MIRIAM COLLEGE v. CA Atenean grade 5 student for violating regulations in the student handbook.
They
December 15, 2000 | Kapunan, J. | Art. XIV, Sec. 3: Duty of Institutions
PETITIONER: Miriam College Foundation, Inc.
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, et al.
SUMMARY: Complaints were filed against students of Miriam College who
had written obscene and vulgar content in the school newspaper and magazine.
After disciplinary sanctions were imposed on them, they questioned the
jurisdiction of the school’s Disciplinary Board and contended that it was the
DECS who had jurisdiction over them. The SC ruled that the school not only has
the right but the duty to develop discipline in its students. Thus, the power to
suspend or expel is an inherent part of academic freedom granted by the
Constitution to educational institutions and that the Campus Journalism Act,
guaranteeing free speech to students, must be read with the school’s power to
impose disciplinary action when articles materially disrupt class work or involve
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.
DOCTRINE:
Section 3 (2), Article XIV:
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.
FACTS:
1. The members of the Miriam College community allegedly described the
contents of the September-October 1994 issue of Chi-Rho, the school paper, and
Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chiro, the magazine, as obscene, vulgar,
injurious to young readers, and devoid of all moral values.
2. The articles contained fictitious stories, poems, and drawings describing
sexual experiences and fantasies. For example, one of the stories was entitled
“Kaskas” describing the experience of young, male, combo players who went to
see a bold show and eventually ended in them about to hit a truck. In the
foreword of the issue, entitled “Foreplay”, Jerome Gomez justified the erotic
theme on the ground that many of the poems passed on to the editors were about
“sekswalidad at iba’t ibang karanasan nito” and lauded the bravery of the writers
for tackling a delicate topic in an institution like Miriam. He ended the foreword
with the words: “Dahil para saan ang libog kung hindi ilalabas?”
3. The editorial board and the students of Miriam College received a letter
from Dr. Sevilla, the Chair of the Discipline Committee, informing them that a
complaint was filed against them by the Miriam Community and a concerned
were required to submit a written statement in answer to the charges; however,
none of them complied.
4. Atty. Ricardo, the lawyer for the students, contended that RA 7079 or the
Campus Journalism Act applied in this case and that pursuant to such, the
Disciplinary Committee had no jurisdiction over them and that it was the DECS
who had such jurisdiction. He also questioned the partiality of the members of
the Committee.
5. The Discipline Committee proceeded ex parte and imposed disciplinary
sanctions on the students, such as expulsion, suspension, and withholding of
graduation priviliges.
6. Thus, the students filed a petition before the RTC questioning the
jurisdiction of the Discipline Board over them. The RTC denied their TRO since
DECS Order No. 94, S. 1992, the IRR of RA 7079, did not state anything which
excludes school administrators from exercising jurisdiction over cases of this
nature nor that it had exclusive jurisdiction over cases falling under RA 7079.
7. Upon appeal to the CA, the CA declared the RTC Order and the students’
suspension and dismissal void.
ISSUE/s
1. WoN Miriam College had the power to suspend or dismiss the
students – YES.
2. WoN Miriam College had jurisdiction over the complaints – YES.
RULING: SC reversed and set aside decision of the CA.
RATIO:
1. Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act prohibits the expulsion or
suspension of a student solely on the basis of articles he or she has written.
2. Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all institutions
of higher learning academic freedom, including the right of the school 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
welfare calls for some restraint.
The essential freedoms subsumed in the term "academic freedom"
encompasses the freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds:
(1) Who may teach,
(2) What may be taught,
(3) How it shall be taught, and
(4) Who may be admitted to study.
The right of the school to discipline its students is at once apparent in the
Page 1 of 2
 third freedom, i.e., "how it shall be taught."
3. Moreover, the school has an interest in teaching the student discipline, a
necessary, if not indispensable, value in any field of learning. The right to
discipline likewise finds basis in the freedom “what to teach”. The school
not only has the right but the duty to develop discipline in its students, as
imposed by the Constitution to develop moral character and personal
discipline. Discipline is a means for the school to carry out its responsibility to
help its students “grow and develop into mature, responsible, effective, and
worthy citizens of the community”.
4. The right to discipline is more evident in "who may be admitted to
study." If a school has the freedom to determine whom to admit, logic dictates
that it also has the right to determine whom to exclude or expel, as well as upon
whom to impose lesser sanctions such as suspension and the withholding of
graduation privileges.
suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has
written, except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.
9. The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to
suspend or expel. It is a necessary corollary to the enforcement of rules and
regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational
environment conducive to learning. That power, like the power to suspend
or expel, is an inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of
higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, Miriam College
has the authority to hear and decide the cases filed against respondent students.

5. Ateneo de Manila v. Capulong: 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.

6. Section 4 (1), Article XIV of the Constitution recognizes the State's

power to regulate educational institution:
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.
Such power to regulate is subject to the requirement of reasonableness.
Moreover, the Constitution allows merely the regulation and supervision of
educational institutions, not the deprivation of their rights.

7. In several cases, the Court has upheld the right of the students to free speech
in school premises. However, such is not absolute. The right to free speech must
always be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school
environment. Thus, while we upheld the right of the students to free
expression in these cases, we did not rule out disciplinary action by the
school for "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any
reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - which
materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of
the rights of others.

8. Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act should be read in a manner as not

to infringe upon the school's right to discipline its students. At the same time,
however, we should not construe said provision as to unduly restrict the right of
the students to free speech. We read Section 7 to mean that the school cannot

Page 2 of 2