkilala sa mga organisasyon

Pinuna rin ng mga lider-estudyante ang probisyon ng Magna Carta na magbibigay ng kapangyarihan sa office of student affairs (OSA) ng mga unibersidad na mamuno sa pag-apruba at pagbawi ng pagkilala sa mga organisasyon ng mga mag-aaral.

Ani Cadiogan, mas maigi umano kung ang konseho ang mag-aapruba ng mga organisasyon upang maging magaan at demokratiko ang proseso. Wala rin umanong karapatan ang mga OSA na magbawi ng pagkilala sa mga organisasyong hindi na aktibo dahil maaaring kulang lamang sila sa pondo o mga miyembro, aniya.

Nakasaad din sa panukalang Magna Carta na hahawakan ng administrasyon ng paaralan ang pondo ng konseho sa loob ng 15 araw matapos ang enrolment period. Ngunit ayon kay Bolibol, nararapat ibigay kaagad sa mga konseho ang pondo upang maiwasan ang pagpigil sa pagpapalabas ng pondo na naranasan kamakailan ng konseho ng La Consolacion College-Manila.

by Richard Jacob Dypublished in Philippine Collegian on Sept. 30, 2008

ONHOUSE 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

ONHOUSE 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

A magna carta for students?

                  Monday, May 11, 2009

By Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

Exchange RateClosing: May 8, 2009

US$=47.25Up 0.2 centavos

Closing: May 8, 2009

2241.98Up 3.06 points

A “magna carta” for students is in the works in the Lower House. Party-list Representative Ulan Sarmiento, a colleague at San Beda, furnished me with a copy of one version. I will not comment on that proposal here, but on the proposal of a “magna carta” in general. Drawn up by vassals chaffing from the caprice and arbitrariness of King John, the charter the whimsical monarch begrudgingly set his hand to has become paradigmatic for all “charters of liberty”. I have my misgivings about a magna carta for students. It is will certainly win for its proponents, sponsors and advocates students’ votes in the coming elections, but it does not augur well for formal education, if it is born of the same tradition of putting one’s foot down against one’s liege! It is dramatic—to be sure and it can ignite a torrent of polemic that will be fodder for the blighted media that we have allowed to thrive in this country, but the whole system of schooling may very well end up being the loser!

A magna carta is by history and often by intent a document of confrontation. It will empower students, to be sure, and it can hardly be doubted that students already have tremendous powers. The law governing state universities and colleges, for one, directs that a student sit as a member of the governing board. The Campus Journalism Act emancipates student publications on the tertiary level from any form of administrative control and supervision. Will a confrontational document be helpful to higher education? To empower the student by disempowering school authority— because that is many times how the mal-equation goes—is a promise politicians may make to students that holds no promise at all for the cause of education.

To provide, for example, that higher education institutions may not turn away students on the basis of ideology, gender (or sexual orientation), religion, ethnicity, etc. sounds not only politically correct but even noble. But what happens with the settled jurisprudential doctrine that academic freedom includes the freedom of the university, college or faculty to determine whom to teach? Should students be forced on an institution or on a college? The free exercise clause of the Constitution guarantees religious sects and denominations the right to activities pursuant to religion that do not run counter to law, and under the “benevolent neutrality” doctrine articulated by now Chief Justice Reynato Puno in the Escritor case, this certainly includes the right of a religious denomination to establish schools for religious purposes. Now then, if a higher education institution will no longer be at liberty to turn away students on the basis of religion, will that provision compel a sectarian college or university to admit a student who openly and unabashedly opposes the doctrines of that religion or sect? In more practical terms, will Catholic seminaries now be compelled to accept “seminaristresses”, or Muslim madrasas, to accept Catholic polemicists against Islam?

The Romans were thoughtful people when they chose disco—“I learn” (not “I disco”, which most of our students would really much prefer!) as the root of the word disciplina. Not only is there a relation between discipline and learning. No learning can take place without discipline. Students who do poorly in such demanding disciplines as law and medicine—and of course, serious (emphasized!) graduate school work—are those who have not developed the discipline of study. Discipline is one word that a magna carta for students will assiduously avoid and that, to me, is the problem with all such proposals: a suspicion that discipline is antithetical to student rights. Whenever a draft law is a set of rights against it is by logical necessity one-sided, and it is of such laws that we must, with good reason, be suspicious. Draft

magnae cartae in the past as well as those today read like a litany of what administration may not do and what a student, by contrast, is free to do. To constrict the latitude with which an institution may formulate rules of discipline is to presume that one can, through legislation, determine the optimal conditions for teaching and learning. As in most things, leave specialized concerns to specialists. Leave education to educators—and the farther away politicians keep their hands, the better for us all.

Why do we allow military institutions to institute that kind of discipline that goes by such obviously nonsensical rules as “obey first, question later” and be most unwilling to impose strictures in our higher education institutions? Is studying no less demanding than soldiering, and are the stakes of society and social life in the capacities of a student any lower than its stake in the skills of a soldier?

What a law on schools and students can helpfully do is to create the environment for meaningful exchange between administration and students so that the rules that are in place and the discipline that is exacted (as some disciplines should always be exacted) is accepted because both can advance reasons that either side recognizes as good reasons. I do not favor unreasonable school policies, and I do not accept the relativistic proposition that we cannot decide about what is unreasonable. To demand for example of each student that he or she own a car to be able to enroll is not only unreasonable; it is an attempt at that putrid elitism that goads the irate mob to lop off some heads. What the law can and should do is to provide the institutional framework for that exchange by which rules of discipline, institutional policies, methods of delivery, systems of evaluation and rating are argued for or against under circumstances that enable administrators and students alike to treat each other as unconstrained interlocutors. Once more however, the presupposition of this communicative exchange is the willingness of persons to be convinced by sound reasons.

When an institution, for example, proposes a rule against pre-marital sexual relations, let the school’s administrators be prepared with sound arguments against such liaisons and for the rule that prohibits them. On the assumption that the students are prepared to be persuaded by reason (which is an assumption that we tacitly make in most circumstances that we argue), let them demand further justification if they have lingering doubts and accept the rule when they are given unassailable reasons. Certainly, a magna carta that provides that schools may not draw up such prohibitions does not foster this kind of meaningful exchange.

I think that instead of starting a fresh round of hype and histrionic over a magna carta, it might be more worth our while to give ourselves to cordes magna and mentes magnae… great hearts and great minds!

The bill seeks to protect and promote the following rights and freedoms:

* Right against discrimination on the basis of several grounds. – Discrimination takes place when there is denial of admission, expulsion from an educational institution, punishment with disciplinary action, including mandatory counseling, or denial of welfare services, scholarships and other privileges based on grounds protected by the UN (sex, gender, ethnicity, disability, etc.)

* Right to competent instruction and relevant quality education. – Schools are compelled to allow students to evaluate the content of the curriculum and the performance of their teachers at the end of the semester.

* Right to organize. – The right to organize of students shall be protected and promoted:

1. the accreditation of orgs shall be administered by the school, but the guidelines shall be crafted by the students and students have representation in the accreditation committee;

2. Accreditation shall be granted upon the submission of a letter requesting for accreditation, constitution, list of activities, and list of officers;

3. Provision of physical space (a hall or building) for student organizations; and

4. Explicit of prohibition of acts that impair the right to organize, such as the signing of waiver, imposition of excessive membership fees and requirements for accreditation other than the ones provided by the bill. Note that as an amendment to the Anti-Hazing Law, the imposition of hazing is taken as a violation of the right to organize and preventive penalties are introduced in the bill.

* Right to establish a student council/government. –

1.

1. There shall be one student council/gov’t per school, campus, college, or university, with officers elected annually during popular elections;

2. The charter or constitution of the student council/gov’t shall be crafted and ratified without the interference of the achool administration;

3. an independent COMELEC to administer the student council/gov’t elections shall be created;

4. the student council/gov’t shall be financially independent, provided that student council fees should be approved by the student body and a financial report is published at the end of the term, and;

5. Student councils/gov’t shall not be barred from joining national student council alliances and similar inter-school organizations.

* Right to publish a student newspaper. – This is an amendment to the Campus Journalism Act of 1991 (RA 7079). 1) Student publications shall be free from the influence of the administration and faculty, be it through interference in terms of content, financial restrictions, or determining the composition of the editorial board.

* Right to adequate welfare services. – There shall be no denial of access to health services (physical exams), facilities (lab, library, etc.), counseling, and legal assistance in cases involving the exercise of the rights stipulated in the bill.

* Right to be represented in the highest policy-making body of the school, the board of regents or its equivalent in the case of private schools.

* Right to access to information, especially those that affect students’ rights and welfare. Schools are prohibited from denying students access to official records, documents that are relevant to their welfare and rights. The right of students to access their own academic records are protected.

* Right to freedom of expression. – This includes the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government and school authorities for the redress of their grievances. Access of students to media, including the publication or release of materials, is likewise guaranteed. Furthermore, schools are required to designate areas within school premises where students may hold their activities or organize protest rallies.

* Right to academic freedom. – this provision enumerates elements of academic freedom, from the right to choose one’s academic interests to the right to be free from ideological indoctrination.

* Right to due process. – The provision establishes an independent Student Disciplinary Tribunal comprised of representatives from the administration, student body, and faculty. The provision imposes minimum standards on due process: right against self-incrimination, access to evidence, right to confront witnesses, right to confidentiality, etc. Furthermore, the bill requires the SDT to resolve disciplinary cases with prompt (some schools use the process to delay the graduation of students).

* Right against illegal searches and right to privacy are also guaranteed under the bill.

On tuition and other school fees Regulations to tuition and school fees tend to be limited due to the deregulation of the education sector (thus, incentives like increasing tuition fees annually are given to private schools) . While there are certain reforms that may be pursued even under a

deregulated framework, AKBAYAN believes that a review and reversal of the framework has to be undertaken.

In our bill, we tackle the issue of tuition fee increases using the students’ rights and welfare lens. Essentially, what our bill establishes are minimum guidelines in the imposition of TFIs: 1) posting of notice of proposal to increase the tuition fee, 2) at least one public meeting between the school administration and students (including their parents) on the proposed increase, 3) All documents pertaining to the increase shall be made available to students, and 4) during the Board deliberations on the increase, students have the right to present their position. Education agencies and STRAW

The bill grants CHED, TESDA and Dep Ed the necessary powers to investigate and impose administrative sanctions on schools that violate the rights stipulated in the bill. They have the power to revoke the license of erring school, impose a fine not less than P200,000 but not more than P500,000, and recommend to the DOJ the prosecution of erring schools before a regular Court. Penalties

Violators shall be punished by a fine of not less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) but not more than One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos or by imprisonment for not less than one year but not more than five years, or both. If the violator is a juridical person, the penalties shall be imposed on its officers or on the person guilty of violating the law.

Refusal of public officials to act on complaints constitutes gross negligence and shall be punished appropriately, in accordance with civil service laws, rules and regulations. Students whose rights under this bill were violated may file civil case/s against the offender.

Learn more about Magna Carta of Students: www.nochain.wordpress.com