Copy of Education Law - Constitutional Provisions.pptx

Law

1. LAWS ON EDUCATION (COMPENDIUM OF LAWS AFFECTING EDUCATION PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES) Presented By: Atty. Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo , C.P.A.

2. Atty. Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo, C.P.A. S P E A K E R

3. Educational Background Graduated Bachelor of Science in Accountancy at the University of Santo Tomas in 2013 Passed the CPA Licensure Exam in 2013 Graduated Bachelor of Laws at the University of Santo Tomas in 2019 Passed the 2019 Bar Exam

4. Professional Practice Advisory Associate for BDO Philippines Firm Credit and Risk Analyst for Bank of Tokyo Treasury Compliance Officer for BPI Associate Lawyer for Estrada and Aquino Law Firm Business Law Instructor for St. Paul University Manila and University of Santo Tomas Legal and Compliance Manager for AACI

5. WHAT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND? THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land (Philippines). It establishes the structure, polices, roles and duties of the Philippine Government. No law or statue shall exceed, circumvent, or contradict in any form or manner the policies established by the Constitution. It provides the Territory, State’s policies, and Bill of Rights which shall govern the whole State of the Philippines.

6. Is Education a priority policy of the State? 22 provisions in the Constitution pertains, concern and governs education in the Philippines Fun Fact: “Education” / “Educational” was used 30 times in the 1987 Constitution; compared to “Life” which was used only for 6 times.

7. Priority to Education (Section 17, Article II) SECTION 17. The State shall give priority to education , science and technology , arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.

8. Accessible Quality Education (Section 1, Article XIV) 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.

9. Complementary Roles and Reasonable Regulation (Section 4(1), Article XIV) 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.

10. Academic Freedom of Institutions and Students (Section 5(2 & 3), Article XIV) SECTION 5. (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.

11. Reasonable Supervision vs Control When the 1987 Constitution speaks of the State supervision and regulation, it does not in any mean control but only a reference to the power of the State to provide regulations to ensure that these are duly implemented. It does not include the right to manage, dictate, overrule, prohibit and dominate. “…it [regulations] must not create in its centers of higher learning an atmosphere of fear and restrictions” (Constitutional Commission 1986, Journal No. 069, August 29, 1986)

12. Academic Freedom Refers to Institutional Academic Freedom. “Academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide and adopt its aims and objectives, and to determine how these objections can best be attained, free from outside coercion or interference, save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. Freedoms subsumed in the term academic freedom includes who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be thought, and who shall be admitted to study.” (Ateneo v. Capulong , G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993)

13. Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Judge Ignacio Capulong – May 27, 1993 Leonardo “Lennie” H. Villa, a first year law student died during an initiation rites of the Aquila Legis Fraternity. The University’s authorities found the students involved guilty of violating Ateneo’s Code of Discipline and imposed the penalty of dismissal

14. Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Judge Ignacio Capulong – May 27, 1993 The dismissed students appealed their penalty before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, wherein Judge Capulong granted the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and ordering Ateneo to reverse its decision and reinstate the said students.

15. Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Judge Ignacio Capulong – May 27, 1993 ISSUE: Whether a school is within its rights in expelling students from its academic community pursuant to its disciplinary rules and moral standards.

16. Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Judge Ignacio Capulong – May 27, 1993 HELD: Yes. A corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are inherently endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external controls or pressure.

17. Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Judge Ignacio Capulong – May 27, 1993 HELD: The Supreme Court consistently upheld the salutary proposition that admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school , the same being a privilege on the part of the students rather than a right .

18. Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Judge Ignacio Capulong – May 27, 1993 While under the Education Act of 1982, students have a right “to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation,” such right is subject, as all rights are, to established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic institution.

19. Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Judge Ignacio Capulong – May 27, 1993 More importantly, the Temporary Restraining order will seriously impair Ateneo’s academic freedom which has been enshrined in the Constitution.

20. Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee (Loyola School of Theology) In the summer of 1975, Ephicaris Garcia, enrolled for the studies leading to a M.A. in Theology in the Ateneo Theology Graduate School. When Garcia wanted to enroll for the same course for the First Semester, 1975-1976, Ateneo refused her admission and enrolment on the ground that her frequent questions and difficulties has the effect of slowing down the progress of the class. The Head of Ateneo Admission, Fr. Sevilla recommended that she better seek another school, recommending UST Graduate School

21. Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee (Loyola School of Theology) Garcia, upon learning that she will have to study for at least 4 years to finish the course if she enrolls in the same program in UST compared to the 2 years period to complete in Ateneo; Garcia filed for an action of WRIT OF MANDAMUS compelling Ateneo to admit her and allow her to enroll in the current semester .

22. Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee (Loyola School of Theology) ISSUE: Whether or not the Faculty Admission Committee had authority and discretion in allowing Garcia to continue studying or not?

23. Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee (Loyola School of Theology) HELD: YES. Being a particular educational institution (seminary), Garcia cannot compel the mandamus to admit her into further studies since Ateneo had no clear duty to admit Garcia .

24. Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee (Loyola School of Theology) Fr. Lambino and Ateneo has the discretion whether to admit the Garcia or not. Factors that were considered are academic standards, personality traits, character orientation and nature of Loyola School of Theology as a seminary.

25. Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee (Loyola School of Theology) 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 establishment

26. Individual Academic Freedom Pertains to academic freedom of faculty A right claimed by the accredited educator, as a teacher and as investigator, to interpret his findings and to communicate his conclusions without being subjected to any interference, molestation, or penalty because these conclusions are unacceptable to some constituted authority within or beyond the institution. (Camacho v. Coresis , G.R. No. 134372, August 22, 2002)

27. Camacho v. Coresis FACTS: A Graduate School professor and the OIC for the GradSchool of University of Southern Philippines (USP) was charged with Graft cases brought by complaints of “Ghost Students” in his Doctor of Education ( Ed.D ) class. These students were given special arrangements on attendance that did not require them to attend classed but were given grades at the end of the course.

28. Camacho v. Coresis FACTS: A fellow professor filed a complaint with the Board of Regents of the USP. The latter however sided with the accused professor and upheld the grades given to the students. Thus, the complaining professor filed charges of Graft against the respondent professor and school officials before the Ombudsman.

29. Camacho v. Coresis ISSUE: Whether or not there is indeed a commission of graft and corruption by allowing and passing students despite non-appearance in class.

30. Camacho v. Coresis Held: No crime committed. The Supreme Court exonerated the professor and the school officials from the criminal and administrative charges by the Ombudsman. It held that academic freedom clothes the professor with the widest latitude to innovate and experiment on the method of teaching which is most fitting to his students, subject only to the rules and policies of the university

31. Does students have academic freedom? Yes. Academic freedom is not limited to the members of the faculty nor to the administrative authorities of the educational institution. It is also deemed granted in favor of the student body; because all three – administration, faculty and students – constitute the educational institution, without which, the educational institution can neither exist nor operate . The institution operates not in favor of the administrative authorities or the faculty, but for the student body.

32. Academic Freedom of Students Yes. Academic freedom is not limited to the members of the faculty nor to the administrative authorities of the educational institution. It is also deemed granted in favor of the student body; because all three – administration, faculty and students – constitute the educational institution, without which, the educational institution can neither exist nor operate . The institution operates not in favor of the administrative authorities or the faculty, but for the student body.

33. Academic Freedom of Students Two Rights of Students: The right to choose the field of study, suject to existing curricula; and The right to enroll until graduation. “Every student has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.”

34. “Right to enroll until graduation” The right means the student has the right to complete the program until graduation save only for academic delinquency and serious violation of school policy. As long as the student passes the scholastic and academic requirements of the school and has not committed a serious violation of school policy, the student should not be deprived from enrolling in the subsequent academic years or semester until his graduation. This is available for students of all levels.

35. Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) v. San Diego Robert San Diego is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. The San Diego claims that he took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. When he applied to take it again, the DECS rejected his application on the basis of the “Three-Flunk Rule”.

36. Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) v. San Diego He then went to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to compel his admission to the test. He invoked his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education.

37. Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) v. San Diego ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has been deprived of his right to academic freedom and quality education

38. Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) v. San Diego HELD: The right to quality education is not absolute . The Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirement.

39. Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) v. San Diego NMAT is a measure intended to limit the admission to medical schools to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical education. The regulation of practice of medicine is a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. This regulation includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine.

40. Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) v. San Diego NMAT is a means of achieving the country’s objective of “upgrading the selection of applicants into medical schools” and of “improving the quality of medical education in the country” It is the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health.

41. Principle of Compulsoriness in Education Compulsoriness in education means that all children of school age are required to enroll in elementary education . This, of course, is without limiting the natural right of the parents to rear their children (Section 2 (2), Article XIV, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

42. Elementary Education Act of 1953 Provides that it shall be compulsory for every parent or guardian or other person having custody of any child to enroll such child in a public school , the next school year following the seventh birthday of such child, and such child shall remain in school until completion of an elementary education.

43. Republic Act 10533 or the Kto12 Law The passage of this law now makes all levels of formal basic education compulsory: Kindergarten, Elementary, and Secondary Education. It shall be compulsory to enroll the child in basic education, irrespective of learning delivery modes and systems, until its completion, as provided for by existing laws, rules and regulations. (Section 7, R.A. No. 10533, Implementing Rules and Procedures)

44. Is R.A. 10533 Constitutional? Questions of whether the law have violated the Constitution in expanding the compulsoriness of “elementary education” to all levels of basic education was raised in the case of Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines v. Secretary of Education. For the petitioners, compulsory kindergarten and senior high school expanded the constitutional definition of elementary education.

45. Is R.A. 10533 Constitutional? The Supreme Court held that there is no conflict between the K to 12 Law and related issuance and the Constitution when it made kindergarten and senior high school compulsory. The Constitution is clear in making elementary education compulsory; and the K to 12 Law and related issuance did not change this as, in fact, it affirmed it.

46. Is R.A. 10533 Constitutional? The Constitution did not curtail the legislature’s power to determine the extent of basic education. It only provided a minimum standard. By no means did the Constitution foreclose the possibility that the Legislature provides beyond the minimum set by the Constitution.

47. Tax Exemptions and Incentives (Section 4(3), Article XIV) SECTION 4. (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.

48. Donations (Section 4(4), Article XIV) SECTION 4. (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 .

49. Commissioner of internal revenue vs. De la Salle University Facts: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU the Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

50. Commissioner of internal revenue vs. De la Salle University Facts: DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) failed to act on the protest. Thus, DLSU filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division. DLSU, a non-stock, non-profit educational institution, principally anchored its petition on Article XIV, Section 4 (3) of the Constitution, which reads: “(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.”

51. Commissioner of internal revenue vs. De la Salle University Facts: CTA Division partially granted DLSU's petition for review. The documentary stamp tax (DST) assessment on the loan transactions of DLSU in the amount of P11,681,774.00 was cancelled. However, DLSU is ordered to pay the deficiency income tax, value-added tax and DST on its lease contracts, plus 25% surcharge for the fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003 in the total amount of P18,421,363.53. Both the CIR and DLSU moved for the reconsideration. The CTA Division denied the CIR’s motion for reconsideration while it held in abeyance the resolution on DLSU's motion for reconsideration. The CIR appealed to the CTA En Banc arguing that DLSU's use of its revenues and assets for non-educational or commercial purposes removed these items from the exemption coverage under the Constitution.

52. Commissioner of internal revenue vs. De la Salle University Facts: The CTA En Banc dismissed the CIR’s petition for review and sustained the findings of the CTA Division.   The CTA En Banc   was satisfied with DLSU's supporting evidence confirming that part of its rental income had indeed been used to pay the loan it obtained to build the university's Physical Education – Sports Complex. The CTA En Banc partially granted DLSU's petition for review and further reduced its tax liabilities to P2,554,825.47 inclusive of surcharge.

53. Commissioner of internal revenue vs. De la Salle University Issue: Whether or not it is required that the revenues and income of a non-stock, non-profit educational institution must have also been sourced from educational activities or activities related to the purposes of an educational institution for it to be tax-exempt

54. Commissioner of internal revenue vs. De la Salle University Held: No, it is not required that the revenues and income of a non-stock, non-profit educational institution, such as the DLSU, must have also been sourced from educational activities or activities related to the purposes of an educational institution for it to be tax-exempt.

55. What if the school is a proprietary institution? “Proprietary” means a private hospital or any private school maintained and administered by private individuals or groups with an issued permit to operate from the Department of Education (DepEd), or the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), or the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), as the case may be, in accordance with existing laws and regulations. (Section 27 B, Tax Code of the Philippines)

56. What if the school is a proprietary institution? Proprietary educational institutions which are nonprofit shall pay a tax of ten percent (10%) on their taxable income: Provided, That beginning July 1, 2020 until June 30, 2023, the tax rate herein imposed shall be one percent (1%)

57. What if the school is a proprietary institution? However, if the gross income from ' unrelated trade , business or other activity ' exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the total gross income derived by such educational institutions or hospitals from all sources, the tax prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof shall be imposed on the entire taxable income.

58. Unrelated trade or business The term 'unrelated trade, business or other activity' means any trade, business or other activity, the conduct of which is not substantially related to the exercise or performance by such educational institution.

59. Educational Community Rights of each parties- Administration, Faculty & Student Body

60. May the school refuse admission or retention of a student due to pregnancy? The Magna Carta of Women provides: “Expulsion and non-readmission of women faculty due to pregnancy outside of marriage shall be outlawed. No school shall turn out or refuse admission to a female student solely on the account of her having contracted pregnancy outside of marriage during her term in school.”

61. “Best interest” of the student; Grounds when the school may refuse to admit Requiring the female student to undergo “home study” or “leave of absence” from the school until she has given birth for health reasons; If the school after assessment of her socio-emotional status deems it necessary for her best interest and development (specially for minors); and Due to hazards and risk that she may be exposed to while attending the course or program.

62. Religion Practice v. School Policies Both Freedom of Religion and Academic Freedom are protected rights of the Philippine Constitution. Both rights should complement and should not compete with each other.

63. Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, Facts: On June 11, 1955, Republic Act No. 1265 was approved and went into effect. Acting upon Section 2 of said Act, the Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8 for the rules and regulations of compulsory daily flag ceremony in all public and private schools. Petitioners’ children attending the Buenavista Community School in Masbate, refused to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge contrary to the requirement of Department Order No. 8.  As a result, they were expelled from the said school. Other children similarly situated who refused or failed to comply with the requirement about saluting the flag are under threats of being also expelled from all public schools in the Philippines.

64. Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, Facts: Petitioners belong to Jehova’s witness, an unincorporated body teaching that the obligation imposed by law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by the State. They wrote to the Secretary of Education petitioning that in the implementation of this flag ceremony, their children attending school be allowed to remain silent and stand at attention with their arms and hands down and straight at the sides and that they be exempted from executing the formal salute, singing of the National Anthem and the reciting of the patriotic pledge, giving their reason for the same. However, this was denied.

65. Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, Issue: Whether or not the Department Order No. 8 violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

66. Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, Held: No, the requirement of observance of the flag ceremony or salute provided for in the said order does not violate the Constitutional provision about freedom of religion and exercise of religion. In enforcing the flag salute on the petitioners, there was absolutely no compulsion involved, and for their failure or refusal to obey school regulations about the flag salute they were not being persecuted. If they chose not to obey the flag salute regulation, they merely lost the benefits of public education being maintained at the expense of their fellow citizens, nothing more.

67. Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, Held: In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute, the State through the Secretary of Education was not imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on said students. It was merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all alike whether Christian, Muslim, Protestant or Jehovah’s Witness. The flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act and profession of love and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the fatherland which the flag stands for. Petitioners’ children were properly excluded and dismissed from the public school they were attending for failure and refusal to participate in the flag ceremony.

68. Leus vs. St. Scholastic’s College Westgrove G.R. No. 187226, Jan. 28, 2015 Facts: St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove (SSCW) hired Leus as an Assistant to SSCW’s Director. Petitioner Leus and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock. When SSCW learned of the petitioners pregnancy, they advised her to file a resignation. The petitioner refused to resign her employment just because she got pregnant out of wedlock. SSCW formally directed Leus to explain in writing why she should not be dismissed. Later on, being unsatisfied with Leus ’ explanation, her employment with SSCW was terminated on the ground of serious misconduct.

69. Leus vs. St. Scholastic’s College Westgrove G.R. No. 187226, Jan. 28, 2015 Facts: Leus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. SSCW claimed that there was just cause to terminate the petitioner and that it was a valid exercise of management prerogative. They maintained that engaging in pre-marital sex, and getting pregnant amounts to a disgraceful or immoral conduct, which is a ground for the dismissal of an employee under the 1992 Manual of Regulation for Private School.

70. Leus vs. St. Scholastic’s College Westgrove G.R. No. 187226, Jan. 28, 2015 Issue: Whether or not Leus ’ pregnancy out of wedlock constitutes a valid ground to terminate her employment

71. Leus vs. St. Scholastic’s College Westgrove G.R. No. 187226, Jan. 28, 2015 Held: No. The fact of the petitioners pregnancy out of wedlock, without more, is not enough to characterize the petitioners conduct as disgraceful or immoral. There must be substantial evidence to establish that pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, are indeed considered disgraceful or immoral. The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral involves a twostep process: first, a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and second, an assessment of the said circumstances vis-à-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable.

72. Chua-Qua vs. Hon. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, Aug. 30, 1990 Facts: Chua-Qua was a teacher in Tay Tung High School, an educational institution in Bacolod City since 1963. In 1976, Petitioner was the class adviser in the sixth grade where Bobby Qua was enrolled. The school extended remedial instructions, and it was during the course thereof that Chua-Qua and Bobby Qua fell in love. On December 24, 1975, they got married in a civil ceremony. Chua-Qua was 30 years old, and Bobby Qua was only 16 years old; consent and advice was given by his mother, Mrs. Concepcion Ong. On January 10, 1976, the two got married in a church wedding.

73. Chua-Qua vs. Hon. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, Aug. 30, 1990 Facts: On February 4, 1976, Tay Tung High School filed with the Department of Labor and Employment an application for clearance to terminate the employment of Chua-Qua on the ground of “abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher”. Chua-Qua was then placed under suspension without pay on March 12, 1976. The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Tay Tung High School, holding that: “While no direct evidences have been introduced to show that immoral acts   were committed during these times, it is however enough for a sane and credible mind to imagine and conclude what transpired and took place during these times…”

74. Chua-Qua vs. Hon. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, Aug. 30, 1990 Facts: Upon appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, stating that there is nothing immoral or scandalous about a girl and a boy talking inside a room after classes with lights on and with the door open. It further held that the depositions of affiants Despi and Chin are of the same tenor. No statements whatever were sworn that they were eyewitnesses to immoral or scandalous acts.

75. Chua-Qua vs. Hon. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, Aug. 30, 1990 Issue: Whether or not Chua-Qua committed acts constituting immorality and/or grave misconduct

76. Chua-Qua vs. Hon. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, Aug. 30, 1990 Held: No, there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts. Tay Tung High School failed to show that Petitioner took advantage of her position to court her student. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores. 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.