REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila
SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session
House Resolution No. 1160
Introduced by Kabataan Party-list Representative Terry L. Ridon
RESOLUTION
DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TO
CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE ILLEGAL AND
UNCONSCIONABLE PRACTICE OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION OF
EULOGIO AMANG RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(EARIST)
OF
BLACKLISTING
STUDENTS
WHO
PRACTICE
THEIR
CONSTITUTIONALLY-GUARANTEED RIGHTS TO FREE EXPRESSION AND
PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY AND BARRING THEM FROM READMISSION OR REENROLLMENT
WHEREAS, Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees the
right of every Filipino citizen to free speech, expression, free press, and the right to peaceably
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances;
WHEREAS, students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate.”1 Just as any citizen of the Philippines is accorded the
constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, students are also entitled to such,
and are therefore in liberty to express their views, thoughts and opinions in gatherings, rallies,
and other similar protest actions inside or outside school premises;
WHEREAS, during the enrollment period of the state-run Eulogio Amang Rodriguez
Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST) for academic year 2014-2015 this May, about 30
students who were active in campaigning against the illegal collection of development fees were
barred from re-enrolling for the incoming semester;
WHEREAS, the said students, who are members of student political party Katipunan ng
mga Mag-aaral at Organisasyon (KAMAO), have actively campaigned against the collection of a
P1,000 “development fee” in their school since 2012. The said students led large-scale indoor
protests against the illegal fee, the most recent of which was a protest action last November 26,
1
Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503, United States Supreme Court
1969.
1
2013, wherein over 5,000 EARIST students walked out of their classes to call for the scrapping of
the said fee;
WHEREAS, the students are correct in saying that the collection of development fees is
illegal, since the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) itself released En Banc Resolution
No. 221-2012, which abolished and prohibited the collection of development fees or fees
collected for the purposed of school improvements such as infrastructure and land development;
WHEREAS, right after the protest last November, the EARIST administration reportedly
threatened to suspend and even dismiss student leaders who led the protest. Upon the intervention
of CHED and national student organizations, however, the EARIST administration did not push
through with its threats;
WHEREAS, the EARIST administration’s threats did not end in the foiled suspension
attempts. During the enrollment period for academic year 2014-2015 just this May, about 30
students who figured in past student demonstrations in EARIST found out that they were
“blacklisted” by the school administration and were not allowed to re-enroll;
WHEREAS, in statements released to the national media, EARIST Student Affairs
Director Eriberto Astorga, Jr. explained that the school’s executive officials made the decision
because the students in question “habitually violated rules” stated in the EARIST student
handbook, which includes a provision on rallies. Astorga added that the students were
“disrespectful to faculty members and employees;”
WHEREAS, the blacklisting of students did not undergo due process. No disciplinary
case was ever filed against the students, and no disciplinary hearings were ever held, according to
KAMAO Vice Chairperson Jay Pilipiña;
WHEREAS, the EARIST administration’s action violates existing Philippine
jurisprudence on students’ rights, all of which continually uphold that “the rights to peaceable
assembly and free speech are guaranteed students of educational institutions.” 2
In several decisions of the high court, our justices have continually struck down oppressive
school policies that curtail the freedom of peaceable assembly, expression, and speech.
In Malabanan vs. Ramento,3 the SC said, to wit –
“The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed students of educational
institutions. Necessarily, their exercise to discuss matters affecting their welfare or
involving public interest is not to be subjected to previous restraint or subsequent
punishment unless there be a showing of a clear and present danger to a substantive evil
that the state, has a right to present. As a corollary, the utmost leeway and scope is
accorded the content of the placards displayed or utterances made.” (Emphasis supplied)
The high court has further stated that whereas a permit should be secured from school
administrators should the protest be conducted inside school premises, school authorities are
2
3
Malabanan vs. Ramento, G.R.No. L-62270, May 21, 1984.
Ibid.
2
“devoid of the power to deny such request arbitrarily or unreasonably,” 4 thereby applying the
“clear and present danger” doctrine that is used to argue against prior restraint in cases that
pertain to the exercise of peaceable assembly;
WHEREAS, if the EARIST administration pushes through with the enrollment ban for
the aforementioned student leaders, it will be violating the equal protection clause of the 1987
Constitution, as the case at hand is no different from the case in Villar vs. Technological Institute
of the Philippines5, wherein the Supreme Court ruled, to wit –
“The academic freedom enjoyed by "institutions of higher learning" includes the right to
set academic standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for
the expulsion of students. Once it has done so, however, that standard should be followed
meticulously. It cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students who exercise
their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. If it does so, then
there is a legitimate grievance by the students thus prejudiced, their right to the
equal protection clause is being disregarded.” (Emphasis supplied);
WHEREAS, the issue at hand must be immediately addressed by Congress, given its
time-bound nature and its great impact on students;
WHEREAS, Congress should take the lead in crafting legislation that would ensure that
no students will be suspended nor banned from re-enrollment due to the legitimate exercise of
their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech;
1
2
3
4
5
6
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the
House of Representatives direct the Committee on Higher and Technical Education to conduct an
inquiry, in aid of legislation, on the illegal and unconscionable practice of the school
administration of Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST) of
blacklisting students who practice their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to free expression and
peaceable assembly, and barring them from readmission or re-enrollment.
7
8
9
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the result of
the committee inquiry be utilized to draft much-needed legislation that would protect the rights
and welfare of students against repressive school policies.
Adopted,
HON. TERRY L. RIDON
Representative, Kabataan Party-list
4
5
Ibid.
Villar vs. Technological Institute of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-69198, April 17, 1985.
3