Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

ARTICLE 14 SECTION 3 CASE 1 OF 1 a particular act or acts; calculated to preserve or maintain the status

MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC. vs. CA quo of things and is generally availed of to prevent actual or
threatened acts until merits of case can be heard
DOCTRINE: ii. RESTRAINING ORDER: purpose is to preserve status quo until the
(State doctrines or terms and definitions that are importance here) hearing of the application for preliminary injunction; judge may
issue TRO with a limited life of 20 days from date of issue
IMPORTANT RULING RELATED TO THE PROVISION/DOCTRINE: b. No such preliminary injunction was issued :. TRO automatically expired
(Court rulings that don’t state doctrines i. By the time TRO was issued, respondents ELIZABETH
VALDEZCO and JOEL TAN had already served their respective
suspensions and TRO only applicable to respondents JASPER
FACTS: BIONES, JEROME GOMEZ, RELLY CARPIO, JOSE MARI
1. Sept-Oct 1994 issue of Miriam College’s school paper (Chi-Rho) and magazine (Ang RAMOS, and GERALD GARY RENACIDO (all whom dismissed)
Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho) received a lot of backlash from Miriam College and CAMILLE PORTUGAL (grad privileges were withheld)
community for being obscene, indecent, sexually explicit, etc. c. Can hardly be said that in that short span of 20 days, these students had
a. Following publication, members of editorial board, and Relly Carpio (author already graduated as to render case moot
of Libog), all students of Miriam College, received letter signed by Chair of d. Private respondents deny that case had become moot since Miriam refused
Miriam College Discipline Committee (DR. ALELI SEVILLA) them readmission in violation of TRO and fact of TRO not being moot
i. That above students have violated regulations in student unwittingly conceded by Miriam itself when it said that private respondents
handbook and are required to submit a written statement in never sought readmission AFTER restraining order was issued.
answer to charge/s against them
ii. None of the students submitted their respective answers, but 2. JURISDICTION A QUESTION PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND WELL WITHIN
instead requested Dr. Sevilla to transfer the case to the Regional COMPETENCE JURISDICTION OF TC AND NOT DECS
Office of the Dept. of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) which a. Petition for certiorari and prohibition limited to question of jurisdiction
supposedly had jurisdiction over case (Rule 12 DECS Order 94) i. 1ST GROUND: Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board did
1. ATTY. RICARDO VALMONTE, lawyer of students, not have jurisdiction over case (DECS did pursuant to RA 7079)
submitted a letter to Discipline Committee that they had ii. 2ND GROUND: Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board do
no jurisdiction and were “trying to impose discipline on not have qualification of an impartial and neutral arbiter and
[his clients] on account of their having written articles therefore, their taking cognizance of case against plaintiffs would
and poems in their capacity as campus journalists” of deny their right to due process
which RA 7079 (Campus Journalism Act) applies b. Trial court should not have dismissed the petition without settling the issues
iii. Discipline Committee proceeded with its investigation ex parte and presented before it
imposed disciplinary sanctions upon students
2. RTC: petition for prohibition + certiorari w/ prelim injunction/TRO by students denied 3. WE READ SEC 7 OF CAMPUS JOURNALISM ACT TO MEAN THAT “THE
a. MR granted prelim injunction so not to render issues moot and academic SCHOOL CANNOT SUSPEND OR EXPEL A STUDENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS
3. CA: granted students’ petition and declared RTC Order and students’ suspension and OF THE ARTICLES S/HE HAS WRITTEN EXCEPT WHEN SUCH ARTICLE
dismissal void MATERIALLY DISRUPTS CLASS WORK OR INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL
DISORDER OR INVASION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS”
ISSUES: a. N O T E : SEC 7 of RA 7079 (Campus Journalism Act): prohibits expulsion
1. W/N case is moot NO or suspension of a student solely on basis of articles he or she has written
2. W/N TC has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari filed by students YES
3. W/N petitioner has power to suspend/dismiss respondent students YES b. SEC 5(2) ART XIV CONSTI: guarantees all institutions of higher learning
4. W/N petitioner has jurisdiction over complaints against the students YES academic freedom
i. Who may teach
RULING: ii. What may be taught
1. CASE IS NOT MOOT C. Right to discipline to instill discipline
a. Court issued a TRO and NOT a preliminary injuction iii. How it shall be taught
i. PRELIM INJUNCTION: an order granted at any stage of an action C. Also where right to discipline is at
or proceeding prior to judgment or final order, requiring a party or iv. Who may be admitted to study
a court, agency, or a person to perform to refrain from performing
C. Right to determine who to admit and who to
exclude/expel
c. No doubt that establishment of educational institution requires rules and
regulations necessary for maintenance of an orderly educational program
and the creation of an educational environment conducive to learning
i. Necessary for protection of students, faculty, and property
d. MOREOVER, school has interest in teaching students discipline, a necessary,
if not indispensable, value in any field of learning
i. School not only has the right but the DUTY to develop discipline
in its students (SEC 3(2) ART14 of Consti)
e. Admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school,
the same being a privilege on part of student rather than a right
i. EDUCATION ACT OF 1982: students have a right “to freely choose
their FIELD OF STUDY, subject to existing curricula and to
continue their course therein up to graduation”

f. SEC 4(1) ART 14 of Consti: recognizes State’s power to regulate educational


institution SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLENESS
i. Mere REGULATION and SUPERVISION of institutions and not
the deprivation of their rights

g. Students have a right to free speech in school premises, however, not absolute
i. Must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of
school environment
ii. TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT: “When [student] is
in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during
authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on
controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so
without ‘materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of school’
and without colliding with the rights of others”
iii. SEC 7 of CAMPUS JOURNALISM ACT should be construed in
harmony with provisions of Constitution and thus should be read
as not to infringe upon the school’s right to discipline its students
C. Nor should we construe provision as to unduly restrict
the right of the students to free speech

4. MIRIAM COLLEGE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE CASES
FILED AGAISNT RESPONDENT STUDENTS
a. Power of school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend/expel
i. Power to enforce rules and regulations, and maintain safe and
orderly educational environment conducive to learning, like the
power to suspend/expel, is an inherent part of academic freedom
of institutions of higher learning guaranteed by Constitution

Potrebbero piacerti anche