ARIEL NON, REX MAGANA, ALVIN AGURA, NORMANDY OCCIANO, JORGE DAYAON, LOURDES BANARES, BARTOLOME IBASCO, EMMANUEL BARBA, SONNY MORENO, GIOVANI PALMA, JOSELITO VILLALON, LUIS SANTO…

Non versus Mabini Colleges

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction, brought by a group of students against Mabini Colleges in Daet, Camarines Norte. The students were barred from re-enrolling for the academic year 1988 to 1989 because they had led and joined mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. The case matters because it asks the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, to abandon the doctrine in Alcuaz versus Philippine School of Business Administration — the rule that a student is enrolled only for one semester and may therefore be refused readmission once that semester ends. The Court is asked to decide whether a school may close its gates on a student purely because that student exercised the constitutional rights of speech and assembly.

Procedural History

The students first filed a petition in the trial court, seeking readmission or re-enrollment. The trial court dismissed the petition in an order dated August 8, 1988, holding itself bound by Alcuaz, though it allowed that as a matter of compassionate equity any petitioner who qualified could be re-enrolled. The students moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied the motion on February 24, 1989, again invoking Alcuaz and adding that enrollment was a mere privilege, not a legal right, so mandamus would not lie.

The students then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The case was first assigned to the Second Division, which referred it to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals heard the injunction application, then certified the case back to the Supreme Court because only pure questions of law were raised. The case went to the Third Division, which transferred it to the Court en banc because the issues were jurisdictional. The Court en banc accepted the case on September 14, 1989, and after the parties exchanged comment, reply, counter-comment, rejoinder, and rejoinder to reply, the case was deemed submitted.

Facts

The petitioners were students of Mabini Colleges in Daet, Camarines Norte. In the first semester of the school year 1988 to 1989, they led and participated in student mass actions directed against the school. The pleadings do not make clear what the protests were about.

When the students sought to re-enroll for the academic year 1988 to 1989, the school refused. The refusal was decided upon and implemented by school authorities as a reaction to the student mass actions. The school relied on its enrollment form, which reserved its right to deny admission to students whose conduct discredited the institution or whose activities disrupted its operations, and on pledges the students had signed promising to respect their alma mater and to abide by school rules.

The students went to court to compel their readmission. The trial court refused, invoking Alcuaz and the principle that enrollment is a privilege rather than a legal right. The students elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which took the case en banc precisely to reassess the Alcuaz doctrine on termination of contract.

Issues

• Whether or not the doctrine in Alcuaz versus Philippine School of Business Administration — that a student is enrolled only for one semester and may be refused readmission after the semester ends because the contract is terminated — should be abandoned.
• Whether or not a school may bar students from re-enrolling solely because they led or participated in peaceful mass actions and assemblies against the school.
• Whether or not the students were denied due process, and whether or not the penalty of denial of re-enrollment was proportionate to any offense committed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution provides:

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

This guarantee is the foundation of the students' claim, because the Court holds that students do not shed these rights at the schoolgate.

Paragraph 137 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, relied upon in Alcuaz, provides:

When a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester.

The Court rejects the use of this provision to justify refusing readmission, because the contract between school and student is imbued with public interest and is not an ordinary contract.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court abandons the Alcuaz doctrine insofar as it allowed schools to bar readmission or re-enrollment on the ground of termination of contract. The Court stresses that the contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract; it is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority the Constitution gives to education and the State's supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational institutions. The school cannot rely on the semester rule to escape its obligations.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the students' exercise of free speech and assembly cannot be the basis for barring them from enrolling. The Court recalls Malabanan versus Ramento, where it declared that students, like all citizens, enjoy the freedom to express their views, and that they do not, in the words of Tinker versus Des Moines Community School District, "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Court also cites Villar versus Technological Institute of the Philippines, where it held that academic freedom cannot be used to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights, and Arreza versus Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, which rejected the highly disproportionate penalty of denial of enrollment.

On the third issue, the Court holds that school authorities are not powerless to discipline students, but any disciplinary sanction must observe procedural due process and must be proportionate to the offense. The Court quotes Guzman versus National University on the minimum standards of due process: the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of the accusation, must have the right to answer with the assistance of counsel if desired, must be informed of the evidence against them, must have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf, and the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official. The Court also quotes Malabanan: "If the concept of proportionality between the offense committed and sanction imposed is not followed, an element of arbitrariness intrudes."

Doctrine

A student does not shed constitutional rights at the schoolgate. The rights to free speech and peaceable assembly under Section 4 of Article III belong to students as much as to any citizen, and the exercise of those rights cannot be the ground for refusing readmission or re-enrollment.

The contract between a school and its student is not an ordinary contract; it is imbued with public interest. The semester rule in Paragraph 137 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools cannot be used to justify a refusal to readmit a student who has exercised constitutional rights.

School authorities retain the power to discipline students for conduct that materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder, but any sanction must comply with procedural due process and must be proportionate to the offense. A penalty that is disproportionate is arbitrary and cannot stand.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, set aside the orders of the trial court, and directed the school to allow the petitioners to re-enroll, without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with due process.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a student does not shed constitutional rights at the schoolgate, and the school-student contract is imbued with public interest, so the semester rule cannot be used to punish the exercise of speech and assembly. Examiners use this case to test the conflict between academic freedom and student rights, and the requirements of due process and proportionality in student discipline.