Jeuel Jay Matamis

Constitutional law 1

ACADEMIC FREEDOM
is the freedom of teachers, students, and institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without
undue or unreasonable interference.
means an institution can determine for itself on academic grounds:
1. who may teach,
2. what may be taught
3. how it should be taught
4. who may admitted to study

(Sec. 5) Montemayor vs. Araneta, 1 L-44251, 77 SCRA 321

FACTS: Petitioner was a professor at the Araneta University Foundation. On 7/8/74, he was found guilty of making homosexual
advances on one Leonardo De Lara by a faculty investigating committee. On 11/8/74, another committee was appointed to
investigate another charge of a similar nature against petitioner. Petitioner, through counsel, asked for the postponement of the
hearing set for 11/18 and 19, 1974, but the motion was denied. The committee then proceeded to hear the testimony of the
complainants and on 12/5/74, submitted its report recommending the separation of petitioner from the University. On 12/12/74,
the University applied w/ the NLRC for clearance to terminate petitioner's employment. Meanwhile, petitioner filed a complaint
w/ the NLRC for reinstatement and backwages. Judgement was rendered in petitioner's favor, but on appeal to the Sec. of Labor,
the latter found petitioner's dismissal to be justified. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: Does academic freedom include the right of schools to dismiss teachers?
RULING: Yes. Institutional academic freedom was vindicated in this case, where, against the plea of academic freedom and
security of tenure of a professor, the school was allowed to separate a professor who after due process had been found guilty of
violating behavioral standards.
The stand taken by petitioner as to his being entitled to security of tenure is reinforced by the provision on academic freedom
which, as noted, is found in the Constitution. It was pointed out in Garcia v. The Faculty Admission, Committee that academic
freedom "is more often Identified with the right of a faculty member to pursue his studies in his particular specialty and thereafter
to make known or publish the result of his endeavors without fear that retribution would be visited on him in the event that his
conclusions are found distasteful or objectionable to the powers that be, whether in the political, economic, or academic
establishments. For the sociologist, Robert Maclver, it is 'a right claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as investigator,
to interpret his findings and to communicate his conclusions without being subjected to any interference, molestation, or
penalization because these conclusions are unacceptable to some constituted authority within or beyond the institution. Tenure,
according to him, is of the essence of such freedom. For him, without tenure that assures a faculty member "against dismissal or
professional penalization on grounds other than professional incompetence or conduct that in the judgment of his colleagues
renders him unfit" for membership in the faculty, the academic right becomes non-existent, Security of tenure, for another scholar,
Love joy, is "the chief practical requisite for academic freedom" of a university professor. As with Maclver, he did not rule out
removal but only "for some grave cause," Identified by him as "proved incompetence or moral delinquency."
(Sec. 2) St. Joseph College vs. SJC Workers, GR 155609, Jan 17, 2005
FACTS: Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit Catholic educational institution while respondent is a legitimate labor organization which is currently the
official bargaining representative of all employees of petitioner except the faculty and consultants of the Graduate School, managerial employees and
those who occupy confidential positions. Respondent has an existing CBA with petitioner for the period from June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2004. For the SY

2000-2001, petitioner increased its tuition fees for all its departments. Based on petitioners computation, the incremental proceeds from the tuition
fees increase for SY 2000-2001 is P1,560,942.74, 85% of which is equivalent to P1,326,801.33. Consequently, respondent averred that 85% of
P4,906,307.58, which is P4,170,360.59 should have been released to its members as provided for in their CBA effective June 1, 2000.
ISSUE: How should the 70%-30% tuition fee increase be allocated?
RULING: The law allows an increase in school tuition fees on the condition that 70 percent of the increase shall go to the payment of personnel
benefits. Plainly unsupported by the law or jurisprudence is petitioners contention that the payment of such benefits should be based not only on the
rate of tuition fee increases, but also on other factors like the decrease in the number of enrollees; the number of those exempt from paying the fees, like
scholars; the number of dropouts who, as such, do not pay the whole fees; and the bad debts incurred by the school. The financial dilemma of petitioner
may deserve sympathy and support, but its remedy lies not in the judiciary but in the lawmaking body.
The law plainly states that 70 percent of the tuition fee increase shall be allotted for the teaching and the nonteaching personnel; and that the payment of
other costs of operation, together with the improvement of the schools infrastructure, shall be taken only from the remaining 30 percent. The law does
not speak, directly or indirectly, of the contention of petitioner that in the event that its total tuition income is lesser than that in the previous year, then
the whole amount of the increase in tuition fee, and not merely up to 30 percent as provided by law, may be used for the improvement and
modernization of infrastructure and for the payment of other costs of operation.
(Sec. 4) CIR vs. CA , G.R. No. 95022 207 Scra 487
FACTS: Petitioner, seeks a reversal of the Decision of respondent CA, dated Aug. 27, 1990, in CA-G.R. SP No. 20426, entitled "Commissioner of
Internal Revenue vs. GCL Retirement Plan, represented by its Trustee-Director and the Court of Tax Appeals," which affirmed the Decision of the latter
Court, dated 15 December 1986, in Case No. 3888, ordering a refund, in the sum of P11,302.19, to the GCL Retirement Plan representing the withholding
tax on income from money market placements and purchase of treasury bills, imposed pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1959.
There is no dispute with respect to the facts. Private Respondent, GCL Retirement Plan (GCL, for brevity) is an employees' trust maintained by the
employer, GCL Inc., to provide retirement, pension, disability and death benefits to its employees. The Plan as submitted was approved and qualified as
exempt from income tax by Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue in accordance with Rep. Act No. 4917.
ISSUE: Are schools retained earnings tax-exempt?
RULING: Yes. GCL Plan was qualified as exempt from income tax by the CIR in accordance with Rep. Act. 4917. The tax-exemption privilege of
employees' trusts, as distinguished from any other kind of property held in trust, springs from Section 56(b) (now 53[b]) of the Tax Code, The tax
imposed by this Title shall not apply to employee's trust which forms part of a pension, stock bonus or profit-sharing plan of an employer for the benefit
of some or all of his employees . . . And rightly so, by virtue of the raison de'etre behind the creation of employees' trusts. Employees' trusts or benefit
plans normally provide economic assistance to employees upon the occurrence of certain contingencies, particularly, old age retirement, death, sickness,
or disability. It provides security against certain hazards to which members of the Plan may be exposed. It is an independent and additional source of
protection for the working group. What is more, it is established for their exclusive benefit and for no other purpose.
It is evident that tax-exemption is likewise to be enjoyed by the income of the pension trust. Otherwise, taxation of those earnings would result in a
diminution accumulated income and reduce whatever the trust beneficiaries would receive out of the trust fund. This would run afoul of the very
intendment of the law. There can be no denying either that the final withholding tax is collected from income in respect of which employees' trusts are
declared exempt (Sec. 56 [b], now 53 [b], Tax Code). The application of the withholdings system to interest on bank deposits or yield from deposit
substitutes is essentially to maximize and expedite the collection of income taxes by requiring its payment at the source. If an employees' trust like the
GCL enjoys a tax-exempt status from income, we see no logic in withholding a certain percentage of that income which it is not supposed to pay in the
first place.

Academic Freedom of Institutions of Higher Learning

Capitol Medical Center v. CA
closing down of a medical school; striking students and faculty Once a student is accepted for enrollment in a given course, the school may not
expel him or refuse re-enroll him until he completes his course except when he is academically deficient or has violated the rules of discipline;
There is no contract that the school shall remain open for the entire duration of his course; The contract between the college and a student who is
enrolled and pays the fees for a semester is for the entire semester only and not the entire course; The law does not require a school to see a
student through the completion of his course. If the school closes or is closed by proper authority at the end of a semester, the student has no
cause of action for breach of contract against the school.

Lupangco v. CA
forbidding examinees from attending review classes; CPA Board Exam - The assailed resolution is not only unreasonable and arbitrary but it
infringes on the examinees right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they
should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. They cannot be restrained from taking all the lawful steps needed to assure the
fulfilment of their ambition; The assailed resolution also infringes on the academic freedom of schools; PRC cannot interfere with the conduct of
review that review schools and centers believe would be best enable their enrollees to meet the standards required before becoming a fullfledged public accountant. Unless the means and methods of instruction are clearly found to be inefficient, impractical or riddled with corruption,
review schools and centers may not be stopped from helping out their students.

University of San Carlos v. CA

granting of honors - Schools of learning are given ample discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in the granting of honors for purposes of
graduation. This is part of academic freedom. Within the parameters of these rules, it is within the competence of universities and colleges to
determine who are entitled to the grant of honors among the graduating students. Its discretion on this academic matter may not be disturbed
much less controlled by the courts unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise.

Reyes v. CA
admission to the UP College of Medicine; 70, 90 cut-off, NMAT; UC wanted to admit them, UPCM did not want to - Any entrance requirement that
may be imposed by the College Faculty must bear the UCs approval; The right and power to fix admission requirements is clearly vested by law
in the University Council; The UC has the final say in the admission requirements provided that it conforms with the law, rules and regulations of
the university.

Tan v. CA
refusal of admission to Grace Christian High School - Private schools are subject to reasonable regulation and supervision of the State, but they
may also have the right to establish reasonable rules
and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students.
*Dissenting opinion of Justice Cruz: the academic freedom of the school to choose its students should NOT be stretched beyond its constitutional
limits.

Miriam College v. CA
Libog article; student press freedom; schools academic freedom - 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
welfare calls for some restrain; SC has upheld the right of the students to free speech in school premises; However, this right is not absolute. It
must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment; The power of the school to investigate, like the power to
suspend or expel, is an inherent part of academic freedom of institutions of higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution.