Case Summary (G.R. No. 88386)
Factual Background
In 1972, the UP Board of Regents approved the establishment of the UPCBHS as an integral part of the graduate education program. The school was intended to serve, among others, as a laboratory and demonstration school for prospective teachers. The approval, however, was conditional: UPCBHS was required to be self-supporting and was not to entail a subsidy from the UP budget.
In 1978, the Board provided for a Division of Education in UP College Baguio (UPCB), composed of a Department of Professional Education and a High School Department. The Department of Professional Education was never organized, although the High School Department operated continuously.
In 1981, the Committee to Review Academic Program recommended abolition of the UPCBHS. In 1985, the Program Review Committee asked UP to look into the viability of its secondary education program, citing limited financial resources and the failure of UPCBHS to function as a laboratory school for teacher training because UP did not offer Education programs.
There were subsequent discussions on the proposed phase-out. On January 30, 1989, the UP Board of Regents approved the phase-out of UPCBHS, grounding its action among others on findings that only an insignificant number of UPCBHS graduates qualified for admission and actually enrolled in UP, and that UPCBHS was not serving as a laboratory or demonstration school for prospective teachers and was not a self-supporting unit.
Issuance of the Memorandum and the RTC Petition
After the Board’s action, Dean Patricio Lazaro issued a memorandum directing the UPCBHS principal not to accept new incoming high school freshmen for school year 1989–1990.
On May 25, 1989, the UP College Baguio High School Foundation, Inc., represented by its president and chairman of the board, Salvador Valdez, Jr., filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio, Branch VI, presided over by Judge Ruben Ayson, docketed as Civil Case No. 1748-R. The petition sought injunction, including a preliminary preventive and mandatory injunction, with prayer for a temporary restraining order. It alleged that the UP Board’s decision to phase out UPCBHS was without legal basis and unconstitutional.
On May 25, 1989 and June 14, 1989, respondent judge issued assailed orders that restrained petitioners from implementing both the Board of Regents’ decision and Dean Lazaro’s memorandum. Petitioners’ motion to dismiss the civil case was denied.
Petition to the Supreme Court and the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order
Petitioners thus filed a petition for certiorari, with urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order, to annul the RTC orders. On June 27, 1989, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the implementation of the assailed orders.
The Parties’ Contentions
Petitioners argued, among others, that the Board of Regents’ decision to phase out UPCBHS was an exercise of academic freedom guaranteed by the Constitution under Art. XIV, Sec. 5(2).
Respondents did not dispute academic freedom in the abstract. They argued instead that the challenged phase-out violated the right to quality education under Art. XIV, Sec. 1 and the constitutional guarantee of free public secondary education under Art. XIV, Sec. 2(2), further implemented by Rep. Act No. 6655. Respondents framed the controversy as a conflict between academic freedom and the right to free public secondary education.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework Applied by the Court
The Court juxtaposed Art. XIV, Sec. 2(2)—directing the State to establish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels—with Art. XIV, Sec. 5(2), which provides that academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. The Court then posed the determinative question: whether secondary public education was demandable in an institution of higher learning such as the University of the Philippines.
Scope of Academic Freedom and the Institutional Nature of the Right
The Court ruled in the negative, reasoning that the UP, as an institution of higher learning, enjoys academic freedom in its institutional kind. The Court relied on its earlier discussion in Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology (68 SCRA 277 [1975]), emphasizing that the constitutional reference to institutions of higher learning recognizes rights vested in the school or college itself. The institution decides its aims and objectives and how to attain them, and it is free from outside coercion or interference, except possibly when overriding public welfare calls for restraint. The Court also cited the view that a university provides an atmosphere conducive to experiment and creation, and that it has essential freedoms, including determining for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted.
Interpretation of Rep. Act No. 6655
The Court then addressed Rep. Act No. 6655, which covers state colleges and universities (SCUs) offering secondary courses. Respondents contended that because a secondary course was offered in UPCB, petitioners could not unilaterally withdraw, or else the Act would be rendered null for other SCUs. They also argued that petitioners had previously recognized the Act’s applicability when UPCBHS implemented it for school year 1988–1989.
The Court rejected these contentions by situating UPCBHS within the conditional nature of its creation and the institutional competence of UP to decide whether its academic purposes had been met. It underscored that UPCBHS had been established subject to requirements such as that it must be self-supporting, may serve as a feeder for UP at Baguio, and may function as a laboratory and demonstration school for prospective teachers. The Court pointed out that the University could order abolition when those purposes were not satisfied, especially if the grounds for continuation no longer existed.
UP’s Charter Purpose and the Non-Mandated Role of Secondary Education
The Court stressed that the University of the Philippines was created under its charter, Act No. 1870 (1908), as amended, to provide advanced tertiary education and professional and technical training. It noted that secondary education was not among the University’s mandated functions. For that reason, the Court held that UP could validly phase out and/or abolish UPCBHS when the requirements for its continuance were not met, even with Rep. Act No. 6655 in place.
Respect for the Board of Regents’ Factual Findings
The Court also held that the findings of fact made by the Board of Regents that led to the phase-out decision deserved respect, if not finality. Administrative acts taken within agency competence should not be casually overturned by courts. The Court emphasized that UPCBHS was established as a component of the tertiary teacher-training program; however, the teacher-training program was not viable in UP College Baguio, which necessitated phasing out UPCBHS. The Court contrasted UPCBHS with other UP high schools in Iloilo, Diliman, Cebu, and Los Baños, which served as laboratory schools because in those locations there were relevant College of Education units, while in Baguio there was no College of Education.
Whether Rep. Act No. 6655 Compels UP to Provide Secondary Education
The Court examined Rep. Act No. 6655 as implementing the State policy to provide free public secondary education and as vesting the formulation of a secondary public education curriculum, nationalization of public secondary schools, and rule implementation upon the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). The Court treated the Act as complementing Art. XIV, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, but it held that
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 88386)
- The petitioners were The University of the Philippines, the UP Board of Regents, and Dean Patricio Lazaro (petitioners).
- The respondents were Hon. Judge Ruben Ayson, Br. VI, RTC-Baguio City, and UP College Baguio High School Foundation, Inc., represented by Salvador Valdez, Jr. (respondents).
- Petitioners sought certiorari with urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order to annul the trial court orders issued in Civil Case No. 1748-R.
- The petition challenged Orders dated May 25, 1989 and June 14, 1989 issued by respondent judge in an action for injunction filed by the UP College Baguio High School Foundation.
- The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on June 27, 1989, enjoining implementation of the assailed trial court orders.
- The Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition and set aside the assailed orders.
Key Factual Background
- In 1972, the UP Board of Regents approved the establishment of UP College Baguio High School (UPCBHS) as an integral part of the graduate program in education, intended to function among others as a laboratory and demonstration school for prospective teachers.
- The Board approved UPCBHS with conditions that it must be self-supporting and must not entail any subsidy from the UP budget.
- In 1978, the Board planned a Division of Education in UP College Baguio (UPCB) composed of a Department of Professional Education and a High School Department.
- The Department of Professional Education was never organized, while the High School Department continued in continuous operation.
- In 1981, the Committee to Review Academic Program recommended abolition of the UPCBHS.
- In 1985, the Program Review Committee asked UP to look into the viability of its secondary education program because of limited financial resources and because UPCBHS failed to serve as a laboratory school for teacher training, given that UPCB did not offer Education programs.
- Various discussions occurred on phasing out UPCBHS.
- On January 30, 1989, the UP Board of Regents approved the proposed phase-out of UPCBHS on grounds including that only an insignificant number of UPCBHS graduates qualified for admission and actually enrolled in UP, and that UPCBHS was not serving as a laboratory or demonstration school and was not self-supporting.
- After the Board’s approval, petitioner Dean Patricio Lazaro issued a memorandum directing the UPCBHS principal not to accept new incoming freshmen for school year 1989-1990.
- On May 25, 1989, UP College Baguio High School Foundation, Inc., filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio, Br. VI for injunction with preliminary preventive and mandatory injunction, with prayer for temporary restraining order, docketed as Civil Case No. 1748-R.
- The foundation alleged, among others, that the UP Board’s decision to phase out UPCBHS was without legal basis and unconstitutional.
- The trial court issued orders restraining petitioners from implementing the Board’s phase-out decision and Dean Lazaro’s memorandum.
- The trial court denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss, prompting the present petition for certiorari.
Constitutional and Statutory Conflict
- Petitioners contended that the decision to phase out UPCBHS was an exercise of academic freedom under Art. XIV, Sec. 5(2), 1987 Constitution.
- Respondents did not dispute academic freedom as such but argued the conflict lay in the right to quality education under Art. XIV, Sec. 1 and free public secondary education under Art. XIV, Sec. 2(2) and Rep. Act No. 6655, the Free Public Secondary Education Act of 1988.
- Respondents argued that abolition of UPCBHS would violate those constitutional and statutory rights.
- The case framed the conflict as academic freedom versus the right to free public secondary education.
The University’s Academic Freedom
- The Supreme Court held that secondary public education was not demandable from an institution of higher learning such as UP.
- The Court recognized that UP, as an institution of higher learning, enjoys academic freedom as the institutional kind.
- The Court applied the scope of academic freedom described in Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology (citing 68 SCRA 277 [1975]) that academic freedom allows the school or college to decide its aims, objectives, and how to attain them, and to be free from outside coercion except when overriding public welfare calls for restraint.
- The Court emphasized that academic freedom extends to determinations o