This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Respondents likewise contend that, as an academic institution, the PMA has the inherent right to promulgate reasonable norms, rules and regulations that it may deem necessary for the maintenance of school discipline, which is specifically mandated by Section 3 (2),[104] Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution. As the premiere military educational institution of the AFP in accordance with Section 30,[105] Article III of C.A. No. 1 and Sections 58 and 59,[106] Chapter 9, Subtitle II, Title VIII, Book IV of E.O. No. 292 ("Administrative Code of 1987?), the PMA is an institution that enjoys academic freedom guaranteed by Section 5 (2),[107] Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution. In Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[108] it was held that concomitant with such freedom is the right and duty to instill and impose discipline upon its students. Also, consistent with Isabelo, Jr. v. Perpetual Help College of Rizal, Inc.[109] and Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong,[110] the PMA has the freedom on who to admit (and, conversely, to expel) given the high degree of discipline and honor expected from its students who are to form part of the AFP. | |||||
|
2012-10-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong,[48] the Court held that Guzman v. National University,[49] not Ang Tibay, is the authority on the procedural rights of students in disciplinary cases. In Guzman, we laid down the minimum standards in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, as follows: [I]t bears stressing that due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination is not, contrary to petitioners' view, an essential part thereof. There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.[50] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| More importantly, it will seriously impair petitioner university's academic freedom which has been enshrined in the 1935, 1973 and the present 1987 Constitution.[87] | |||||