Title
University of the Philippines vs. Ayson
Case
G.R. No. 88386
Decision Date
Aug 17, 1989
UP Board of Regents phased out UPCBHS due to unmet purposes and financial issues; SC upheld decision as valid exercise of academic freedom, ruling courts cannot interfere.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 88386)

Applicable Law

The constitutional provisions relevant to this case include Article XIV, Section 1, which stipulates the right to quality education, and Article XIV, Section 2, which mandates the State to establish and maintain a system of free public education at the elementary and high school levels. Additionally, Article XIV, Section 5 acknowledges the academic freedom enjoyed by institutions of higher learning. The case is also influenced by Republic Act No. 6655, known as the "Free Public Secondary Education Act of 1988," which encompasses state colleges and universities offering secondary education.

Background and Timeline of Events

The genesis of the UPCBHS can be traced back to 1972 when it was established as part of UP’s graduate program in education, with specific conditions that it remain self-supporting without financial reliance on UP's budget. Over the years, various reviews conducted in 1981 and 1985 raised concerns regarding the viability of UPCBHS, particularly as it had failed to serve its intended academic function and increasingly operated at a financial deficit. On January 30, 1989, the Board of Regents approved the phase-out of UPCBHS, leading to a memorandum from Dean Patricio Lazaro instructing the school not to accept new freshmen for the 1989-1990 academic year.

Legal Proceedings

Following the announcement of the phase-out, the UP College Baguio High School Foundation filed a petition for injunction against the university's Board of Regents in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, challenging the legality and constitutionality of the Board’s decision. Respondent Judge Ruben Ayson issued orders on May 25 and June 14, 1989, restraining the implementation of the Board's decision, prompting the petitioners to seek certiorari and a temporary restraining order from the higher courts.

Central Legal Issues

The petitioners argue that the Board's decision is an exercise of academic freedom as protected by the Constitution, asserting that the decision-making related to the operation of higher learning institutions rests within their autonomous prerogative. Conversely, respondents argue their right to free public secondary education, suggesting that the abolition of UPCBHS contravenes this constitutional guarantee and relevant legislation.

Judicial Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the conflict between academic freedom and the right to free public education. Academic freedom, as articulated in Article XIV, Section 5, empowers institutions like UP to establish their educational mandates without external interference, which, according to the Court, should encompass the right to phase out non-viable programs such as UPCBHS. The Court further noted that while Republic Act No.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.