OUR society is averse to teacher-student love affairs.

It is considered a forbidden act for teachers to fall

for their students. As teachers, they stand in loco parentis as regards their minor wards. It is therefore
unthinkable for a teacher, who under the law is a substitute parent, to have amorous feelings towards
his or her minor student. A student on the other hand is vulnerable and therefore protected by laws
against abuses such as RA 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act; and RA 7877, or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.

A student is likewise both innocent and adventurous and therefore susceptible to abuses and fraud by a
teacher who has influence and moral ascendancy over him or her. Thus, even when a minor student
voluntarily enters into a love affair with his or her teacher, consent is disregarded by law and the
teacher may be deemed to have committed child abuse as a criminal offense.

Sweetheart theory not applicable

In complaints for acts of lasciviousness or rape, when there is proof that the victim and the accused are
lovers, what operates is the theory that the sexual act was consensual and therefore there is no crime.
This is known as the sweetheart theory.

However, in the case of People v. Malto, the Supreme Court ruled that unlike rape and acts of
lasciviousness, consent is immaterial in child abuse cases. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or
committing lascivious conduct with a child who is subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense. A
child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself or
himself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under the law. In other words, a child is presumed by law
to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.

Student as the child

The public policy against teacher-student relationships is clearer when the student is a minor, but not
when the student is already of majority age. Children as defined in RA 7610 refer to persons below 18
years of age or over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

But DepEd’s Child Protection Policy, or D.O. 40 series of 2012, which also protects students from all
forms of child abuse, provides for a different definition of a “child.” Under this DepEd policy, the term
“child” includes those who are 18 years of age or older but are in school. This policy expands the
definition of a “child” under RA 7610, and RA 6809 which states that majority commences at the age of
18 years. Does this mean that under the DepEd Child Protection Policy, a basic education student of
majority age may also file an administrative complaint for child abuse against the teacher?

Students getting older, teachers getting younger

Because of the present senior high school curriculum implementation, students are getting older and
teachers are getting younger. At Grade 12, students are already expected to be 18years of age. And
because professional teachers now are as young as 20 years old, the generation gap between teachers
and students has been rendered insignificant. A lot of them now belong to the same generation of
millennials. And this phenomenon has increased the incidents of teacher-student relationships.

So how should schools look at student-teacher relationships?

When the teacher is married, it is both illegal and immoral to maintain a relationship with a student.
When the student and teacher in a relationship engage in PDAs (public displays of affection) in school, it
is also easy to cite them for immorality and inappropriate behavior. When there is proof that a sexual
relationship exists and the student is a minor, a crime exists under RA 7610 and consent is not a
defense.

But what if there is no PDA in school, no proof of illicit or sexual relations, and there is mutual consent
between two adults who are both single?
In the case of Evelyn Chua Qua v. Clave, the female teacher who had a relationship with her 16-year-old
student and eventually married the latter, the Supreme Court ruled that she was illegally dismissed on
the ground of immorality. The Supreme Court said that to constitute immorality, the totality of
circumstances of each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in the light of
prevailing norms of conduct and the applicable law. Immorality is a factual question that should be
determined in the circumstances surrounding every case and cannot simply be presumed. This case is
known for the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, borrowing the quote from French philosopher Blaise
Pascal, saying, “If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels,
this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not
know.”

Effect of social media

But applying the totality of circumstances in student-teacher relationship cases in this day and age is
problematic for school administrators. This is because student-teacher interaction is no longer limited
in-campus. They now interact in social media and beyond school hours. And when both the student and
the teacher belong to the same generation and their age difference is irrelevant, the moral ascendancy
or influence can no longer be presumed especially when they interact not as such students and teachers
but simply, as persons. Feelings of attraction and admiration among them are almost inevitable.

Ultimately, how a student-teacher relationship is addressed depends on the school’s consistency in

implementing its own policy and standards on morality and appropriate behavior. The school’s duty to
preserve both its integrity as an educational institution and that of its teachers, and the responsibility to
act in accordance with the best interest of the child student, will always be the primary consideration
above all else.

But even when such relationships are almost always equated with indecency and attended by
immorality, it is also not impossible that true love may still exist in student-teacher relationships. As they
say, people fall in love with the most unexpected person at the most unexpected time. Julia Fordham
sings, “Love Moves in Mysterious Ways,” and Lion King 2 reminds us, “Love Will Find a Way.”
Remember, the current president of France, Emmanuel Macron, married his former high school teacher,
Brigitte Trogneux, when he was 30 years old and she was already 55. And they have been happily
married since. This teaches us that patience is a virtue. If it’s really tadhana, it will happen (on cue,
UDD). Hopefully it won’t take A Thousand Years, says Christina Perii.

As we celebrate the day of hearts, let us be reminded that the teacher is, like everyone else, a human
being endowed with life to live, to love, and to laugh. Nobody deserves to be NBSB forever. Certainly,
not our teachers. Let’s give them a big warm hug today.

The author is the corporate secretary and legal counsel of the Manila Times, and the managing partner
of Estrada &Aquino Law Co. He is also the legal counsel of the Coordinating Council of Private
Educational Associations (COCOPEA), Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), Phil.
Association of Private Schools, Colleges, and Universities (PAPSCU), and the Philippine Accrediting
Association of Schools, Colleges, & Universities (PAASCU).

NEXT ARTICLE

NEWS

NATION

REGIONS

BUSINESS

WORLD

SPORTS
ENTERTAINMENT

LIFESTYLE

OPINION

THE SUNDAY TIMES

SPECIAL FEATURES

PUBLIC SQUARE

VIDEOS

PODCASTS

ABOUT US

CONTACT US

RSS

The Manila Times © 2021