Part XIII: ARTICLE XIV: Education Science and Arts

EDUCATION
Section 1. 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 education accessible to all.

Section 2. The State shall:

(1) Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant
to the needs of the people and society;
(2) Establish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels.
Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory
for all children of school age;
(3) Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and other
incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both public and private schools, especially to
the underprivileged;
(4) Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well as self-learning,
independent, and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond to community needs;
and
(5) Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training in civics, vocational
efficiency, and other skills.

Section 3. (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the
curricula.
(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights,
appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights
and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal
discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and
promote vocational efficiency.
(3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught
to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by
instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or
wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.

Section 4.(1) 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.
(2) Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall
be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino
equity participation in all educational institutions.
The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines.
No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens shall
comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. The provisions of this subsection shall
not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless
otherwise provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents.
(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly, and
exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or
cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner
provided by law.
Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled to
such exemptions, subject to the limitations provided by law, including restrictions on dividends and
provisions for reinvestment.
(4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or contributions used
actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.

Section 5. (1) the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and shall
encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.
(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and
equitable admission and academic requirements.
(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching academic
and non-academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.
(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will
attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and
other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.

LANGUAGE
Section 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed
and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.
Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take
steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of
instruction in the educational system.

Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are
Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.
The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary
media of instruction therein.
Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.

Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into
major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.

Section 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of representatives of
various regions and disciplines which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote researches for the
development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Section 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall
give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science
and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-
reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the country’s productive systems
and national life.

Section 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage private
participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-aid, or other
forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers, scientists, inventors,
technologists, and specially gifted citizens.

Section 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology from all
sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private groups, local
governments, and community-based organizations in the generation and utilization of science and
technology.

Section 13. The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and
other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the
people, for such period as may be provided by law.

ARTS AND CULTURE

Section 14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino
national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual
expression.

Section 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall conserve, promote,
and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations.

Section 16. All the country’s artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation
and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition.

Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities
to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the
formulation of national plans and policies.

Section 18. (1) The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through the educational
system, public or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives, and community
cultural centers, and other public venues.
(2) The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture.

SPORTS
Section 19. (1) The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports programs, league
competitions, and amateur sports, including training for international competitions, to foster self-
discipline, teamwork, and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert citizenry.
(2) All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in
cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors.
 De la Salle vs CA
FACTS: PRIVATE respondents Alvin Aguilar, James Paul Bungubung, Richard Reverente and Roberto
Valdes, Jr. are members of Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity who were expelled by the De La Salle University
(DLSU) and College of Saint Benilde (CSB)1 Joint Discipline Board because of their involvement in an
offensive action causing injuries to petitioner James Yap and three other student members of Domino
Lux Fraternity. This is the backdrop of the controversy before Us pitting private respondents' right to
education vis-a-vis the University's right to academic freedom.
One week prior to March 29, 1995, Mr. James Yap was eating his dinner alone in Manang's
Restaurant near La Salle, when he overheard two men bad-mouthing and apparently angry at Domino
Lux. He ignored the comments and upon reaching home, narrated the comments to two of his friends.
He went back to the restaurant with his two friends and four others. They confronted the two who were
still at the restaurant. The two were members of the Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity. A meeting was
conducted between the heads of Domino Lux and Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity. Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity
asked for an apology but none was made.
On March 29, 1995, James Yap was attacked by 8-10 guys. They left him lying on the street
when the guards arrived. The guards escorted him inside the campus. At this point, Dennis Pascual,
another member of Domino Lux, accompanied Yap to the clinic and reported the incident to the
Discipline Office.
Before going home, Pascual passed by the Kolehiyo ng Malate Restaurant along with Ericson
Cano and Michael Perez. Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity ganged up on them, but Perez and Cano were able
to run.
The next day, Yap lodged a complaint with the Discipline Board of DLSU charging private
respondents with "direct assault." Similar complaints were also filed by Dennis Pascual and Ericson Cano
against Alvin Lee and private respondents Valdes and Reverente.
The mauling incident involved DLSU and CSB students and thus a joint DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline
Board was created to investigate the case. On May 3, 1995, private respondents were found guilty of
violation of CHED Order No. 4 and meted out automatic expulsion.
The respondents filed a motion to the RTC to restrain from implementing the automatic
expulsion and allow them to re-enroll and complete their courses. The motion was granted but DLSU
still rejected the enrolment of Aguilar, one of those guilty of the mauling incident. CHED issued
Resolution No. 181-96, summarily disapproving the penalty of expulsion for all private respondents. As
for Aguilar, he was to be reinstated, while other private respondents were to be excluded. Despite the
directive, DLSU still barred Aguilar from enrolling.
On October 28, 1996, petitioners requested transfer of case records to the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) from the CHED.46 Petitioners claimed that it is the DECS, not
CHED, which has jurisdiction over expulsion cases, thus, necessitating the transfer of the case records.

ISSUES:
I. Whether it is the DECS or the CHED which has legal authority to review decisions of institutions of
higher learning that impose disciplinary action on their students found violating disciplinary rules.
2. Whether or not petitioner DLSU is within its rights in expelling private respondents.
2.a Were private respondents accorded due process of law?
2.b Can petitioner DLSU invoke its right to academic freedom?
2.c Was the guilt of private respondents proven by substantial evidence?
3. Whether or not the penalty imposed by DLSU on private respondents is proportionate to their
misdeed.

HELD:
I. It is the CHED, not DECS, which has the power of supervision and review over disciplinary cases
decided by institutions of higher learning.
On May 18, 1994, Congress approved R.A. No. 7722, otherwise known as "An Act Creating the
Commission on Higher Education, Appropriating Funds Thereof and for other purposes."
Section 3 of the said law, which paved the way for the creation of the CHED, provides:
Section 3. Creation of the Commission on Higher Education. – In pursuance of the
abovementioned policies, the Commission on Higher Education is hereby created, hereinafter referred
to as Commission.
The Commission shall be independent and separate from the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports (DECS) and attached to the office of the President for administrative purposes only. Its
coverage shall be both public and private institutions of higher education as well as degree-granting
programs in all post secondary educational institutions, public and private.

IIa. Private respondents were accorded due process of law.

In administrative cases, such as investigations of students found violating school discipline,
"[t]here are withal minimum standards which must be met before to satisfy the demands of procedural
due process and these are: that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of
any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them and with
the assistance if counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they
shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly
considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and
decide the case."
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so,
he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. Notice and hearing is the bulwark of administrative
due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be respected even in
administrative proceedings. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. So long as the party is given the opportunity to
advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due
process .

IIb. Petitioner DLSU, as an institution of higher learning, possesses academic freedom which includes
determination of who to admit for study.
Section 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution guaranties 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. According to present
jurisprudence, 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.

IIc. The guilt of private respondents Bungubung, Reverente and Valdes, Jr. was proven by substantial
evidence.
The required proof in administrative cases, such as in student discipline cases, is neither proof beyond
reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence but only substantial evidence. According to Ang Tibay
v. Court of Industrial Relations, it means "such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion."

III. The penalty of expulsion imposed by DLSU on private respondents is disproportionate to their
misdeed.
We agree with respondent CHED that under the circumstances, the penalty of expulsion is grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of the acts committed by private respondents Bungubung, Reverente,
and Valdes, Jr. Each of the two mauling incidents lasted only for few seconds and the victims did not
suffer any serious injury. Disciplinary measures especially where they involve suspension, dismissal or
expulsion, cut significantly into the future of a student. They attach to him for life and become a
mortgage of his future, hardly redeemable in certain cases. Officials of colleges and universities must be
anxious to protect it, conscious of the fact that, appropriately construed, a disciplinary action should be
treated as an educational tool rather than a punitive measure

UP vs CA
FACTS: Herein respondents Camilo Peña and Domingo Cajipe (and seven others) were administratively
charged and investigated by a UP-PGH Investigating Committee for “grave misconduct and dishonesty”
and “infidelity in the custody of public documents" in their capacity as Assistant Cashier and Special
Disbursing Officer and Collection Officer, respectively, of the PGH.
After several hearings, the Board of Regents adopted a resolution approving the report of the
committee and fixing a penalty of dismissal for the respondents. Herein respondents then filed a
petition for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to restrain the UP President from
dismissing them and nullify the findings of the investigating committee. They claimed that, as civil
service employees, the power to dismiss them did not belong to the UP President but to the Civil Service
Commissioner, subject to appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. The respondents also filed a
supplemental petition for injunction, impleading the Board of Regents of the UP and the Director of the
PGH as additional respondents. The trial court granted the both original and supplementary petition.
Herein petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals but the trial court's decision was
sustained. Hence, the instant petition for Review by Certiorari by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the respondents by the Board of Regents was final, or requires further
action by the Civil Service Commission.

HELD: Legislature has established specific exceptions to the exclusive authority of the Civil Service
Commissioner, by lodging in various entities, the power over their employees. One instance is the UP
Charter, Section 6(e), which vested in the Board of Regents, the power to appoint, to fix employee
compensation and to remove them for cause after an investigation and hearing. The existence of these
exceptions to the general jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commissioner is also confirmed by the Civil
Service Law of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260).
Pursuant to the authority granted to the President of the Philippines by R.A. No. 51, PGH was
transferred from the Office of the President to the University of the Philippines by virtue of E.O. No. 94.
The act of the Chief Executive in transferring the Philippine General Hospital from the Office of the
President to the University of the Philippines clearly evinced the intention to place the Hospital
employees under the administrative power of the University in matters of their discipline, suspension or
removal, on a par with the other employees of the University. Had the intent been otherwise, the 1947
Executive Order No. 94 would have excepted or reserved the disciplinary power of the Commissioner of
the Civil Service over the transferred employees.
Ultimately, which is important is that the provisions of Article XII, Section 4, of the Constitution
that "no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as
provided by law," as well as the due process clause of the Bill of Rights, should be fully observed and
implemented; and the record is clear that in the case of herein respondents, no deficiency exists on this
score. Pursuant to the express precept in the University charter [in its Section 6 (e)], the herein
respondents were investigated by a committee of the University and the committee recommended their
dismissal after mature deliberation. Before the proceedings were closed, these respondents manifested
that they had no complaints regarding the procedure adopted, and were satisfied with the way the
investigation was conducted; and the Court of Appeals also explicitly stated in its decision that it did not
find any violation of the substantive rights of the respondents.
Whether the final decision should be made by the Civil Service Commissioner, and on appeal by
the Civil Service Board of Appeals, or by the President of the University and its Board of Regents, does
not in any way impair any of the substantial rights of the respondents. However, the autonomy
necessary to the fulfillment of the educational and academic mission of the University demands that the
administrative decision of its authorities be made final as to its employees, there being no statutory or
administrative provision to the contrary. Thus, the President and Board of Regents of the University of
the Philippines possess full and final authority in the disciplining, suspension and removal of the civil
service employees of the University, including those of the Philippine General Hospital, independently of
the Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals.
The writ of certiorari applied for is granted, and the decisions under appeal are reversed and set
aside.
UP vs Honorary Ruben Ayson

UP Board of Regents vs CA
FACTS: Sometime in 1972, the UP Board of Regents approved the establishment of UPCBHS as an
integral part of the graduate program in education to serve, among others, as a laboratory and
demonstration school for prospective teachers. Provided, however, that UPCBHS must be self-
supporting and should not entail any subsidy from the budget of the UP.
In 1978, the Board of Regents provided for the establishment of a Division of Education in UP
College Baguio (UPCB) which shall be composed of a Department of Professional Education and a High
School Department. However, the Department of Professional Education was never organized, although
the High School Department has been in continuous operation.
 In 1981, the Committee to Review Academic Program recommended the abolition of the
UPCBHS. In 1985, the Program Review Committee likewise asked the UPCB to look into the viability of its
secondary education program on account of limited financial resources plus the fact that UPCBHS failed
to serve as a laboratory school for teacher training program as UPCB does not offer programs in
Education. Subsequently, various discussions were held on the proposed phase-out of the UPCBHS.
On January 30,1989, the UP Board of Regents approved the proposed phase-out of UPCBHS on
the grounds, inter alia, that only an insignificant number of UPCBHS graduates qualified for admission
and actually enrolled in UPCB and that UPCBHS is not serving as a laboratory or demonstration school
for prospective teachers much less a self-supporting unit. Subsequently, petitioner Dean Patricio Lazaro
issued a memorandum directing the UPCBHS Principal not to accept new incoming high school freshmen
for the school year 1989- 1990.
On May 25,1989, respondent UP College Baguio High School Foundation Inc., represented by its
president, filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio, Br. VI, presided by respondent Judge
against herein petitioners, for Injunction with preliminary preventive and mandatory injunction with
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, docketed as Civil Case No. 1748-R, alleging
among others, that the decision of the UP Board of Regents to phase out the UPCBHS is without legal
basis and unconstitutional.

ISSUE: WON the UP Board of Regents have authority to phase out the UPCBHS.

HELD: Specifically, the University of the Philippines was created under its Charter (Act No. 1870 [1908],
as amended) to provide advanced tertiary education and not secondary education. Section 2 of said Act
states that "the purpose of said University shall be to provide advanced instruction in literature,
philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and to give professional and technical training."
It is apparent that secondary education is not the mandated function of the University of the
Philippines; consequently, the latter can validly phase out and/or abolish the UPCBHS especially so when
the requirements for its continuance have not been met, Rep. Act No. 6655 to the contrary
notwithstanding. The findings of facts by the Board of Regents which led to its decision to phase out the
UPCBHS must be accorded respect, if not finality. Acts of an administrative agency within their areas of
competence must be casually overturned by the courts. It must be emphasized that UPCBHS was
established as a component of the tertiary level, i.e., the teacher/training program. As it turned out
however, the latter program was not viable in UPCB thereby necessitating the phasing out of UPCBHS,
the rationale being its reasons for existence no longer exists. On this score, UPCBHS differs from the
other UP high schools in Iloilo, Diliman, Cebu and Los Baños. The latter schools serve as laboratory
schools for the College of Education in said areas, whereas, in Baguio, there is no College of Education.
It is beyond cavil that the UP, as an institution of higher learning, enjoys academic freedom—the
institutional kind.
It is the business of a 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
freedom 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"' (Emphasis supplied; citing Sinco,
Philippine Political Law, 491, (1962) and the concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Sweezy v. New
Hampshire (354 US 234 [1957]).
 Garcia vs Faculty Admission

Montemayor vs Araneta University

FACTS: Felix Montemayor was a faculty of Araneta University Foundation serving as Head of Humanities
and Psychology Department. The Chaplain filed a complaint of immorality against him. A committee was
created to investigate the allegation. With the assistance of counsel, he filed a motion to dismiss or to
hold the hearing in abeyance. The committee found him responsible of the act complained of and
recommended for his demotion by one degree. The President adopted such recommendation and
thereafter referred the same to the Board of Trustees of private respondent for appropriate action.
Subsequently new charges was filed by different faculty members against him and a new committee was
formed to investigate the allegations. Montemayor asked for postponement of the hearing and was
denied. The hearing proceeded without him and found him guilty of the same charges and
recommended for the discontinuance of his service. He then filed a complaint with NLRC. NLRC decided
in favour of the Foundation. Hence the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proceeding relating to Montemayor’s dismissal was done in violation of due
process?

HELD: Petition dismissed. In Montemayor’s absence the matter was heard and was sufficiently found by
the committee to be guilty of his conduct unbecoming and recommended his removal. Such deficiency
was remedied when Montemayor was able to present his case with the Labour Commission. Records
will show that after all efforts on conciliation had failed parties agreed to submit their dispute for
compulsory arbitration. Several hearings were conducted. he legal aspect as to the procedural due
process having been satisfied was then summarized by the Solicitor General thus: “All the foregoing
clearly shows that petitioner was afforded his day in court. Finally, and more significant, is the fact that
petitioner claims denial of due process in the proceeding had before the investigating committees and
not in the proceedings before the NLRC wherein, as shown heretofore, he was given the fullest
opportunity to present his case.