Print Due Process

8/13/2019 Print Due Process

1/77

[G.R. No. 99327. May 27, 1993.]

ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY, FATHER

JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., DEAN CYNTHIA ROXAS-DEL

CASTILLO, JUDGE RUPERTO KAPUNAN, JR.,

JUSTICE VENICIO ESCOLIN, FISCAL MIGUEL

ALBAR, ATTYS. MARCOS HERRAS, FERDINAND

CASIS, JOSE CLARO TESORO, RAMON CAGUIOA and

RAMON ERENETA,petitioners,vs.HON. IGNACIO M.CAPULONG, Presiding Judge of the RTC-Makati, Br. 134

ZOSIMO MENDOZA, JR. ERNEST MONTECILLO,

ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO AMADO SABBAN,

DALMACIO LIM, JR., MANUEL ESCALONA and JUDE

FERNANDEZ,respondents.

ROMERO,Jp:

In 1975, the Court was confronted with a mandamus proceeding to compel the

Faculty Admission Committee of the Loyola School of Theology, a religious

seminary which has a working arrangement with the Ateneo de Manila Universityregarding accreditation of common students, to allow petitioner who had taken some

courses therein for credit during summer, to continue her studies. 1 Squarely meeting

the issue, we dismissed the petition on the ground that students in the position of

petitioner possess, not a right, but a privilege, to be admitted to the institution. Not

having satisfied the prime and indispensable requisite of a mandamus proceeding

since there is no duty, much less a clear duty, on the part of the respondent to admit

the petitioner, the petition did not prosper.

In support of its decision, the Court invoked academic freedom of institutions of

higher learning, as recognized by the Constitution, the concept encompassing the

right of a school to choose its students.

Eighteen (18) years later, the right of a University to refuse admittance to its

students, this time in Ateneo de Manila University proper, is again challenged.

Whereas, in the Garciacase referred to in the opening paragraph, the individual

concerned was not a regular student, the respondents in the case at bar, having been

previously enrolled in the University, seek re-admission. Moreover, in the earlier

case, the petitioner was refused admittance, not on such considerations as personality

traits and character orientation, or even inability to meet the institution's academic or

intellectual standards, but because of her behavior in the classroom. The school

pointedly informed her that ". . . it would seem to be in your best interest to work

with a Faculty that is more compatible with your orientations."

On the other hand, students who are now being refused admission into petitioner

University have been found guilty of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School

Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing activities. The case

attracted much publicity due to the death of one of the neophytes and serious

physical injuries inflicted on another.

Herein lies an opportunity for the Court to add another dimension to the concept of

academic freedom of institutions of higher learning, this time a case fraught with

social and emotional overtones.

The facts which gave rise to this case which is far from novel, are as follows:

As a requisite to membership, the Aquila Legis, a fraternity organized in the Ateneo

Law School, held its initiation rites on February 8, 9 and 10, 1991, for students

interested in joining its ranks. As a result of such initiation rites, Leonardo "Lennie"

H. Villa, a first year student of petitioner university, died of serious physical injuries

at the Chinese General Hospital on February 10, 1991. He was not the lone victim,

though, for another freshman by the name of Bienvenido Marquez was also

hospitalized at the Capitol Medical Center for acute renal fai lure occasioned by the

serious physical injuries inflicted upon him on the same occasion.

In a notice dated February 11, 1991, petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a

Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee2which was tasked

to investigate and submit a report within 72 hours on the circumstances surrounding

the death of Lennie Villa. Said notice also required respondent students to submit

their written statements within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt. Although

respondent students received a copy of the written notice, they failed to file a reply.

In the meantime, they were placed on preventive suspension.3Through their

respective counsels, they requested copies of the charges and pertinent documents or

affidavits.

In a notice dated February 14, 1991, the Joint Administration-Faculty-Student

Investigating Committee, after receiving the written statements and hearing the

testimonies of several witnesses, found a prima faciecase against respondent

students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline."4

Respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the formal

charge on or before February 18, 1991; otherwise, they would be deemed to have

waived their right to present their defenses.

On February 20, 1991, petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board composed of

petitioners Judge Ruperto Kapunan, Justice Venicio Escolin, Atty. Marcos Herras,

Fiscal Miguel Albar and Atty. Ferdinand Casis, to hear the charges against

respondent students. Cdpr
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnotes


2/77

In a letter dated February 20, 1991, respondent students were informed that they had

violated Rule No. 3 of the Rules on Discipline contained in the Law School

Catalogue. Said letter also states: "The complaint/charge against you arose from

participation in acts of hazing committed during the Aquila Legis initiations held on

February 8-10, 1991. The evidence against you consist of testimonies of students,

showing your participation in acts prohibited by the School regulations." Finally, it

ordered respondent students to file their written answers to the above charge on or

before February 22, 1991, otherwise they would be deemed to have waive their

defense.5

In a motion dated February 21, 1991, respondent students, through counsel,

requested that the investigation against them be held in abeyance, pending action on

their request for copies of the evidence against them.6

Respondent students were then directed by the Board to appear before it at a hearing

on February 28, 1991 to clarify their answers with regard to the charges filed by the

investigating committee for violation of Rule No. 3. However, in a letter to

petitioners dated February 27, 1991, counsel for respondent students moved to

postpone the hearing from February 28, 1991 to March 1, 1991.7

Subsequently, respondent students were directed to appear on March 2, 1991 forclarificatory questions.8They were also informed that:

a)The proceedings will be summary in nature in accordance with the

rules laid down in the case of Guzman vs. National University;9

b)Petitioners have no right to cross-examine the affiants-neophytes;

c)Hazing which is not defined in the School catalogue shall be

defined in accordance with the proposed bill of Sen. Jose Lina,

Senate Bill No. 3815;

d)The Board will take into consideration the degree of participation

of the petitioners in the alleged hazing incident in imposing the

penalty;

e)The Decision of the Board shall be appealable to the President of

the University, i.e. Respondent Joaquin Bernas S. J.

On March 5, 1991, petitioner Bernas wrote Dean del Castillo that, " in cases where

the Disciplinary Board is not prepared to impose the penalty of dismissal, I wouldprefer that the Board leave the decision on the penalty to the Administration so that

this case be decided not just on the Law School level but also on the University

level."10

In a resolution dated March 9, 1991, the Board found respondent students guilty of

violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits

participation in hazing activities. The Board found that respondent students acted as

master auxiliaries or "auxies" during the initiation rites of Aquila Legis, and

exercised the "auxies privilege," which allows them to participate in the physical

hazing. Although respondent students claim that they were there to assist and attend

to the needs of the neophytes, actually they were assigned a definite supportive role

to play in the organized activity. Their guilt was heightened by the fact that they

made no effort to prevent the infliction of further physical punishment on theneophytes under their care. The Board considered respondent students part and

parcel of the integral process of hazing. In conclusion, the Board pronounced

respondents guilty of hazing, either by active participation or through acquiescence.

However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the

penalty of dismissal, the Board left the imposition of the penalty to the University

Administration. 11 Petitioner Dean del Castillo waived her prerogative to review the

decision of the Board and left to the President of the University the decision of

whether to expel respondent students or not.

Consequently, in a resolution dated March 10, 1991, petitioner Fr. Joaquin G.

Bernas, as President of the Ateneo de Manila University, accepted the factual

findings of the Board, thus: "that as Master Auxiliaries they exercised the 'auxie'sprivilege;' that even assuming that they did not lay hands on the neophytes,"

respondent students are still guilty in accordance with the principle that "where two

or more persons act together in the commission of a crime, whether they act through

the physical volition of one or of all, proceeding severally or collectively, each

individual whose will contributes to the wrongdoing is responsible for the whole."

Fr. Bernas, in describing the offense which led to the death of Leonardo Villa,

concluded that the "offense of the respondents can be characterized as grave and

serious, subversive of the goals of Christian education and contrary to civilized

behavior." Accordingly, he imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent

students.12

In a resolution dated March 18, 1991 and concurred in by petitioner Fr. Bernas,13the Board excluded respondent students Abas and Mendoza from the coverage of the

resolution of March 10, 1991, inasmuch as at the time the latter resolution was

promulgated, neither had as yet submitted their case to the Board. Said resolutionalso set the investigation of the two students on March 21, 1991.

On March 18, 1991, respondent students filed with the Regional Trial Court of

Makati, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction14alleging that they were

currently enrolled as students for the second semester of schoolyear 1990-91. Unless

a temporary restraining order is issued, they would be prevented from taking their

examinations. The petition principally centered on the alleged lack of due process in

their dismissal.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnotes


3/77

On the same day, Judge Madayag issued a temporary restraining order enjoining

petitioners from dismissing respondent students and stopping the former from

conducting hearings relative to the hazing incident. 15

Hearings in connection with the issuance of the temporary restraining order were

then held. On April 7, 1991, the temporary restraining order issued on March 18,

1991 lapsed. Consequently, a day after the expiration of the temporary restraining

order, Dean del Castillo created a Special Board composed of Atty.(s) Jose Claro

Tesoro, Ramon Caguioa, and Ramon Ereeta to investigate the charges of hazingagainst respondent students Abas and Mendoza.

Respondent students reacted immediately by filing a Supplemental Petition of

certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for a temporary restraining order

and preliminary injunction, to include the aforesaid members of the Special Board,

as additional respondents to the original petition.16

Petitioners moved to strike out the Supplemental Petition arguing that the creation of

the Special Board was totally unrelated to the original petition which alleged lack of

due process in the conduct of investigations by the Disciplinary Board against

respondent students; that a supplemental petition cannot be admitted without the

same being set for hearing and that the supplemental petition for the issuance of atemporary restraining order will, in effect, extend the previous restraining order

beyond its mandatory 20-day lifetime.17Acting on the urgent motion to admit the

supplemental petition with prayer for a temporary restraining order, Judge Amin, as

pairing judge of respondent Judge Capulong, granted respondent students' prayer on

April 10, 1991.18

On May 17, 1991, respondent Judge ordered petitioners to reinstate respondent

students. Simultaneously, the court ordered petitioners to conduct special

examinations in lieu of the final examinations which allegedly the students were not

allowed to take, and enjoined them to maintain thestatus quowith regard to the

cases of Adel Abas and Zosimo Mendoza pending final determination of the issues

of the instant case. Lastly, it directed respondent students to file a bond in the amountof P50,000.00.19

On the same date, May 17, 1991, the Special Board investigating petitioners Abas

and Mendoza concluded its investigation. On May 20, 1991, it imposed the penalty

of dismissal on respondent students Adel Abas and Zosimo Mendoza and directed

the dropping of their names from its roll of students.20

The following day or on May 21, 1991, respondent judge issued the writ of

preliminary injunction upon posting by respondent students of a bond dated May 17,

1991 in the amount of P50,000.00.

Hence, this special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 with prayer for the

issuance of a temporary restraining order questioning the order of respondent judge

reinstating respondent students dated May 17, 1991. On May 30, 1991, this Court

issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the enforcement of the May 17, 1991

order of respondent judge.21

In the case at bar, we come to grips with two relevant issues on academic freedom,

namely: (1) whether a school is within its rights in expelling students from its

academic community pursuant to its disciplinary rules and moral standards; and (2)whether or not the penalty imposed by the school administration is proper under the

circumstances. Cdpr

We grant the petition and reverse the order of respondent judge ordering readmission

of respondent students. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion when

he ruled that respondent students had been denied due process in the investigation of

the charges against them.

It is the threshold argument of respondent students that the decision of petitioner Fr.

Joaquin Bernas, S. J., then President of the Ateneo de Manila University, to expel

them was arrived at without affording them their right to procedural due process. We

are constrained to disagree as we find no indication that such right has been violated.On the contrary, respondent students' rights in a school disciplinary proceeding, as

enunciated in the cases of Guzman v. National University,22Alcuaz v PSBA, Q.C.

Branch23andNon v. Dames II24have been meticulously respected by petitioners

in the various investigative proceedings held before they were expelled.

Corollary to their contention of denial of due process is their argument that it is the

Ang Tibaycase25and not the Guzmancase which is applicable in the case at bar.

Though both cases essentially deal with the requirements of due process, the Guzman

case is more aproposto the instant case, since the latter deals specifically with the

minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in

academic institutions, such as petitioner university herein, thus:

"(1)the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause

of any accusation against them; (2) that they shall have the right to

answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if

desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4)

they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and

(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating

committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and

decide the case."26

It cannot seriously be asserted that the above requirements were not met. When, in

view of the death of Leonardo Villa, petitioner Cynthia del Castillo, as Dean of theAteneo Law School, notified and required respondent students on February 11, 1991
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnotes


4/77

to submit within twenty-four hours their written statement on the incident,27the

records show that instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested through

their counsel, copies of the charges.28While some of the students mentioned in the

February 11, 1991 notice duly submitted written statements, the others failed to do

so. Thus, the latter were granted an extension of up to February 18, 1991 to file their

statements.29

Indubitably, the nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled out in

petitioners' notices dated February 14 and 20, 1991.30It is to be noted that theFebruary 20, 1991 letter which quoted Rule No. 3 of its Rules of Discipline as

contained in the Ateneo Law School Catalogue was addressed individually to

respondent students. Petitioners' notices/letters dated February 11, February 14 and

20 clearly show that respondent students were given ample opportunity to adduce

evidence in their behalf and to answer the charges leveled against them.

The requisite assistance of counsel was met when, from the very start of the

investigations before the Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Committee, the law

firm of Gonzales Batiller and Bilog and Associates put in its appearance and filed

pleadings in behalf of respondent students.

Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded theopportunity to see and examine the written statements which became the basis of

petitioners' February 14, 1991 order, they were denied procedural due process.31

Granting that they were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said to detract

from the observance of due process, for disciplinary cases involving students need

not necessarily include the right to cross examination. An administrative proceeding

conducted to investigate students' participation in a hazing activity need not be

clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. A closer examination of the

March 2, 1991 hearing which characterized the rules on the investigation as being

summary in nature and that respondent students have no right to examine affiants-

neophytes, reveals that this is but a reiteration of our previous ruling in Alcuaz.32

Respondent students' contention that the investigating committee failed to considertheir evidence is far from the truth because the February 14, 1992 order clearly states

that it was reached only after receiving the written statements and hearing the

testimonies of several witnesses.33Similarly, the Disciplinary Board's resolution

dated March 10, 1991 was preceded by a hearing on March 2, 1991 wherein

respondent students were summoned to answer clarificatory questions. prcd

With regard to the charge of hazing, respondent students fault petitioners for not

explicitly defining the word "hazing" and allege that there is no proof that they were

furnished copies of the 1990-91 Ateneo Law School Catalogue which prohibits

hazing. Such flawed sophistry is not worthy of students who aspire to be future

members of the Bar. It cannot be over-emphasized that the charge filed before the

Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee and the Disciplinary

Board is not a criminal case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt but is merely

administrative in character. As such, it is not subject to the rigorous requirements of

criminal due process, particularly with respect to the specification of the charge

involved. As we have had occasion to declare in previous cases of a similar nature,

due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and

hearings identical to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice.

34Accordingly, disciplinary charges against a student need not be drawn with the

precision of a criminal information or complaint. Having given prior notice to the

students involved that "hazing" which is not defined in the School Catalogue shall bedefined in accordance with Senate Bill No. 3815, the proposed bill on the subject of

Sen. Jose Lina, petitioners have said what needs to be said. We deem this sufficient

for purposes of the investigation under scrutiny.

Hazing, as a ground for disciplining a student, to the extent of dismissal or expulsion,

finds its raison d' etrein the increasing frequency of injury, even death, inflicted

upon the neophytes by their insensate "masters." Assuredly, it passes the test of

reasonableness and absence of malice on the part of the school authorities. Far from

fostering comradeship and esprit d' corps, it has merely fed upon the cruel and baser

instincts of those who aspire to eventual leadership in our country.

Respondent students argue that petitioners are not in a position to file the instantpetition under Rule 65 considering that they failed to file a motion for

reconsideration first before the trial court, thereby bypassing the latter and the Court

of Appeals. 35

It is accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of

remedies is when the case involves a question of law,36as in this case, where the

issue is whether or not respondent students have been afforded procedural due

process prior to their dismissal from petitioner university.

Lastly, respondent students argue that we erred in issuing a Temporary Restraining

Order since petitioners do not stand to suffer irreparable damage in the event that

private respondents are allowed to re-enroll. No one can be so myopic as to doubtthat the immediate reinstatement of respondent students who have been investigated

and found by the Disciplinary Board to have violated petitioner university's

disciplinary rules and standards will certainly undermine the authority of the

administration of the school. This we would be most loathe to do.

More importantly, it will seriously impair petitioner university's academic freedom

which has been enshrined in the 1935, 1973 and the present 1987 Constitutions.

At this juncture, it would be meet to recall the essential freedoms subsumed by

Justice Felix Frankfurter in the term "academic freedom" cited in the case of Sweezy

v. New Hampshire,37thus: (1) who may teach; (2) what may be taught; (3) how itshall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study. LibLex
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnotes


5/77

Socrates, the "first of the great moralists of Greece," proud to claim the title "gadfly

of the State," has deservedly earned for himself a respected place in the annals of

history as a martyr to the cause of free intellectual inquiry. To Plato, this great

teacher of his was the "best, the most sensible, and the most just man of his age." In

399 B.C., he willingly quaffed the goblet of hemlock as punishment for alleged

"corruption" of the youth of Athens. He describes in his own words how this charge

of "corruption," the forerunner of the concept of academic freedom, came about:

"Young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, comeabout me of their own accord: they like to hear the pretenders

examined, and they often imitate me, and examine others themselves;

there are plenty of persons, as they soon discover, who think that

they know something, but really know little or nothing; and then

those who are examined by them, instead of being angry with

themselves are angry with me. This confounded Socrates, they say;

this villainous misleader of youth. And then if somebody asks them,

Why, what evil does he practice or teach? they do not know, and

cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they

repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all

philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the

earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the bettercause; for they do not like to confess that their pretense of knowledge

has been detectedwhich is the truth; and as they are numerous

and ambitious and energetic, and are all in battle array and have

persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and

inveterate calumnies."38

Since Socrates, numberless individuals of the same heroic mold have similarly

defied the stifling strictures of authority, whether State, Church, or various interest

groups, to be able to give free rein to their ideas. Particularly odious were the

insidious and blatant attempts at thought control during the time of the Inquisition

until even the Medieval universities, renowned as intellectual centers in Europe,

gradually lost their autonomy.

In time, such noble strivings, gathering libertarian encrustations along the way, were

gradually crystallized in the cluster of freedoms which awaited the champions and

martyrs of the dawning modern age. This was exemplified by the professors of the

new German universities in the 16th and 17th centuries such as the Universities of

Leiden (1575), Helmstadt (1574) and Heidelberg (1652). The movement back to

freedom of inquiry gained adherents among the exponents of fundamental human

rights of the 19th and 20th centuries. "Academic freedom", the term as it evolved to

describe the emerging rights related to intellectual liberty, has traditionally been

associated with freedom of thought, speech, expression and the press; in other words,

with the right of individuals in university communities, such as professors,

researchers and administrators, to investigate, pursue, discuss and, in the immortal

words of Socrates, "to follow the argument wherever it may lead," free from internal

and external interference or pressure.

But obviously, its optimum impact is best realized where the freedom is exercised

judiciously and does not degenerate into unbridled license. Early cases on this

individual aspect of academic freedom have stressed the need for assuring to such

individuals a measure of independence through the guarantees of autonomy and

security of tenure. The components of this aspect of academic freedom have been

categorized under the areas of: (1) who may teach and (2) how to teach.

It is to be realized that this individual aspect of academic freedom could have

developed onlypari passuwith its institutional counterpart. As corporate entities,

educational institutions of higher learning are inherently endowed with the right to

establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external controls or

pressure. In theFrankfurterformulation, this is articulated in the areas of: (1) what

shall be taught, e.g., the curriculum and (2) who may be admitted to study.

In the Philippines, the Acts which were passed with the change of sovereignty from

the Spanish to the American government, namely, the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the

Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 made no mention of the rights now subsumed

under the catch-all term of "academic freedom." This is most especially true withrespect to the institutional aspect of the term. It had to await the drafting of the

Philippine Constitutions to be recognized as deserving of legal protection.

The breakthrough for the concept itself was found in Section 5 of the 1935

Constitution which stated: "Universities established by the State shall enjoy

academic freedom." The only State university at that time, being the University of

the Philippines, the Charter was perceived by some as exhibiting rank favoritism for

the said institution at the expense of the rest. prcd

In an attempt to broaden the coverage of the provision, the 1973 Constitution

provided in its Section 8 (2): "All institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic

freedom." In his interpretation of the provision, former U.P. President Vicente G.

Sinco, who was also a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, declared that

it "definitely grants the right of academic freedom to the University as an institution

as distinguished from the academic freedom of a university professor."39

Has the right been carried over to the present Constitution? In an attempt to give an

explicit definition with an expanded coverage, the Commissioners of the

Constitutional Commission of 1986 came up with this formulation: "Academic

freedom shall be enjoyed by students, by teachers, and by researchers." After

protracted debate and ringing speeches, the final version which was none too

different from the way it was couched in the previous two (2) Constitutions, as found

in Article XIV, Section 5 (2) states: "Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all

institutions of higher learning." In anticipation of the question as to whether and
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnotes


6/77

what aspects of academic freedom are included herein, ConCom Commissioner

Adolfo S. Azcuna explained: "Since academic freedom is a dynamic concept, we

want to expand the frontiers of freedom, especially in education, therefore, we shall

leave it to the courts to develop further the parameters of academic freedom."40

More to the point, Commissioner Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon asked: "When we

speak of the sentence 'academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher

learning,' do we mean that academic freedom shall be enjoyed by the institution

itself?" Azcuna replied: "Not only that, it also includes . . ." Gascon finished off thebroken thought,"the faculty and the students." Azcuna replied: "Yes."

Since Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology,41we have consistently upheld the

salutary proposition that admission to an institution of higher learning is

discretionary upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part of the student

rather than a right. While under the 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," such right is subject, as all rights are, to the

established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic

institution.42

"For private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules and regulations forthe admission, discipline and promotion of students. This right . . . extends as well to

parents . . . as parents are under a social and moral (if not legal) obligation,

individually and collectively, to assist and cooperate with the schools."43

Such rules are "incident to the very object of incorporation and indispensable to the

successful management of the college. The rules may include those governing

student discipline."44Going a step further, the establishment of rules governing

university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student discipline, may

be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the

institution, but to its very survival.

Within memory of the current generation is the eruption of militancy in the

academic groves as collectively, the students demanded and plucked for themselves

from the panoply of academic freedom their own rights encapsulized under the

rubric of "right to education" forgetting that, in Hohfeldian terms, they have a

concomitant duty, and that is, their duty to learn under the rules laid down by the

school.

Considering that respondent students are proud to claim as their own a Christian

school that includes Theology as part of its curriculum and assiduously strives to turn

out individuals of unimpeachable morals and integrity in the mold of the founder of

the order of the Society of Jesus, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and their God-fearing

forbears, their barbaric and ruthless acts are the more reprehensible. It must be borne

in mind that universities are established, not merely to develop the intellect and skills

of the studentry, but to inculcate lofty values, ideals and attitudes; nay, the

development, or flowering if you will, of the total man.

In essence, education must ultimately be religiousnot in the sense that the

founders or charter members of the institution are sectarian or profess a religious

ideology. Rather, a religious education, as the renowned philosopher Alfred North

Whitehead said, is "an education which inculcates duty and reverence."45It appears

that the particular brand of religious education offered by the Ateneo de Manila

University has been lost on the respondent students.

Certainly, they do not deserve to claim such a venerable institution as the Ateneo de

Manila University as their own a minute longer, for they may foreseeably cast a

malevolent influence on the students currently enrolled, as well as those who come

after them. cdphil

Quite applicable to this case is our pronouncement in Yap Chin Fah v. Court of

Appealsthat: "The maintenance of a morally conducive and orderly educational

environment will be seriously imperilled if, under the circumstances of this case,

Grace Christian is forced to admit petitioner's children and to reintegrate them to the

student body."46Thus, the decision of petitioner university to expel them is but

congruent with the gravity of their misdeeds. That there must be such a congruencebetween the offense committed and the sanction imposed was stressed inMalabanan

v. Ramento.47

Having carefully reviewed the records and the procedure followed by petitioner

university, we see no reason to reverse its decision founded on the following

undisputed facts: that on February 8, 9 and 10, 1991, the Aquila Legis Fraternity

conducted hazing activities; that respondent students were present at the hazing as

auxiliaries, and that as a result of the hazing, Leonardo Villa died from serious

physical injuries, while Bienvenido Marquez was hospitalized. In light of the vicious

acts of respondent students upon those whom ironically they would claim as

"brothers" after the initiation rites, how can we countenance the imposition of such

nominal penalties as reprimand or even suspension? We, therefore, affirmpetitioners' imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon respondent students. This

finds authority and justification in Section 146 of the Manual of Regulations for

Private Schools.48

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED; the order of respondent Judge

dated May 17, 1991 reinstating respondent students into petitioner university is

hereby REVERSED. The resolution of petitioner Joaquin Bernas S. J., then President

of Ateneo de Manila University dated March 10, 1991, is REINSTATED and the

decision of the Special Board DISMISSING respondent students ADEL ABAS and

ZOSIMO MENDOZA dated May 20, 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/16427?search=%28gr%3A+%2899327%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F99327+%29%29#footnotes


7/77

[G.R. No. 168056. September 1, 2005.]

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS)

OFFICERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT

S. ALBANO,petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA;

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCE CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUEGUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR.,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

The expenses of government, having for their object the interest of all,

should be borne by everyone, and the more man enjoys the advantages of

society, the more he ought to hold himself honored in contributing to those

expenses. -Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781)

Mounting budget deficit, revenue generation, inadequate fiscal allocation for

education, increased emoluments for health workers, and wider coverage for full

value-added tax benefits . . . these are the reasons why Republic Act No. 9337 (R.A.

No. 9337)1was enacted. Reasons, the wisdom of which, the Court even with itsextensive constitutional power of review, cannot probe. The petitioners in these

cases, however, question not only the wisdom of the law, but also perceived

constitutional infirmities in its passage.

Every law enjoys in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. Their arguments

notwithstanding, petitioners failed to justify their call for the invalidity of the law.

Hence, R.A. No. 9337 is not unconstitutional.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

R.A. No. 9337 is a consolidation of three legislative bills namely, House Bill Nos.

3555 and 3705, and Senate Bill No. 1950.

House Bil l No. 35552was introduced on first reading on January 7, 2005. The

House Committee on Ways and Means approved the bill, in substitution of House

Bill No. 1468, which Representative (Rep.) Eric D. Singson introduced on August 8,

2004. The President certified the bill on January 7, 2005 for immediate enactment.

On January 27, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the bill on second and

third reading.

House Bil l No. 37053on the other hand, substituted House Bill No. 3105

introduced by Rep. Salacnib F. Baterina, and House Bill No. 3381 introduced by

Rep. Jacinto V. Paras. Its "mother bill" is House Bill No. 3555. The HouseCommittee on Ways and Means approved the bill on February 2, 2005. The

President also certified it as urgent on February 8, 2005. The House of

Representatives approved the bill on second and third reading on February 28, 2005.

Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Ways and Means approved Senate Bill No.

19504on March 7, 2005, "in substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 1337, 1838 and 1873,

taking into consideration House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705." Senator Ralph G. Recto

sponsored Senate Bill No. 1337, while Senate Bill Nos. 1838 and 1873 were both

sponsored by Sens. Franklin M. Drilon, Juan M. Flavier and Francis N. Pangilinan.

The President certified the bill on March 11, 2005, and was approved by the Senateon second and third reading on April 13, 2005.

On the same date, April 13, 2005, the Senate agreed to the request of the House of

Representatives for a committee conference on the disagreeing provisions of the

proposed bills.

Before long, the Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill

No. 3555, House Bill No. 3705, and Senate Bill No. 1950, "after having met and

discussed in full free and conference," recommended the approval of its report,

which the Senate did on May 10, 2005, and with the House of Representatives

agreeing thereto the next day, May 11, 2005.

On May 23, 2005, the enrolled copy of the consolidated House and Senate version

was transmitted to the President, who signed the same into law on May 24, 2005.

Thus, came R.A. No. 9337.

July 1, 2005 is the effectivity date of R.A. No. 9337.5When said date came, the

Court issued a temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing

until further orders, enjoining respondents from enforcing and implementing the law.

Oral arguments were held on July 14, 2005. Significantly, during the hearing, the

Court speaking through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, voiced the rationale for

its issuance of the temporary restraining order on July 1, 2005, to wit:

J. PANGANIBAN

. . . But before I go into the details of your presentation, let me

just tell you a little background. You know when the

law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a TRO

at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. But before that,

there was a lot of complaints aired on television and on

radio. Some people in a gas station were complaining

that the gas prices went up by 10%. Some people were

complaining that their electric bill will go up by 10%.

Other times people riding in domestic air carrier were

complaining that the prices that they'll have to paywould have to go up by 10%. While all that was being
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnotes


8/77


9/77

importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use

or lease of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniformproviso

authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise

the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after any of the following conditions

have been satisfied, to wit:

. . . That the President, upon the recommendation of the

Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the

rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of thefollowing conditions has been satisfied:

(i)Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth

percent (2 4/5%); or

(ii)National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the

previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 1/2%).

Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes abandonment by

Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI, Section

28(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

G.R. No. 168207

On June 9, 2005, Sen. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al., filed a petition for certiorari

likewise assailing the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337.

Aside from questioning the so-calledstand-by authorityof the President to increase

the VAT rate to 12%, on the ground that it amounts to an undue delegation of

legislative power, petitioners also contend that the increase in the VAT rate to 12%

contingent on any of the two conditions being satisfied violates the due process

clause embodied in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, as it imposes an unfairand additional tax burden on the people, in that: (1) the 12% increase is ambiguous

because it does not state if the rate would be returned to the original 10% if the

conditions are no longer satisfied; (2) the rate is unfair and unreasonable, as the

people are unsure of the applicable VAT rate from year to year; and (3) the increase

in the VAT rate, which is supposed to be an incentive to the President to raise the

VAT collection to at least 2 4/5 of the GDP of the previous year, should only be

based on fiscal adequacy.

Petitioners further claim that the inclusion of astand-by authoritygranted to the

President by the Bicameral Conference Committee is a violation of the "no-

amendment rule" upon last reading of a bill laid down in Article VI, Section 26(2) of

the Constitution.

G.R. No. 168461

Thereafter, a petition for prohibition was filed on June 29, 2005, by the Association

ofPilipinasShell Dealers, Inc., et al., assailing the following provisions of R.A. No.

9337:

1)Section 8, amending Section 110 (A)(2) of the NIRC,

requiring that the input tax on depreciable goods shall

be amortized over a 60-month period, if the acquisition,excluding the VAT components, exceeds One Million

Pesos (P1,000,000.00);

2)Section 8, amending Section 110 (B) of the NIRC, imposing a

70% limit on the amount of input tax to be credited

against the output tax; and EIDTAa

3)Section 12, amending Section 114 (c) of the NIRC, authorizingthe Government or any of its political subdivisions,

instrumentalities or agencies, including GOCCs, to

deduct a 5% final withholding tax on gross payments of

goods and services, which are subject to 10% VATunder Sections 106 (sale of goods and properties) and

108 (sale of services and use or lease of properties) of

the NIRC.

Petitioners contend that these provisions are unconstitutional for being arbitrary,

oppressive, excessive, and confiscatory.

Petitioners' argument is premised on the constitutional right of non-deprivation of

life, liberty or property without due process of law under Article III, Section 1 of the

Constitution. According to petitioners, the contested sections impose limitations on

the amount of input tax that may be claimed. Petitioners also argue that the input taxpartakes the nature of a property that may not be confiscated, appropriated, or limited

without due process of law. Petitioners further contend that like any other property or

property right, the input tax credit may be transferred or disposed of, and that by

limiting the same, the government gets to tax a profit or value-added even if there is

no profit or value-added.

Petitioners also believe that these provisions violate the constitutional guarantee of

equal protection of the law under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, as the

limitation on the creditable input tax if: (1) the entity has a high ratio of input tax; or

(2) invests in capital equipment; or (3) has several transactions with the government,

is not based on real and substantial differences to meet a valid classification.


10/77

Lastly, petitioners contend that the 70% limit is anything but progressive, violative

of Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution, and that it is the smaller businesses

with higher input tax to output tax ratio that will suffer the consequences thereof for

it wipes out whatever meager margins the petitioners make.

G.R. No. 168463

Several members of the House of Representatives led by Rep. Francis Joseph G.

Escudero filed this petition for certiorarion June 30, 2005. They question theconstitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 on the following grounds:

1)Sections 4, 5, and 6 of R.A. No. 9337 constitute an undue

delegation of legislative power, in violation of Article

VI, Section 28(2) of the Constitution;

2)The Bicameral Conference Committee acted without

jurisdiction in deleting the no passon provisionspresent in Senate Bill No. 1950 and House Bill No.

3705; and

3)Insertion by the Bicameral Conference Committee of Sections

27, 28, 34, 116, 117, 119, 121, 125,7148, 151, 236,

237 and 288, which were present in Senate Bill No.

1950, violates Article VI, Section 24(1) of the

Constitution, which provides that all appropriation,

revenue or tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the

House of Representatives

G.R. No. 168730

On the eleventh hour, Governor Enrique T. Garcia filed a petition for certiorariand

prohibition on July 20, 2005, alleging unconstitutionality of the law on the groundthat the limitation on the creditable input tax in effect allows VAT-registered

establishments to retain a portion of the taxes they collect, thus violating the

principle that tax collection and revenue should be solely allocated for public

purposes and expenditures. Petitioner Garcia further claims that allowing these

establishments to pass on the tax to the consumers is inequitable, in violation of

Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution.

RESPONDENTS' COMMENT

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of respondents.

Preliminarily, respondents contend that R.A. No. 9337 enjoys the presumption of

constitutionality and petitioners failed to cast doubt on its validity.

Relying on the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994),

respondents argue that the procedural issues raised by petitioners, i.e., legality of the

bicameral proceedings, exclusive origination of revenue measures and the power of

the Senate concomitant thereto, have already been settled. With regard to the issue of

undue delegation of legislative power to the President, respondents contend that the

law is complete and leaves no discretion to the President but to increase the rate to

12% once any of the two conditions provided therein arise.

Respondents also refute petitioners' argument that the increase to 12%, as well as the70% limitation on the creditable input tax, the 60-month amortization on the

purchase or importation of capital goods exceeding P1,000,000.00, and the 5% final

withholding tax by government agencies, is arbitrary, oppressive, and confiscatory,

and that it violates the constitutional principle on progressive taxation, among others.

Finally, respondents manifest that R.A. No. 9337 is the anchor of the government's

fiscal reform agenda. A reform in the value-added system of taxation is the core

revenue measure that will tilt the balance towards a sustainable macroeconomic

environment necessary for economic growth.

ISSUES

The Court defined the issues, as follows:

PROCEDURAL ISSUEWhether R.A. No. 9337 violates the following provisions of the

Constitution:

a.Article VI, Section 24, and b.Article VI, Section 26(2)

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES1.Whether Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending

Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the NIRC, violate the following

provisions of the Constitution:a.Article VI, Section 28(1), and b.Article VI, Section

28(2)

2.Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections

110(A)(2) and 110(B) of the NIRC; and Section 12 of R.A. No.

9337, amending Section 114(C) of the NIRC, violate the

following provisions of the Constitution:

a.Article VI, Section 28(1), and b.Article III, Section 1

RULING OF THE COURTAs a prelude, the Court deems it apt to restate the general principles and concepts of

value-added tax (VAT), as the confusion and inevitably, litigation, breeds from a

fallacious notion of its nature.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnotes


11/77

The VAT is a tax on spending or consumption. It is levied on the sale, barter,

exchange or lease of goods or properties and services.8Being an indirect tax on

expenditure, the seller of goods or services may pass on the amount of tax paid to the

buyer,9with the seller acting merely as a tax collector.10The burden of VAT is

intended to fall on the immediate buyers and ultimately, the end-consumers.

cEAHSC

In contrast, a direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the

transaction or business it engages in, without transferring the burden to someoneelse.11Examples are individual and corporate income taxes, transfer taxes, and

residence taxes.12

In the Philippines, the value-added system of sales taxation has long been in

existence, albeit in a different mode. Prior to 1978, the system was a single-stage tax

computed under the "cost deduction method" and was payable only by the original

sellers. The single-stage system was subsequently modified, and a mixture of the

"cost deduction method" and "tax credit method" was used to determine the value -

added tax payable.13Under the "tax credit method," an entity can credit against or

subtract from the VAT charged on its sales or outputs the VAT paid on its purchases,

inputs and imports.14

It was only in 1987, when President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No.

273, that the VAT system was rationalized by imposing a multi-stage tax rate of 0%

or 10% on all sales using the "tax credit method."15

E.O. No. 273 was followed by R.A. No. 7716 or the Expanded VAT Law,16R.A.

No. 8241 or the Improved VAT Law,17R.A. No. 8424 or the Tax Reform Act of

1997,18and finally, the presently beleaguered R.A. No. 9337, also referred to by

respondents as the VAT Reform Act.

The Court will now discuss the issues in logical sequence.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

I.

Whether R.A. No. 9337 violates the following provisions of the Constitution:

a.Article VI, Section 24, and

b.Article VI, Section 26(2)

A.The Bicameral Conference Committee

Petitioners Escudero, et al., and Pimentel, et al., allege that the Bicameral

Conference Committee exceeded its authority by:

1)Inserting thestand-by authorityin favor of the President in

Sections 4, 5, and 6 of R.A. No. 9337;

2)Deleting entirely the no pass-onprovisions found in both the

House and Senate bills;

3)Inserting the provision imposing a 70% limit on the amount of

input tax to be credited against the output tax; and

4)Including the amendments introduced only by Senate Bill No.

1950 regarding other kinds of taxes in addition to the

value-added tax.

Petitioners now beseech the Court to define the powers of the Bicameral Conference

Committee.

It should be borne in mind that the power of internal regulation and discipline areintrinsic in any legislative body for, as unerringly elucidated by Justice Story, "[i]f

the power did not exist, it would be utterly impracticable to transact the

business of the nation, either at all, or at least with decency, deliberation, and

order."19Thus, Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution provides that "each

House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Pursuant to this inherent

constitutional power to promulgate and implement its own rules of procedure, the

respective rules of each house of Congress provided for the creation of a Bicameral

Conference Committee.

Thus, Rule XIV, Sections 88 and 89 of the Rules of House of Representatives

provides as follows:

Sec. 88.Conference Committee.In the event that the House

does not agree with the Senate on the amendment to any bill or

joint resolution, the differences may be settled by the conference

committees of both chambers.

In resolving the differences with the Senate, the House panel

shall, as much as possible, adhere to and support the House Bill.

If the differences with the Senate are so substantial that they

materially impair the House Bill, the panel shall report such factto the House for the latter's appropriate action.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/710?search=gr%3A+%28168056%2A%29#footnotes


12/77

Sec. 89.Conference Committee Reports.. . . Each report shall

contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes

in or amendments to the subject measure.

xxx xxx xxx

The Chairman of the House panel may be interpellated on the

Conference Committee Report prior to the voting thereon. The

House shall vote on the Conference Committee Report in thesame manner and procedure as it votes on a bill on third and

final reading.

Rule XII, Section 35 of the Rules of the Senate states:

Sec. 35.In the event that the Senate does not agree with the

House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint

resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conferencecommittee of both Houses which shall meet within ten (10) days

after their composition. The President shall designate the

members of the Senate Panel in the conference committee with

the approval of the Senate.

Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and

sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in, or amendments

to the subject measure, and shall be signed by a majority of the

members of each House panel, voting separately.

A comparative presentation of the conflicting House and Senate

provisions and a reconciled version thereof with the explanatory

statement of the conference committee shall be attached to the

report.

xxx xxx xxx

The creation of such conference committee was apparently in response to a problem,

not addressed by any constitutional provision, where the two houses of Congress find

themselves in disagreement over changes or amendments introduced by the other

house in a legislative bill. Given that one of the most basic powers of the legislative

branch is to formulate and implement its own rules of proceedings and to discipline

its members, may the Court then delve into the details of how Congress complies

with its internal rules or how it conducts its business of passing legislation? Note that

in the present petitions, the issue is not whether provisions of the rules of both

houses creating the bicameral conference committee are unconstitutional, but

whether the bicameral conference committee has strictly complied with the

rules of both houses, thereby remaining within the jurisdiction conferred upon

it by Congress.

In the recent case ofFarias vs. The Executive Secretary,20the CourtEn Banc,

unanimouslyreiterated and emphasized its adherence to the "enrolled bill doctrine,"

thus, declining therein petitioners' plea for the Court to go behind the enrolled copy

of the bill. Assailed in said case was Congress's creation of two sets of bicameral

conference committees, the lack of records of said committees' proceedings, the

alleged violation of said committees of the rules of both houses, and thedisappearance or deletion of one of the provisions in the compro

Print Due Process

Documents

Transcript of Print Due Process