Academic Freedom

http://www.yonip.com/the-meaning-of-academic-freedom-by-roland-simbulan/
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=facpub

- History
- Cases https://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/political-and-public-international-
law/constitutional-law/1737-academic-freedom-of-institutions-of-higher-learning.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/06/jefferson_v_cuccinelli.h
tml Sweezy v. New Hampshire 1957, Keyishian v. Board of Regents 1967 But none of these
cases was resolved on the basis of academic freedom directly. In some cases, the court invoked
the due-process clause or freedom of speech and association.

Academic Freedom as a Form of Expression

Freedom of speech is a form of freedom of expression

- Speech speech is under expression

- Actions
- Works

- Hate speech in university campuses

- Copyright

Institutional Academic Freedom

A school enjoys academic freedom – a guarantee that enjoys protection from the Constitution no
less. Section 5(2) Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all institutions of higher learning
academic freedom.1

The institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide and adopt
its aims and objectives, and to determine how these objections can best be attained, free from
outside coercion or interference, save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some
restraint. The essential freedoms subsumed in the term "academic freedom" encompass the
freedom of the school or college to determine for itself: (1) who may teach; (2) who may be taught;
(3) how lessons shall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study.2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_183572_2010.html

AMACC’s right to academic freedom is particularly important in the present case, because of
the new screening guidelines for AMACC faculty put in place for the school year 2000-2001.
We agree with the CA that AMACC has the inherent right to establish high standards of
competency and efficiency for its faculty members in order to achieve and maintain academic
excellence. The school’s prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and to determine
whether or not these standards have been met is in accordance with academic freedom that gives
the educational institution the right to choose who should teach.32 In Peña v. National Labor
Relations Commission,33 we emphasized:

It is the prerogative of the school to set high standards of efficiency for its teachers since quality
education is a mandate of the Constitution. As long as the standards fixed are reasonable and
not arbitrary, courts are not at liberty to set them aside. Schools cannot be required to adopt
standards which barely satisfy criteria set for government recognition.

The same academic freedom grants the school the autonomy to decide for itself the terms and
conditions for hiring its teacher, subject of course to the overarching limitations under the Labor
Code. Academic freedom, too, is not the only legal basis for AMACC’s issuance of screening
guidelines. The authority to hire is likewise covered and protected by its management
prerogative – the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as hiring, the
freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods, process to be followed, regulation
regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal
and recall of workers.34 Thus, AMACC has every right to determine for itself that it shall use
fixed-term employment contracts as its medium for hiring its teachers. It also acted within the
terms of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools when it recognized the petitioners to be
merely on probationary status up to a maximum of nine trimesters.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/may1990/gr_89317_1990.html

Schools right to discipline

1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_183572_2010.html; Section 5, paragraph (2) Article XIV of
the 1987 CONSTITUTION reads: "Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning."
2
Miriam College Foundation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 265.
 The majority's failure to expressly repudiate the "termination of contract" doctrine enunciated
in the decision provoked several dissents on that issue. Although seven (7) members of the Court
* disagreed with the Second Division's dismissal of the students petition, a definitive ruling on
the issue could not have been made because no timely motion for reconsideration was filed by
the students. (As stated above, the motion for reconsideration was filed by the dismissed
teachers.)

Be that as it may, the reassessment of the doctrine laid down in Alcuaz, insofar as it allowed
schools to bar the readmission or re-enrollment of students on the ground of termination of
contract, shall be made in this case where the issue is squarely raised by petitioners [Petition, p.
4; Rollo, p. 5].

Initially, the case at bar must be put in the proper perspective. This is not a simple case of a
school refusing readmission or re-enrollment of returning students. Undisputed is the fact that
the refusal to readmit or re-enroll petitioners was decided upon and implemented by school
authorities as a reaction to student mass actions directed against the school. Petitioners are
students of respondent school who, after leading and participating in student protests, were
denied readmission or re-enrollment for the next semester. This is a case that focuses on the
right to speech and assembly as exercised by students vis-a-vis the right of school officials to
discipline them.

Villar, Arreza, Guzman, Malabanan, Alcuaz3

Capitol Medical, Licup

https://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/political-and-public-international-law/constitutional-
law/1737-academic-freedom-of-institutions-of-higher-learning.html

Then transition to copyright

3
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/may1988/gr_76353_1988.html
 Academic freedom is an extension of free speech. While the intellectual property concept
of work-for-hire involves the application of property law principles, manifestly incorporated in the
teacher exception is the professor’s constitutionally granted right of academic freedom.4 Academic
freedom is “more often identified with the right of a faculty member to pursue his studies in his
particular specialty and thereafter to make known or publish the result of his endeavors without
fear that retribution would be visited on him.”5 Although only “institutions of higher learning” are
granted academic freedom,6 this constitutional provision should not be construed as to limit its
application to professors.7

In Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, the Supreme Court recognized the separate
and distinct right of academic freedom granted to the university as an institution and the academic
freedom of a university professor.8 It should be noted however that this grant of academic freedom
does not explicitly exclude high school teachers. To exclude high school teachers in the coverage
may very well defeat the purpose of the law in protecting the free speech rights of teachers in the
secondary education.

What is not academic freedom

Academic Freedom, public school, private school (higher learning only)

 Tenure
 Exercise inside or outside of classroom, should not be limited in classroom

Fair Use, DMCA, TEACH Act

4
PHIL. CONST. art. XIV, § 5, ¶ 2.
5
Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, 68 SCRA 277, 283 (1975).
6
PHIL. CONST. art. XIV, § 5, ¶ 2.
7
Garcia, 68 SCRA at 284.
8
Id.