G.R. No. L-62297 - Arreza vs. Gregorio Araneta University

Petitioners – Carmelo Arreza, Lonesto G. Oidem, Jacob F. Meimban, and Edgardo S. Fernando – are officers and members of the Supreme Student Council of Gregorio Araneta University Foundation.
The petition was filed through a mandamus proceeding, seeking relief from the enforcement of a university order that denied enrollment to the petitioners.
The denial stemmed from actions taken during student rallies and demonstrations, which were seen as expressions of dissent against university policies.

The student protest took place on September 28, 1982, in front of the Life Science Building of the respondent university.
Petitioners described the rally as a continuation of a General Assembly held the previous day, organized to oppose the abolition of the Institute of Animal Science.
The protest intended to register student opposition to the merger of the Institute of Animal Science with the Institute of Agriculture, a move aimed at cost-saving but feared to impede the graduation requirements of the affected students.

The respondent university characterized the activities as anti-administration, noting the use of battery-operated megaphones and condemnatory language against university officials and policies.
Aside from the rally on September 28, the university alleged that rallies held on September 8, 27, and 29, 1982, involved plea sympathies for suspended student leaders and contributed to disorder on campus.
The university maintained that the petitioners’ involvement in these activities constituted illegal assembly, thereby justifying a disciplinary action that led to the denial of enrollment.

The case draws significant parallels with Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359, where similar student demonstrations and the associated exercise of free speech were scrutinized.
In Malabanan, the actions of student leaders were recognized as a form of spirited free expression, with the ruling emphasizing that the conduct during rallies should not justify highly disproportionate penalties.
The present case was transferred en banc due to the constitutional issues related to free speech and peaceable assembly raised by the petitioners.

The petitioners highlighted their status as senior students, emphasizing that the denial of enrollment directly affected their ability to graduate.
Reference is made to the broader context of student rights and the constitutional guarantees of freedom to express views—even if delivered in an impassioned or critical manner during a campus demonstration.
The case also mentions considerations from Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines regarding the right to education and the conditional, merit-based nature of higher education, though noting that academic deficiency was not the genuine ground for the exclusion.

Whether the action of denying enrollment to student demonstrators, who exercised their right to free speech and peaceable assembly, constitutes a violation of their constitutional rights.
Whether disciplinary steps (such as filing charges for infractions of university regulations) can justify the imposition of a penalty as severe as preventing students from graduating.

The extent to which students may engage in spirited expressions of dissent on campus without incurring penalties that disproportionately affect their educational pursuits.
The determination of whether the conduct at the rallies—even if criticized for its tone—falls within the ambit of constitutionally protected expression.

The applicability of the reasoning in Malabanan v. Ramento to the present case, given the similarity in facts and the constitutional issues involved.
Whether previous rulings on the limits of disciplinary actions during protest activities should guide the outcome in this mandamus proceeding.