THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE UP BOARD OF REGENTS AND DEAN PATRICIO LAZARO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON, BR. VI, RTC-BAGUIO CITY, AND UP COLLEGE BAGUIO HIGH…

This is a petition for certiorari, with urgent prayer for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order, seeking to annul the Orders of
respondent Judge dated May 25, 1989
and June 14, 1989 in Civil
case No. 1748-R entitled, “UP College Baguio
High School Foundation, Inc., et al., v. The University of the Philippines, et
al., “restraining petitioners from implementing the decision of the Board
of Regents to phase out the UP College Baguio High
School (UPCBHS) and the Memorandum of petitioner Dean
Patricio Lazaro directing the principal of UPCBHS not
to accept new incoming freshmen for the school year 1989-1990.

Sometime in 1972, the UP Board of Regents approved the
establishment of UPCBHS as an
integral part of the graduate program in education to serve, among others, as a
laboratory and demonstration school for prospective teachers.  Provided, however, that UPCBHS must be self-supporting and
should not entail any subsidy from the budget of the UP.

In 1978, the Board of Regents provided for the establishment of a
Division of Education in UP College Baguio (UPCB) which shall be composed of a
Department of Professional Education and a High School Department.  However, the Department of Professional
Education was never organized, although the High School Department has been in
continuous operation.

In  1981, the Committee to
Review Academic Program recommended the abolition of the UPCBHS.  In 1985, the Program Review Committee
likewise asked the UPCB to look
into the viability of its secondary education program on account of limited financial resources
plus the fact that UPCBHS failed to serve as a laboratory school for teacher
training program as UPCB does not offer programs in Education.  Subsequently, various discussions were held
on the proposed phase-out of the
UPCBHS.

On January 30, 1989, the UP Board of Regents approved the
proposed phase-out of UPCBHS on the grounds, inter alia, that only an insignificant number of UPCBHS graduates
qualified for admission and actually enrolled in UPCB and that UPCBHS is not
serving as a laboratory or demonstration school for prospective teachers much less a self-supporting unit.  Subsequently, petitioner Dean Patricio Lazaro issued a memorandum directing the UPCBHS Principal
not to accept new incoming high school freshmen for the school year 1989-1990.

On May 25, 1989,
respondent UP College Baguio High School Foundation Inc.,
represented by its president, filed a
petition with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio, Br.
VI, presided by respondent Judge against herein petitioners, for Injunction
with preliminary preventive and mandatory injunction with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining
order, docketed as Civil Case No. 1748-R, alleging among others, that the
decision of the UP Board of Regents to phase out the UPCBHS is without legal
basis and unconstitutional.

Thereafter, respondent
Judge issued the assailed Orders restraining petitioners from implementing the
Board’s decision to phase out UPCBHS and the memorandum of Dean Patricio Lazaro.  Petitioners’
motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 1748-R was denied by respondent Judge.

Hence,
this petition.

On June 27,
1989, this Court
issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the implementation of the
assailed orders of respondent Judge.

Petitioners contend,
among other things, that the decision of the UP Board of Regents to phase out
the UPCBHS is an exercise of academic freedom guaranteed by the constitution
(Art. XIV, Sec. 5, par. 2).

Respondents, on the other hand, take issue not with
the exercise of academic freedom but rather on the right to quality education
(Art. XIV, Sec. 1) and free public secondary education (Art. XIV, Sec. 2, par. 2) mandated by the Constitution and Rep. Act No.
6655, otherwise known as “Free Public Secondary Education Act of
1988″.  Respondents contend that the
abolition of the UPCBHS would be violative of said
rights.

The
conflict of the present petition pits the concept of academic freedom as against the right to free public secondary
education.  Art. XIV, Section 2 [2] of
the Constitution, provides:  “The
State shall establish and maintain a system of free public education in the
elementary and high school levels.  Without
limiting the right of natural parents to rear their children, elementary
education is compulsory for all children of school age.” On the other
hand, Art. XIV, Section 5 [2], provides: 
“Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.”

Is secondary public education demandable in an institution of
higher learning such as the University of the Philippines?

We rule in the negative.

It is beyond cavil that the UP, as an institution of higher
learning, enjoys academic freedom — the institutional kind.

In Garcia v. The Faculty
Admission Committee, Loyola
School of Theology
(68 SCRA 277 [1975]), the Court had occasion to note the scope of academic
freedom recognized by the Constitution as follows:

“(I)t
is to be noted that the reference is to the “institutions of higher
learning” as the
recipients of this boon.  It would follow
then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right.  It decides for itself its aims and objectives
and how best to attain them.  It is free
from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public
welfare calls for some restraint.  It has
a wide sphere of autonomy
certainly extending to the choice of students. 
This constitutional provision is not to be construed in a niggardly
manner or in a grudging fashion.  That
would be to frustrate its purpose, nullify its intent.

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

” ‘It
is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most
conducive to speculation, experiment and creation.  It is an atmosphere in which there prevail
the ‘four essential freedoms’ of a university — to determine for itself on
academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it
shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study‘”  (Underscoring supplied; citing Sinco, Philippine Political Law, 491, (1962) and the
concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Sweezy
v. New Hampshire (354 US 234 [1957]).

Rep. Act No. 6655,
otherwise known as the “Free Public Secondary Education Act of 1988,”
includes in its coverage state colleges and universities (SCUs) offering secondary courses.  Respondents contend that since a secondary
course is being offered in UPCB, petitioners cannot unilaterally withdraw therefrom,
otherwise, the said Act would be nothing but a mere nullity for all other SCUs.  Besides,
respondents contend, petitioners already recognized the applicability of Rep.
Act No. 6655 when they implemented the same at the UPCBHS for School Year
1988-89 and petitioners’ assertion that UPCBHS was established only if it would
be “self-supporting and should not entail any subsidy from the budget of
UP” is but a lame excuse.

At this juncture, it must be pointed out that UPCBHS was established subject to a
number of conditionalities, e.g., it must be
self-supporting, it can serve as a feeder
for the UP at Baguio, it can serve as a laboratory
and demonstration school for prospective
teachers, failing in which the University can order its abolition on academic
grounds, specially where the purposes for which it was established was not
satisfied.

Specifically, the University of the Philippines
was created under its Charter (Act No. 1870 [1908], as amended) to provide
advanced tertiary education and not secondary education.  Section 2 of said Act states that “the
purpose of said University shall be to provide advanced instruction in
literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and to give professional and
technical training.”

It is apparent that secondary education is not the mandated
function of the University of the Philippines;
consequently, the latter can validly phase out and/or abolish the UPCBHS
especially so when the requirements for its continuance have not been met, Rep.
Act No. 6655 to the contrary notwithstanding. 
The findings of facts by the Board of Regents which led to its decision
to phase out the UPCBHS must be accorded respect, if not finality.  Acts of an administrative agency within their
areas of competence must not be
casually overturned by the courts.  It
must be emphasized that UPCBHS was established as a component of the tertiary
level, i.e., the teacher/training program. 
As it turned out however, the latter program was not viable in UPCB thereby necessitating the phasing out of UPCBHS, the rationale
being its reasons for existence no longer exists.  On this score, UPCBHS differs from the other
UP high schools in Iloilo, Diliman, Cebu and Los Baños.  The latter schools serve as laboratory
schools for the College of Education
in said areas, whereas, in Baguio,
there is no College of Education.

A careful perusal of Rep. Act No. 6655 could not lend respondents
a helping hand either.  Said Act
implements the policy of the State to provide free public secondary education
(Sec. 4) and vests the formulation of a secondary public education curriculum (Sec. 5),
the nationalization of public secondary schools (Sec. 7) and the implementation of the
rules and regulations thereof (Sec. 9) upon the Secretary of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). 
Rep. Act No. 6655 complements Sec. 2 (2), Article XIV of the
Constitution which mandates that the State shall establish and maintain a system of
free public secondary education. 
However, this mandate is not directed to institutions of higher learning
like UP but to the government through the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS).  As an institution of
higher learning enjoying academic freedom, the UP cannot be compelled to
provide for secondary education. 
However, should UP operate a high school in the exercise of its academic
freedom, Rep. Act No. 6655 requires that the students enrolled therein
“shall be free from payment of tuition and other school fees.”

In view of the foregoing, respondents do not have a clear legal
right to UP secondary education.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to Grant the
petition.  The assailed Orders of
respondent Judge dated May 25, 1989 and June 14, 1989 are hereby Set Aside and
respondent Judge is ordered to Dismiss Civil Case No. 1748-R.  Secretary Lourdes Quisumbing
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports is requested to make
arrangements with the other high schools in Baguio City
for purposes of accommodating the students herein affected.  The temporary restraining order issued is
made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Fernan, C.J., on leave.

Sarmiento, J., No part, I was a Regent of
U.P. when this U.P.B.H.S. was set up.

Cortes, J., No part. Was Vice-President of U.P. when this matter was taken and earlier
member of the Committee to Review Academic Program.