CODE OF ETHICS FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS: AN ISSUE OF THE CODE VS.

THE PRACTICE
Peter Philip M. Perez
MA in Education Major in Administration and Supervision
Divine Word College of San Jose

I. INTRODUCTION:

The code of ethics for professional teachers is a set of well stipulated laws
mandating the members or as listed in the PRCs rosters of teachers to behave in
accordance to its standards and regulations.
As a matter of lexical definition, professional ethics is a systematic rules or
principles governing right conduct. Each practitioner, upon entering a profession, is
invested with the responsibility to adhere to the standards of ethical practice and
conduct set by the profession (Miller-Keane Encyclopaedia and Dictionary); the same
is adhered by teachers around the globe as they go about their teaching career, thus,
putting it as a worldwide schema of conducting oneself as a teacher; this is true even
though there are claims that the said norms are informally defined and observed
(John M. Braxton and Alan E. Bayer, 2003). In fact, there are many authoritative
literatures both online and in printed form that tackles the said, placing importance to
its presence both as a field of study and as a matter of practice, for instance; authors
like Audi, R. (1994) and Smith, D.C. (1996)tackles the ethics of teaching and its
connection to the ideals of learning.

The importance to teachers to know and practice a set of ethical standards can
be seen in the article entitled Ethics and the Law which pictures how ethic plays a
penalizing role to teachers in the United States of America which reads:

The education codes of many states require that teachers be persons of good
character. Most states also permit teachers to be dismissed for unethical
conduct. States also forbid particular forms of misconduct, such as child abuse,
sexual harassment, and drug abuse, and their violation may be grounds for
dismissal.

What counts as good character or conduct can be a contentious matter.
In past decades teachers might have been dismissed not only for drunkenness,
homosexuality, unwed pregnancy, or cohabitation, but also for myriad other
offenses against the moral code of their community. Some of these may still be
gray areas; however, in recent years, courts have been inclined to insist that
actionable immoral conduct be job-related, providing some protection for the
private lives of teachers. Here a particularly contentious matter is whether being
a role model is part of the job of teachers, because this expectation can expand
public authority over the lives of teachers. In certain cases, as when teachers
discuss controversial matters in class or employ controversial teaching methods,
they may be protected by the First Amendment. Teachers, especially those who
are tenured, are also likely to have significant due-process rights. Dismissal for
immoral conduct is most likely when the teacher has committed a felony, in
cases of inappropriate sexual advances toward students, or in cases of child
abuse. In this last case, teachers may also have a duty to report suspected
misconduct by others.

The kinds of misconduct dealt with by the law are usually acts that are (or
can be viewed as) unethical in any context. Teachers, like others, are expected to
not steal, kill, commit assault, abuse children, or engage in sexual harassment.
Although the definition of immoral conduct in the law has not become
coextensive with violations of criminal law, there is little in the meaning of
immoral conduct that is distinctive to teachers or teaching (Carol J. Auster,
2002).

In This Global or more specifically, United State of Americas scenario of ethics and the
law, we can see a somewhat harsh picture of penalty to those who can be found
deviant on the set of standards mandated to be followed by teachers. However, harsh
in some ways but this is the law and one must abide by it. Furthermore, accepting the
said standards is of use not only for the benefit of refraining from penalty, but also of
the social benefit derived from Teaching with Integrity (Bruce Macfarlane, 2004).

Practice of teaching in the Philippines, like that of the above, is also imbued with
the ideals of ethics. The Code of conduct for Professional Teachers, lays the foundation
of ethical standards that must be followed by teachers in the Philippines through its well
stipulated details. The said code sprouts from the provisions of paragraph (e), Article 11,
of R.A. No. 7836, otherwise known as the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of
1994 and paragraph (a), section 6, P.D. No. 223, as amended, the Board for Professional
Teachers hereby adopts the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. It must be noted
that, this code is in effect in the country, for; deviant behavior against the said code,
has been the cause of numerous judicial, quasi-judicial and extrajudicial decisions in the
history of teachers and teaching in the country.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

Becoming ethical does not equate with becoming educated, this is true in all
respects. Thus, making it possible for literatures such as those of Irene R. Cortes to come
to existence which I quote:
I remember how I felt every time a disciplinary case came before the Supreme
Court involving a former student for gross and willful violation of the canons
governing the conduct of members of the bench or the bar. The question I asked
myself and my colleagues in the Supreme Court who were once law teachers
was: Where did we fail? But then, there are those who believe that ethics like
virtue cannot be taught. They are attributes each individual develops from
childhood and through life as a consequence of interrelationships in the home,
at school, and the community. (Irene R. Cortes, Towards Effective Teaching of
Legal Ethics, in ESSAYS ON LEGAL EDUCATION (1994) as quoted by Raul C.
Pangalangan ,1999)
In connection with this, there have been numerous cases involving teachers which has
been litigated or mitigated, depending on the merit of the case in various levels of the
Philippine Judiciary. Thus, despite of the well stipulated dos and donts in the the Code
of Ethics for Professional Teachers, there remains transgressions on the part of
educators that calls the attention of general public, ethics enthusiast and the like.
Sometimes, the act of the teacher, being categorized as beyond reproach, leads to
judicial and quasi-judicial litigation and/or mitigation. For instance, the Supreme Court
General Ruling (G.R.) No. 172334 who cast its verdict on June 5, 2013 finds Dr. Zenaiua
P. Pia of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, guilty of violating Article X, Section
3 of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers which reads:

No teacher shall act, directly or indirectly, as agent of, or be financially interested
in, any commercial venture which furnish textbooks and other school
commodities in the purchase and disposal of which he can exercise official
influence, except only when his assignment is inherently, related to such
purchase and disposal; provided they shall be in accordance with the existing
regulations; provided, further, that members of duly recognized teachers
cooperatives may participate in the distribution and sale of such commodities.

The truth behind the verdict is that, Dr. Pia sells books to her student in the said
university; furthermore, it was fairly believed to be overpriced. Furthermore, quoting
S.C. G.R. No. 198755, dated June 5, 2013 finds the accused Robert Bang-on guilty of
Grave Misconduct for punching the students stomach due to the the latters inability to
follow instruction.

Having the above judicial stories well stipulated, sprouts several questions like:
Dont they know that what they are doing are erroneous? Note that, in these said cases,
the so called Educated are the culprits; this, is especially true in the case of Dr. Pia
who has a post graduate degree. And, for the sake of the argument: granting they
dont know such, then another question will immediately sprout: What could have
been the fault of the educating institutions in the faith of Dr. Pia and Mr. Bang-on?
Hasnt this colleges taught them this code? Again, Just in case that such is true then the
codes Article I, Section 1 will be put in the position of having NOT implemented, which I
quote:

The Philippine Constitution provides that all educational institution shall offer
quality education for all competent teachers. Committed to its full realization,
the provision of this Code shall apply, therefore, to all teachers in schools in the
Philippines.

Thus, we can say that, it is also the responsibility of the academe to impart necessary
knowledge to prospective teachers and administrators so that they will be guided
accordingly in the course of their professions as teachers.

Digging deeper, there are also things which a normal person may perceive to be
not right with the wordings used in the code itself; leaving it vague and sometimes
contradictory when analyzed. The passage on Article II, Section 6 for instance, which
states that Every teacher shall vote and shall exercise all other constitutional rights and
responsibility, is a very demanding one, which may violate the spiritual beliefs of some
groups as regards to the matter; Jehovahs Witnesses for instance does not vote by
virtue of their beliefs (jwfacts.com), this goes with other inhibitions and/or prohibitions
to do Flag Salute, Voting, and Civilian Service (http://wol.jw.org). Thus, this passage in
the code may put a teacher upholding the beliefs of Jehovahs Witnesses in danger of
being penalized for not voting by virtue of Article XII, Section 1 which reads:

Any violation of any provision of this code shall be sufficient ground for the
imposition against the erring teacher of the disciplinary action consisting of
revocation of hisCertification of Registration and License as a Professional
Teacher, suspension from the practice of teaching profession, or reprimand or
cancellation of his temporary/special permit under causes specified in
Sec. 23, Article III or R.A. No. 7836, and under Rule 31, Article VIII, of the Rules
and Regulations Implementing R.A. 7836.

The phrase any violation does not exempt the violation in relation to Article II, Section
6; this, is especially true if we are to interpret it in a logically coherent manner.
Therefore, teachers who are of Jehovahs Witness faith can be removed from the
roster/list of professional teachers suspended and reprimanded as the Professional
Regulation Commission may deem necessary; note that, if this will be the case, it will
contradict the very foundation of the law of the land, or the Philippine Constitution
which states that:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights (Article
III, Sec.5).

Also, in effect; the code will contradict itself: A teacher possess freedom to attend
church and worships as appropriate, but shall not use his positions and influence to
proselyte others (Article III, Sec. 8). Furthermore, we all know that suffrage as
mentioned in Article V, Sec. 1 is a right and not necessarily be an obligation by
connotative interpretation which I quote:

Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have
resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the
election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be
imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Here, the phase may be exercised is not closed to the possibility of resistance as
against the codes statement Shall (Code of Ethics. Article II, Section 6). Thus, with the
foregoing arguments, we can indeed claim that: the code has not been analyzed in its
own context, as well as that of the constitution, giving it a vague characteristic.

III. OBJECTIVES:

o To ensure passage and retention of knowledge as regards to the Code of Ethics
for Professional Teachers.





IV. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION

1. Universities and Colleges throughout the archipelago should offer a separate subject
which tackles only the code of conduct for professional teachers; this should be apart
from the Legal foundations of education being offered by the schools.

2. Revise the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. This is to avoid/delete vague
concepts embedded in it, and, to attune the said with the very foundations of law of the
land or the Philippine Constitution.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

All the above stated alternative courses of action hold bearing in our quest for
improvement on matters pertaining to the uplifting the ethical standards of ethics in the
Philippine Education arena.

VI. REFERENCES:

Definition of Professional Ethics. Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine,
Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier,
Inc.

Audi, R. (1994). On the ethics of teaching and the ideals of learning. Acadme-bulletin of
the AAUP, 80(5), 27-36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40250664?origin=JSTOR-pdfISSUE

Smith, D.C. (1996) The ethics of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.37219966604/pdf

Carol J. Auster (2002) Gale Encyclopaedia of Education: Ethics and the Law. The Gale
Group, Inc.

John M. Braxton and Alan E. Bayer (2003) Faculty Misconduct in Collegiate Teaching.
Johns Hopkins University Press

Bruce Macfarlane (2004) Teaching with Integrity: The Ethics of Higher Education
Practice. Psychology Press

Raul C. Pangalangan, 1999. THE POWER AND LIMITS OF TEACHING ETHICS IN THE
CLASSROOM. University of the Philippines.
Supreme Court General Ruling (G.R.) No. 172334, June 5, 2013. DR. ZENAIUA P. PIA,
Petitioner, vs. HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., Overall Deputy Ombudsman,
Formerly Acting Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, Dr. OFELIA M. CARAGUE,
Formerly PUP President, Dr. ROMAN R. UANNUG, Formerly Dean, College of Economics,
Finance and Politics (CEFP), now Associate Professor, CEFP Polytechnic University of the
Philippines (PUP), Sta. Mesa, Manila, Respondents.
SUPREME COURT G.R. No. 198755, June 5, 2013. ALBERTO PAT-OG, SR., Petitioner, vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198755_2013.html
How do Jehovahs Witnesses view voting?
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/voting.php
Flag Salute, Voting, and Civilian Service. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-
e/1102008085
1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
http://www.lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html