Contrary to the rules ( and to common sense) that student, when about to graduate, ran for reelection and won a second term as president of the student council. His graduation coming soon thereafter prevented his serving out that second term. No one could be president of the student council who was no longer a student.
In order to serve out that second term as student council president, that student applied the next school year for readmission, this time to another college course for a bachelor’s degree in another field. He also probably expected the university to continue supporting him in his studies for this new degree.
The university refused him admission. It was explained to him that the university was for serious study and not for indulging in campus politics and perpetuating oneself in office.
Oblivious of all the benefits the university had granted, that student filed a complaint against the university and specifically against the university president in person. He claimed that in refusing him admission to a second college course, the university was violating his right to an education.
Instead of filing that complaint with a court of law, he filed it with the regional office of the Commission on Human Rights. Acting on the complaint, the Regional Director declared the university, and specifically the university president as guilty of violation of human rights.
That declaration of course had no legal force as the Commission on Human Rights is not a court of law, but the declaration did much harm to the university because of its propaganda value, and it was exploited by the student and his supporters in their campaign against the university.
That declaration did not do credit to that Regional Director, and it raised questions as to his fitness and competence for the office he held.
The matter was called to the attention of the Commissioners in Manila who head the Commission. After a review of the case, they issued a Resolution nullifying the Regional Director’s declaration, and declaring as "valid" the university’s claim to academic freedom in choosing its students. That Resolution was approved unanimously by all four Commissioners in active service (the fifth being on leave).
Citing several decisions of the Supreme Courts of both the Philippines and the United States, the Commissioners upheld the right of a university to choose its students as an exercise of the academic freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Commission’s Resolution stated that: "In the instant controversy, there is no doubt that the complainant has no demandable right to seek admission and for the school to be in duty bound to admit applicant."
The Commission also said: That the university in this case "correctly invoked the four essential freedoms of the university, enjoyed by it as an institution of higher learning, to determine for itself on academic grounds, who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted."
The Resolution dated 24 March 2003 was penned by Commissioner Dominador N. Calamba II, and concurred in by Commissioner Purificacion Valera-Quisumbing, Eligio P. Mallari, and Wilhelm D. Soriano.
We applaud the Commissioners’ prompt action in this case in correcting an egregious error committed by a regional director. Had they not done so, the Commission on Human Rights could have become a laughing stock as a Commission on Human Injustice.