why are we against magna carta

8/8/2019 Why Are We Against Magna Carta

1/14

1

Position Paper: MAGNA CARTA FOR STUDENTS

Members:

Blancaflor, Lailani Anne

Capapas, Rachel Anne

Casipit, ,Phoebe

Dujali, Jeffrey

Gonzales, Jose Ma. Ronaldo

Joaquin, Marc Ryan

Lingao, Cherylette

Malvar, Michael Andrew

Martir, Nicole

Ramos, Cyrill Jason

Sydiongco, Jacqueline Carlotta

Ty, John Benedict

Submitted To: Dean Ulpiano Sarmiento III

Date of Submission: August 6, 2009


2/14

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... 2

SEC. 5. Admission and Non-Discrimination. (a) No student shall be (unduly)

denied admission, expelled (dismissed ) from an educational institution,

punished with disciplinary action, including mandatory counseling, or denied


3/14

3

(welfare services), scholarships and other privileges on the (sole) basis of

his/her physical handicap, socio-economic status, ethnicity, political or religious

beliefs, sexual orientation, identity, gender and membership in student

organizations nor shall pregnant students and certified reformed drug users be

discriminated against.

Failure of or refusal by a student to sign waiver documents prepared by the

school administration shall not constitute a ground for his/her non-admission.

A student shall have the right to freely choose his/her field of study subject to

existing curricula and to continue his/her course up to graduation except in case

of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations, which do not

infringe upon the exercise of students rights.

We are against the promulgation of the Magna Carta, specifically, section 5 herein, because of

the following reasons:

1. The Constitution expressly provides that: The State recognizes the complementary

roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise

reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.

The promulgation of section 5 would encroach on the right of educational

institutions to implement rules and regulations. In our country, it is a given fact that there

are more private educational institutions than those run by the government. As of

September 2008, the Commission on Higher Education lists the total number of HEIs

(Higher Education Institutions) in the country at 2,060. Out of this number, a dismal 537

are of the public sector, while a whopping 1,523 HEIs come from the private sector; 276

of these in NCR alone. It would be safe to assume that the same section 5 would not

only encroach on the authority vested in a school as an educational organization, but

also as a private institution as well. It would be more apt if rules and regulations with


4/14

4

regards to admission, non-discrimination, disciplinary sanction among others, would

come from the institution itself.

In the case of Guzman vs. National University, it was explicitly stated that:

Educational institutions of course have the power to adopt and enforce such

rules as may be deemed expedient for ** (its) government, *** (this being)

incident to the very object of incorporation, and indispensable to the successful

management of college.

The evident encroachment brought about by the Magna Carta intrudes upon the

vested rights of schools and institutions of higher learning that disallows them to function

at an optimal level. If this is allowed to happen, the intrusion made will deteriorate the

quality of education the institution can give, and may lead to the overall demise of the

student and society.

2. The Constitution also provides: Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of

higher learning. Academic freedom, as defined by Justice Frankfurter, is the ability of a

school 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. Loyola

School of Theology).

In the leading case of Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology, the petitioner

(Epicharis T. Garcia) sought to enter into a seminary despite the apprehension of the

latter. The Courts in this case held that:

That respondentthe Loyola School of Theology thru its Faculty Admission

Committee, necessarily has discretion as to whether to admit and/or to continue

admitting in the said school any particular student, considering not only academicor intellectual standards but also other considerations such as personality traits

and character orientation in relation with other students as well as considering

the nature of Loyola School of Theology as a seminary.


5/14

5

The Courts further held that:

"Petitioner cannot compel by mandamus, the respondent to admit her into further

studies in the Loyola School of Theology. For respondent has no clear dutyto so

admit the petitioner. The Loyola School of Theology is a seminary for the

priesthood. Petitioner is admittedly and obviously not studying for the priesthood,

she being a lay person and a woman. And even assuming ex gratia argumenti

that she is qualified to study for the priesthood, there is still no duty on the part of

respondent to admit her to said studies, since the school has clearly the

discretion to turn down even qualified applicants due to limitations of space,

facilities, professors and optimum classroom size and component

considerations There are standards that must be met. There are policies to be

pursued. Discretion appears to be of the essence "

The same section 5 of the Magna Carta, if passed, would deter schools,

colleges, universities and other similar institutions, of their academic freedom, especially

with regards to who may be admitted to study.

Academic freedom, as noted again in Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology:

It would follow then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right.

It decides for itself aims and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free

from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public

welfare calls for some restraint.

It would seem then, that academic freedom is a concept that lies exclusively with

learned institutions. It is easily understood that the institutions best interest is to promote

an environment conducive for learning, and in turn, produce individuals that would bestembody what the institution stands for. This being the case, it is essential that the ability

of institutions to scrutinize and check the applicability of admitting potential students not

be tampered with, since these same institutions know best.


6/14

6

3. A learned institution, such as a school, university, college and the like, has the need to

uphold certain standards. A schools standard, be it academic, standards in terms of

discipline and moral upbringing, gives light to the type of students they intend to develop.

They are, in essence the ultimate end the school wants to achieve. It is then essential

that the school be able to screen their prospective students who are compatible with the

program/curriculum of the school. The screening for such is not only for academic

standards, but also other external factors that may ultimately affect the image and

effectiveness not only of the curriculum, but also the whole institution.

Further, a student, by enrolling into an educational institution, can be inferred to

have waived certain personal rights. By entering into a certain institution of learning, a

student subjects himself to the rules, regulations and standards the school has

established. An act in defiance of these regulations, whether incidental or on purpose,

will be dealt by the school according to the same, as a way to safeguard not only their

own interests as a learning institution, but for the welfare of the school body (the

students) as well.

4. If Section 5 of the Magna Carta is allowed to take effect, it would have socio-economic

and educational repercussions. For one, the private educational institutions would

encounter the same problems experienced by our public school system; overpopulation,

a high student-to-teacher ratio, an inability to provide for the necessary facilities needed

for teaching. This would ultimately lead in diminishing the quality of education provided

by the institution and poor performance not only of the school, but also of the student.


7/14

7

SEC. 14. Representation in Policy-Making Process. There shall be a

student representative in the Governing Board of the school. The

chairman/president of the student council or any designated representative

chosen by the heads of various local college student councils shall be the

student representative and shall have the same rights as those of a regular

member: Provided, that his/her privileges shall be limited to reimbursements for

actual expenses incurred in attending meetings of the aforementioned body:

Provided, further, that the same rights shall be granted to the secondary level.

The students shall also be represented in other policymaking bodies which

directly affect their welfare, especially in curriculum drafting, review and revision,

student discipline, and academic standards. The representatives shall be

designated by the student council; and

Representatives of national student organizations shall actively participate and

possess voting powers in the formulation of national policies by governmental

agencies on matters affecting students rights and welfare including tuition.

The school community should not be compared to a political community wherein

students have to participate in policy-making because by freely opting for the school of their

choice, they submit themselves to a voluntary association. By entering a university or college,

one opens himself and accepts what the institution offers. A student already, by enrolling in a

university or college, freely gives his consent to be governed and controlled under the rules,

regulations and policies of that institution. As a consequence of this action, student

representation clearly becomes unnecessary. Freely giving consent to be governed and

controlled clearly spells the lack of necessity to be involved in the process of rule-making.

Although we recognize the rights of students to be informed and consulted about

administrative policies that will affect their rights, the duty to implement the same should only be

afforded to the higher wisdom of the administration and the educators themselves. Student

representation on policy-making undermines the authority of the rule-making body of the

institution. Educational institutions, according to the Corporation Code, most of them being non-

stock organizations, are only able to act through their board of trustees. The introduction of


8/14

8

students into the policy-making process would be detrimental, given the lack of experience or

responsibility, as well as the possibility that policies promulgated by the student/representative

would be self-serving, instead of being for the general welfare of the student body. Student

representation will consequently jeopardize and threaten the survival, development and

progress of the education institution. Inadequate representation is almost no representation.

The aim of students to have a voice in the rule-making process is thus diminished, even

extinguished. But this aim is not even shared by majority of the students.

This is embodied in the leading case of Hannah Eunice Serana vs. Sandiganbayan and

the People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008], where a senior student of the

University of the Philippine Cebu appointed by President Joseph Estrada as a student regent of

U.P. to serve a one-year term from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, was charged with

estafa. The petitioner was a high-ranking public officer, being the Student Regent of the

University of the Philippines, Diliman, while in performance of her official functions, fraudulently

represented to former President Joseph Estrada that the Fifteen Million Pesos request was for

the renovation of the Vincent Hall of U.P. She and her brother, Jade Ian Serana, encashed the

check amounting to Php 15,000,000 and misappropriated for their personal use and benefit.

Thus, the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize.

Are these the type of representatives we want to put in the schools board of trustees?

The power vested on student representatives has the tendency to be misused because of their

lack of understanding on the responsibilities that the position entails. There is nothing wrong in

creating rules to the advantage of students, but if students are given this capacity, they may well

institute policies which they find advantageous but are actually malevolent towards them and

the whole institution. The lack of experience and sense of responsibility in their part almost

always results into consequences particularly destructive not just to the students themselves but

the whole institution as well. Introducing new policies would become at an arms reach. It would

be easier for students to create policies to their advantage. But since conflicts of interests are

inevitable, what would be advantageous to students may not actually be equally beneficial to therest of the members of the educational institution.

The same section encroaches on the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its

aims, and objectives, and how best to attain them (University of San Agustin vs. CA). This is

supported by BP 232 (An Act Providing for the Establishment and Maintenance of an Integrated


9/14

9

System of Education), which provides, inter alia, that schools shall enjoy The right to

determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall

be subjects of the study and research.

It does not, however, disqualify the fact that the students need representation, as

embodied by their student council, as illustrated in RA 9500 (An Act to Strengthen the University

of the Philippines as the National University), Section 21(a) which states: The student council

shall serve as the primary student body that shall advance the interests, welfare, and

aspirations of the students of the national university. But the same student representation is

subservient to a greater power, in this case, the University Council and the Board of Regents.

There are already rules in place that ensure that the student body is able to redress their

ideas and grievances. An illustration of this is the enactment of RA 7079, or the Campus

Journalism Act of 1991, as well as Paragraph 7, Section 9 of BP 232, which states that students

shall enjoy the right to free expression of opinions and suggestions, and to effective channels

of communication with appropriate academic channels and administrative bodies of the school

or institution. Moreover, the strengthening of freedom of speech, which may be used as a

means of representation for students is illustrated through Section 21(b) of RA 9500 which

states that subject due to comprehensive consultation with the students, there shall be a

student publication established in every constituent unit and college.


10/14

10

SEC. 18. Freedom of Expression. - Subject to existing laws, students shall

have the right to freely express their views and opinions. They shall have the

right to peaceably assemble and petition the government and school authoritiesfor the redress of their grievances. Pursuant thereto, no school regulation shall

be imposed violating or abridging the students' right to assembly.

Students shall have access to print and broadcast media in their information

activities. They shall also have the right to print, circulate and/or mount leaflets,

newsletters, posters, wall news, petitions and such other materials. Pursuant

thereto, the school authorities shall ensure the provision of facilities such as

bulletin boards for the mounting of the aforementioned materials.

School authorities may designate a certain area on every campus as a freedom

park where students can freely discuss issues directly and indirectly affecting

them, express their grievances or organize activities.

Section 18 of the proposed Magna Carta provides the right of freedom of expression

which covers the freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition. As with other forms and

modes of liberty, completely unrestricted freedom of expression leads to encroachment on therights of others and becomes detrimental to the interest of the school. These restrictions are

necessary and inevitable. It is for these reasons that we oppose the said section.

Schools can therefore, in the exercise of its authority, impose certain regulations which

place restraints on freedom of expression. The academe sets and implements rules and

regulations consistent with its recognized mission and vision. As an educational institution,

these regulations are adopted to create an environment for instruction and learning with the end

goal of producing competent and productive citizens. It is in the best interest of the school to

uphold its good name and thwart anything that will tarnish its reputation.

Conversely, it is responsibility of the students to comply with these policies and be made

liable for violations thereof. In the Education Act of 1982 amended by Republic Act 7798

Chapter 3 Section 15 paragraphs 2 and 3 states that every student has the duty to abide by the


11/14

11

rules and regulations governing his academic responsibilities and moral integrity and promote

and maintain the peace and tranquility of the school by observing the rules and discipline XXX.

Public order is one strong interest of a community. In the case ofAreza v. Gregorio

Araneta University Foundation, students of said school held a rally in places around the

university not specified in the permit which caused the disturbance of classes. The Court ruled

that disciplinary action may be taken against students for conduct which materially disrupts

class work or involves substantial disorder or invokes the rights of others. The school therefore

can suppress student protests or rallies wherein the said student expression would clearly lead

to considerable disruption of the school environment. In view of this, schools, as a part of their

policy, would normally require students to secure a permit before they can hold any activity, in

this case, demonstrations. This is not an action to completely ban rallies in schools but to adopt

regulatory deterrents which will set the time, place and manner of these assemblies where the

exercise of such right to freedom of assembly may become excessive. This regulation is valid

provided that the interest of the school is in clear jeopardy and the restrictions used to defend

this interest are reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Similarly, more stringent rules have been employed in schools to allow free speech. In

the case ofMiriam College Foundation v. Court of Appeals where students published a short

story and poems in the school newspaper which the school considered obscene and sexually

explicit, the Court considered the action of the students as substantial disorder and emphasized

that rules and regulations are equally necessary for the protection of the students, faculty, and

property and that the school has an interest in teaching the student discipline, a necessary, if

not indispensable, value in any field of learning.

Schools therefore have the authority to ban or prevent newsletters, leaflets, brochures,

notices, announcements or similar printed materials from being posted and circulated when

such materials violate libel and obscenity laws. Schools can stop students from using lewd,

profane or offensive language. It is a given fact that exposing truth through journalism is noble in

character but to abjectly defame another person is entirely a different case. The school cannot

tolerate such actions for doing so will ultimately reflect on them as educators and will even

discourage future students of the school from enrolling.

It is also not favorable for the school to give the students a designated area as freedom

park for this would only encourage unlawful activity and those that cause injury to the welfare of

the school or the community. Furthermore, issues will only be further sensationalized instead of


12/14

12

arriving at a compromise. These issues should be properly addressed in the appropriate forum

which the school already provides such as in the Office of the Student Affairs.

Schools recognize the rights of students the same way it recognizes the rights of its

faculty and employees. The school emphasizes the saying that where one right ends, another

right begins. This means that the exercise of ones right always comes with responsibility. It is

not the intention of educational institutional institution to repress the exercise for to do so would

mean a curtailment of one of the hallmarks of a democracy. The school takes part in molding

and productive and socially-responsible citizens in training their students to practice their rights

with utmost diligence and in a responsible manner.


13/14

13

SEC. 22. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. - Every

student shall be free from any form of unreasonable search and seizure. Except

for the following instances, no search or seizure of a student shall be deemedvalid:

a. Searches made at the point of ingress and egress by authorized

personnel of the school;

b. Searches and seizures of illegal article or articles falling in the plain view

of duly authorized personnel;

c. Searches and seizures of articles that are illegal, discovered inadvertently

by duly authorized personnel;

d. Searches made when the student is about to commit, is committing or

had just committed a crime or a serious infraction of the school's rules

and regulations;

e. Searches made with a valid search warrant.

Articles seized in violation of the above-mentioned rights shall not be used as

evidence against the student in any disciplinary action that may be brought

against him/her.

Salus populi est suprema lex.

In any situation, general welfare must always be given paramount consideration.

Educational institutions, as private entities, have the responsibility to ensure the safety of every

student inside its premises. The role of educational institutions can be compared to the role of

the state under the doctrine ofParens Patriae. The school exercises special parental authority

over its students in the same way the state acts as guardians of the rights of the people.

However, Section 22 of the proposed Magna Carta places limitations in the fulfilment of

the school of its duty to actually protect its students, teachers and even school personnel. In

times of emergencies where the threat may be real and impending, the security measures

provided in Section 22 become inadequate and impractical deterrents to use. Considering

similar scenarios, unreasonable searches and seizures remain the only option left for schools to


14/14

14

fulfil its duty. Schools are justified in responding through such a process when an actionable

harm is posed upon the well-being and safety of its students.

Schools are generally afforded the right to formulate their own policies which they deem

would promote the best interest of the school. Upon the acceptance and admission in an

educational institution, an individual is required to behave accordingly and therefore allow

authority to search their private properties with the ends of ensuring the safety of every student.

In the case of Gott vs. Berea College, the Court ruled that a college or university may

prescribe requirements for admission and rules for the conduct of its students, and one who

enters as a student implicitly agrees to conform to such rules of government. Similarly, San

Beda College Mendiola in Article 2 of its Student Handbook (2004 edition), clearly maintains an

admission policy which accepts students who meet its academic standards and are willing to

abide by the rules and ideals of the College.

Furthermore, schools have the right to protect itself from violations of P.D. 1866

(amended by R.A. 8294) which involves illegal possession of firearms and R.A. 9165 or the

Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Such violations cause fear on the part of the students and bring

great peril to peoples lives. Schools can protect themselves by creating stricter security

measures in pursuant to the laws mentioned above that are mala prohibita.

why are we against magna carta

Documents