ACADEMIC FREEDOM

LEIZL A. VILLAPANDO
GROUP 7
What is academic freedom?
Section 5 (2) Article XIV. Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in
all institutions of higher learning. - Colleges, publicly or
privately-owned, if they offer collegiate courses, enjoy academic
freedom.
What is academic freedom?
TWO VIEWS
1. INSTITUTIONAL ACADEMIC FREEDOM- The freedom of the university to
determine “who may teach; what may be taught, how it shall be taught; and
who may be admitted to study” (International School of Manila v. ISAE, G.R.
No. 167286 Feb. 5, 2014). Education Act 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” is still subject to academic
and disciplinary standards of the academic institution.
What is academic freedom?
2. ACADEME MEMBERS’ ACADEMIC FREEDOM- The freedom of the teacher
or research worker in higher institutions of learning to investigate and discuss
the problems of his science and to express his conclusions, whether through
publication or in the instruction of students, without interference from
political or ecclesiastical authority, or from the administrative officials of the
institution in which he is employed, unless his methods are found by
qualified bodies of his own profession to be completely incompetent or
contrary to professional ethics. (International School of Manila v. ISAE, G.R.
No. 167286 Feb. 5, 2014)
CASES
In Board of Medical Education v. Judge Alfonso, 176 SCRA 304, the Supreme
Court sustained the decision of the Board of Medical Education in closing the
Philippines Muslim-Christian College of Medicine for being “inadequate”.

In Capitol Medical Center v. CA, 178 SCRA 493, the closure of the nursing
school was upheld after due notice to the DECS, when teachers and students
declared a strike, refusing to hold classes and take examinations. The school
may not be forced reopen at the instance of the striking students.

In University of San Carlos v. Court of Appeals 166 SCRA 570, the Court held
that it is within the sound discretion of the university to determine whether a
student may be conferred graduation honors, considering that the student had
incurred falling grade in earlier course she took in school.
CASES
In Lupangco v. CA, 160 SCRA 848, Resolution No. 105 of the Professional Regulation prohibiting examinees for the
accountancy licensure examinations from attending “any review class, briefing conference or the like” or to receive
“hand-out, review material or any tip from any school, etc. was held to have violated the academic freedom of the
schools concerned. PRC cannot interfere with the conduct of review that review schools and centers believe would
best enable their enrollees to meet the standards required before becoming full-fledged public accountants.

In Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, petitioner cannot compel by mandamus, the respondent to admit her into
further studies in the Loyola School of Theology. For respondent has no clear duty to 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.

In International School of Manila v. ISAE, G.R. No. 167286 Feb. 5, 2014, the prerogative of a school to provide
standards for its teachers and to determine whether these standards have been met is in accordance with academic
freedom, which gives the educational institution the right to choose who should teach.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
LEIZL A. VILLAPANDO
GROUP 7
 Equal Protection of the laws
Sec. 1. Art. III: “x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.”
Equal Protection of the laws
Meaning: persons protected. All persons or things similarly
situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. Natural and juridical persons are
entitled to this guarantee; but with respect to artificial persons,
they enjoy the protection only insofar as their property is
concerned.
Was there a violation of equal protection
clause?
In People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495 April 21, 2014, the Court ruled that to treat marital rape cases
differently from non-marital rape cases in terms of the elements that constitute the crime and in the rules
for their proof, infringes on the equal protection clause.

In 1- UTAK v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions are
not only repugnant to the free speech clause, but are also violative of the equal protection clause, as there
is no substantial distinction between owners of PUVs and transport terminals and owners of private vehicles
and other properties.

Villanueva v. JBC , GR No. 211833, April 07, 2015, the Court ruled that the consideration of experience by
JBC as one factor in choosing recommended appointees does not constitute a violation of the equal
protection clause. The JBC does not discriminate when it employs number of years of service to screen
and differentiate applicants from the competition. The number of years of service provides a relevant
basis to determine proven competence which may be measured by experience.
WHAT IS SEARCH
LEIZL A. VILLAPANDO
GROUP 7
Searches and seizures
Section 2. Art. III- “The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue, except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by a judge, after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce particularly describing the place to be searched or the
persons or things to be searched.”
Was the search or issuance of search
warrant/warrant of arrest valid?
STONEHILL v. DIOKNO: Yes and No. The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in
question may be split into two (2) major groups, namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned
corporations- VALID and (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners-INVALID

LIM v. JUDGE FELIX G.R. Nos. 94054-57, Feb. 19, 1991:. No. The respondent Judge committed a grave error when he relied
solely on the Prosecutor's certification and issued the questioned Order dated July 5, 1990 without having before him any
other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause.

SOLIVEN v. MAKASIAR, 167 SCRA 393 (1988): YES. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established
doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he
finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses
to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.