STUDENT

DISCIPLINE
LAW & POLICY:
Balancing the Right to Education and the Right
to a Safe & Orderly Learning Environment
ATTY.JOSEPH NOEL M. ESTRADA
De La Salle Health Sciences Institute
January 26, 2017
Student Discipline
Legal Bases
 Sec. 3, Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution
They [educational inst.] shall inculcate
patriotism and nationalism, foster love of
humanity, respect for human rights,
appreciation of the role of national heroes
in the historical development of the
country, teach the rights and duties of
citizenship, strengthen ethical and
spiritual values, develop moral character
and personal discipline, encourage critical
and creative thinking, broaden scientific
and technological knowledge, and promote
vocational efficiency.
“A college or any school for that
matter, has a dual responsibility to its
s t u d e n t s . O n e i s t o p r o v i d e
opportunities for learning and the
other is to help them grow and
develop into mature, responsible,
effective and worthy citizens of the
community. Discipline is one of the
means to carry out the second
responsibility.” - (See Case of Jose
Angeles v. Sison)
 Family Code
A r t . 2 2 0 . t h o s e e x e r c i s i n g
parental authority shall have
w i t h t h e r e s p e c t t o t h e i r
unemancipated children on wards
the following rights and duties:

(7) To impose discipline on

them as may be required under
the circumstances;
 Special Parental Authority:
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and
teachers, or the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child are shall have
s p e c i a l p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y a n d
responsibility over the minor child while
under their supervision, instruction or
custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to
all authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity
or institution.
“I called you because
your son is
misbehaving in
class.”
•\
“He is also
misbehaving at home.
Pinatawag ba kita?”
Parental Authority = Liability
Art. 219. Those given the authority and
responsibility under the preceding Article
shall be principally and solidarily
liable for damages caused by the acts
or omissions of the unemancipated
minor. The parents, judicial guardians or
the persons exercising substitute parental
authority over said minor shall be
subsidiarily liable.
 Vicarious Liability
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the
obligation to respond for damage inflicted
by one against another by fault or
negligence exists not only for one's own
act or omission, but also for acts or
omissions of a person for whom one is
by law responsible.

-Teachers or heads of establishments of

arts and trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils, their
students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
Amadora Case (1988)
Alfredo, 17 y/o, is a graduating student of Colegio San
Jose-Recoletos.

Pablito, also a student of CSJR, fired a gun that

mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his expectations and
his life as well.

The bereaved family of Alfredo filed a case for

damages under Article 2180 against the school,
teachers, principal and rector.

The School’s defense is that, the semester already

ended and Alfredo went to school only to submit a
project. Hence, he is not under custody of the school.
The phrase used in the cited article
— "so long as (the students) remain
in their custody" — means the
protective and supervisory custody
that the school and its heads and
teachers exercise over the pupils and
students for as long as they are at
attendance in the school, including
recess time.
As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school
premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in
the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the
enjoyment of a legitimate student right, the responsibility of
the school authorities over the student continues. Indeed,
even if the student should be doing nothing more than
relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and
friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the
school, he is still within the custody and subject to the
discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of
Article 2180.
PSBA v. CA (1992)
 Carlitos was a 3rd year student of
PSBA.
A stabbing incident happened inside
PSBA Campus which caused the death
of Carlitos.
The parents of Carlitos sued the
School and its corporate officers for
damages under Article 2180 of the NCC.
During the trial, it was established
that the assailants were not members
of school’s academic community.
The Supreme Court gave a
NEGATIVE ANSWER.

–
 2180 does not apply
the Court held that Article
2180 of the Civil Code was not
applicable where a student
had been injured by one
who was an outsider or by
one over whom the school
did not exercise any custody
or control or supervision.
 Implied Contract
implied contract may be held to be established between a
school which accepts students for enrollment, on the
one hand, and the students who are enrolled, on the
other hand, which contract results in obligations for
both parties.
When an academic institution
accepts students for enrollment,
there is established a contract
between them, resulting in
bilateral obligations which
parties are bound to comply
with. For its part, the school
u n d e r t a ke s to p rov i d e t h e
student with an education that
would presumably suffice to
equip him with the necessary
tools and skills to pursue higher
education or a profession.
Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies of
physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm
of the arts and other sciences when bullets are
flying or grenades exploding in the air or where
there looms around the school premises a constant
threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the school must
ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain
peace and order within the campus premises and to
prevent the breakdown thereof.

-Supreme Court
The respective liabilities of those
ref er re d to i n t h e p re ce d i ng
paragraph shall not apply if it is
proved that they exercised the proper
d iligence require d under t he
particular circumstances.
–family Code
 Diligence of a good father of a family

Standard of Care

“The diligence of a good father of a family requires

only that diligence which an ordinary prudent man
would exercise with regard to his own property.”
 Contributory negligence of a child

x x x that the presumption of lack of

discernment or incapacity for negligence
in the case of a child over nine but under
fifteen years of age is a rebuttable one,
under our law. The rule, therefore, is
that a child under nine years of age must
be conclusively presumed incapable of
contributory negligence as a matter of
law. (Jarco Marketing v. CA)
 DO 88: Right to Discipline
Administration shall be responsible for
maintenance of good discipline among students
inside the school campus, as well as outside the
school premises whenever they are engaged
in authorized school activities (131).
No disciplinary sanction shall be imposed upon
any student except for valid causes as define in
the school rules and regulations, an in accordance
with due process as provided for in the Manual.
The school rules governing student discipline and
the corresponding sanctions therefore must be
clearly specified and defined in writing and
made available to the students, or their
parents or guardians. (Sec 132)
 SUBSTITUTE PARENTAL AUTHORITY
•Substitute parental authority can only be exercised
within the school premises and it shall be exercised
only to protect and promote the physical, mental
and moral well-being of the students.
(DepEd Memo 297 Series of 2006, Prohibiting Acts Constituting Violations of
RA 7610)
 Authority of the School To Discipline
• “xxx there are instances when the school might be
called upon to exercise its power over its student or
students for acts committed outside the school and
beyond school hours in the following:
• a) In cases of violations of school policies or regulations
occurring in connection with a school sponsored activity
off-campus; or
• b) In cases where the misconduct of the student involves
his status as a student or affects the good name or
reputation of the school.” (Angeles vs. Sison)
• c) In cases where misconduct is committed in
cyberspace. (Vivares vs. STC)
 Schools have the right to adopt its
own rules and regulations pertaining
to ADMISSION and DISCIPLINE of
students.
(Yap Chin Fah )
 DUE PROCESS
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
 School Disciplinary Proceedings
Administrative Case
In administrative proceedings, the filing
of charges and giving reasonable
opportunity for the person so charged to
answer the accusations against him
constitute the minimum requirements of
due process. The essence of due process is
simply to be heard, or as applied to
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s , a n
opportunity to explain one’s side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of.
(Ledesma v.CA)
3 categories of disciplinary administrative sanctions for serious
offenses or violation of school rules and regulations:

SUSPENSION
/
Preventive Exclusion EXPULSION
Suspension
 Suspension

is a penalty in which the school is

allowed to deny or deprive an erring
pupil or student of attendance in
classes for a period not exceeding
twenty 20% pf the prescribed class
days for the school or term.

220 days = not exceeding 44 days

 Preventive Suspension
a pupil or student under investigation of a case involving the
penalty of expulsion may be preventively suspended from
entering the school premises if the evidence of guilt is
strong and the school head is morally convinced that the
continued stay of the pupil or student during the period
of the investigation constitutes a distraction to normal
operations of the school or poses a risk or danger to the
life of persons and property in the school.
 Exclusion
Exclusion – is a penalty in which the
school is allowed to exclude or drop
the name of the erring pupil or
student from the school rolls for
being undesirable and transfer
credentials immediately issued. A
summary investigation shall have
been conducted, and no prior
approval by the Department is
required in the imposition of the
penalty.
 EXPULSION
extreme penalty on an erring pupil or student consisting of
his exclusion from admission to any public or private school
in the Philippines and which requires the prior approval of
the Secretary. The penalty may be imposed for acts or
offenses constituting gross misconduct, dishonesty,
hazing, carrying deadly weapons, immorality, selling or
possession of prohibited drugs x x x tampering with
school records or school forms, and securing forged records.
The decision of the school shall be forwarded to the
Regional Office within 10 days from termination.
 De La Salle v. CA
Tau Gamma Phi
Domino Lux Fraternity

FRAT WAR

They were meted the supreme penalty

of automatic expulsion
This power [to discipline], however,
does not give them the
untrammeled discretion to impose
a penalty which is not
commensurate with the gravity of
the misdeed. If the concept of
proportionality between the offense
committed and the sanction
imposed is not followed, an
element of arbitrariness intrudes.
That would give rise to a due
process question.
We agree with respondent CHED that under the circumstances, the penalty
of expulsion is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the acts
committed by private respondents Bungubung, Reverente, and Valdes, Jr.
Each of the two mauling incidents lasted only for few seconds and the victims
did not suffer any serious injury. Disciplinary measures especially where
they involve suspension, dismissal or expulsion, cut significantly into
the future of a student. They attach to him for life and become a mortgage
of his future, hardly redeemable in certain cases.
 Officials of colleges and universities must be
anxious to protect it, conscious of the fact that,
appropriately construed, a disciplinary action
should be treated as an educational tool rather
than a punitive measure.

DLSU v. CA
 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
as stated in Guzman, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires
observance of procedural due process. Thus:

. . . There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the
demands of procedural due process; and these are, that:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them;
(2) 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.
A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to
due process it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present

supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.

To be heard does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court

one may also be heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be
heard through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process (Batul v.
Bayron)
Evidence Required
 Substantial
Evidence
The required proof in administrative
cases, such as in student discipline cases,
is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt
nor preponderance of evidence but only
substantial evidence. According to Ang
Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, it
means such reasonable evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
 PENALTY MUST BE COMMENSURATE
1. X x x that 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. (Ateneo de Manila
University v. Capulong) This power, however, does not
give them the untrammeled discretion to impose a
penalty which is not commensurate with the gravity
of the misdeed. If the concept of proportionality
between the offense committed and the sanction
imposed is not followed, an element of arbitrariness
intrudes. That would give rise to a due process
question.
 Nelson Jenoso v. University of San Agustin
Students of the University, among them petitioners Nio
Carlo Jenosa, Patrick Canto, Cyndy Apalisok, Clint Eduard
Vargas, and Nonell Gregory Duro (petitioner students), were
caught engaging in hazing outside the school premises.
Thereafter, dialogues and consultations were conducted
among the school authorities, the apprehended students
and their parents.
During the 28 November 2002 meeting, the parties agreed
that, instead of the possibility of being charged and
found guilty of hazing, the students who participated in
the hazing incident as initiators, including petitioner
students, would just transfer to another school, while those
who participated as neophytes would be suspended for one
month.
The parents of the apprehended students, including petitioners,
affixed their signatures to the minutes of the meeting to signify their
conformity. In view of the agreement, the University did not anymore
convene the Committee on Student Discipline (COSD) to investigate
the hazing incident.
However, parents assailed the Principals decision to order the
immediate transfer of petitioner students as a violation of their right
to due process because the COSD was not convened.
COSD was convened later on when RTC compelled the school to
allow minor students to attend classes during the pendency of the
case.
The COSD also recommended the exclusion of petitioner students
from its rolls effective 28 November 2002.
 ISSUE?

Was the recommendation/report/order of the Committee on

Student Discipline dated 7 July 2003 valid, and did it justify the
order of exclusion of petitioner students retroactive to 28
November 2002?
In this case, we rule that the Principal had the authority to order the immediate
transfer of petitioner students because of the 28 November 2002 agreement. Petitioner
parents affixed their signatures to the minutes of the 28 November 2002 meeting and signified
their conformity to transfer their children to another school. Petitioners Socorro Canto
and Nelia Duro even wrote a letter to inform the University that they would transfer their
children to another school and requested for the pertinent papers needed for the transfer.
In turn, the University did not anymore convene the COSD. The University agreed that it would
no longer conduct disciplinary proceedings and instead issue the transfer credentials of
petitioner students.
Then petitioners reneged on their agreement without any justifiable reason. Since petitioners
present complaint is one for injunction, and injunction is the strong arm of equity, petitioners
must come to court with clean hands.

Since petitioners have come to court with inequitable and unfair conduct, we deny them relief.
We uphold the validity of the 28 November 2002 agreement and rule that the Principal had the
authority to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students based on the 28 November
2002 agreement.
 Pointers

If incident happened within the

purview or knowledge of School
Administrator.
DON’T BE OBLIVIOUS
Initiate Investigation
 Conduct Investigation

There are instances that this may be

waived.
take into consideration the nature of
sanction and penalty involved
 Conflicting Claims

1. Form committee
2. Written notice
3. Give them chance to explain. Actual hearing not required
4. As long as they are given the opportunity
 Presence of Counsel

.On the contrary, jurisprudence is in unison in

saying that assistance of counsel is not
indispensable in administrative
proceedings.
 Assistance of Parents or guardian

Yes. As minors by law children do not have autonomy or the

right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any
known jurisdiction of the world.
FACTUAL IN NATURE, RIGHT TO BE ASSISTED ONLY.
 Injured student

School’s obligation to ensure safety of students

Negligence of school.
Student Discipline vis-a-vis Child Abuse
CHILD PROTECTION POLICY
DO 40, s. 2012
 Child Abuse under RA 7610
"Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment,
whether habitual or not, of the child which
includes any of the following:

(2) Any act by deeds or words

which debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth
and dignity of a child as a
human being;
(4) Failure to immediately give
medical treatment to an injured
child resulting in serious
impairment of his growth and
development or in his
permanent incapacity or death.

(1) Psychological and

physical abuse, (3) Unreasonable deprivation
neglect, cruelty, of his basic needs for
survival, such as food and
sexual abuse and shelter; or
 WHO IS A CHILD?
R.A.7610, Section 3.
Child - refers to person
below eighteen (18) years
of age or those over but
are unable to fully take
care of themselves or
protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or
discrimination because of a
physical or mental
disability or condition.
Dep’t Order 40
“D.O. 40, For purposes of
this Department Order the
term also includes pupils or
students who may be
eighteen (18) years of age
or older but are in school.”
Fo r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e
present Convention, a child
Convention on the Rights of means every human being
the Child below the age of eighteen
years unless under the law
applicable to the child,
majority is attained earlier.
George Bongalon vs. People of the
Philippines, GR 169533, March 20, 2013
• “Not every instance of the laying of
hands on a child constitutes the
crime of child abuse under Section 10
(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only
when the laying of hands is shown
beyond reasonable doubt to be
intended by the accused to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic
worth and dignity of the child as a
human being should it be punished
as child abuse. Otherwise, it is
punished under the Revised Penal
Code.”
 Anti-Corporal Punishment 

(Under DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012)
• Blows such as, but not limited to, beating, kicking, hitting, slapping,
or lashing, of any part of a child’s body, with or without the use of an
instrument such as, but not limited to a cane, broom, stick, whip or
belt;
• Striking of a child’s face or head, such being declared as a “no
contract zone”;
• Pulling hair, shaking, twisting joints, cutting or piercing skin,
dragging, pushing or throwing of a child;
• Forcing a child to perform physically painful or damaging acts such
as, but not limited to, holding a weight or weights for an extended
period and kneeling on stones, salt, pebbles or other objects;
• Deprivation of a child’s physical needs as a form of punishment;
 Anti-Corporal Punishment
Deliberate exposure to fire, ice water, smoke, sunlight, rain, pepper, alcohol, or forcing the child to swallow substances,
dangerous chemicals, and other materials that can cause discomfort or threaten the child’s health, safety and sense of
security such as, but not limited to insecticides, excrement or urine;

Tying up a child;

Confinement, imprisonment or depriving the liberty of a child;

Verbal abuse or assaults, including intimidation or threat of bodily harm, swearing or

cursing, ridiculing or denigrating the child;

Forcing a child to swear a sign, to undress or disrobe, or put on anything that will make a
child look or feel foolish, which belittles or humiliates the child in front of others;

Permanent confiscation of personal property of pupils, students or learners, except when such pieces of property pose a
danger to the child or to others, and

Other analogous acts.

 FELINA ROSALDES v.
P of P (2014)

The victim was her own Grade 1 pupil whom she

physically maltreated for having accidentally
bumped her knee while she was drowsing off on
a bamboo sofa as he entered the classroom. Her
maltreatment left him with physical injuries, as
duly certified by a physician.
1. Petechiae and tenderness of both external ears 1x2 cm. and 1x1 cm.;

2. Lumbar pains and tenderness at area of L3-L4;

3. Contusions at left inner thigh 1x1 and 1x1 cm.;

4. Tenderness and painful on walking especially at the area of femoral head.

Ms.Felina contends that she did not deliberately inflict the physical injuries suffered by
MichaelRyan to maltreat or malign him in a manner that would debase, demean or degrade his
dignity. She characterizes her maltreatment as an act of discipline that she as a school teacher
could reasonably do towards the development of the child. She insists that her act further came
under the doctrine of in loco parentis.

Although Ms. Felina, as a school teacher, could duly discipline Michael Ryan as her pupil,
her infliction of the physical injuries on him was unnecessary, violent and excessive. The
13
boy even fainted from the violence suffered at her hands. She could not justifiably claim
that she acted only for the sake of disciplining him. Her physical maltreatment of him was
precisely prohibited by no less than the Family Code, which has expressly banned the infliction of
corporal punishment by a school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in child care
exercising special parental
Family Code Art. 233. The person
exercising substitute parental
authority shall have the same
authority over the person of the
child as the parents.

In no case shall the school

a d m i n i s t r a t o r, t e a c h e r o f
individual engaged in child care
exercising special parental
authority inflict corporal
punishment upon the child.
71
The petitioner(teacher)
" w e nt o v er b o ar d i n
d is cipl in ing Mi chael
Ryan, a helple ss and
weak 7-year o ld bo y,
when she pinched hard
Michael Ryan on the left
thigh and when she held
him in the armpits and
threw him on the floor[;
and as] t he boy fell
down, his body
On her part, the trial judge said that the
physical pain experienced by the victim had
been aggravated by an emotional trauma
that caused him to stop going to school
altogether out of fear of the petitioner,
compelling his parents to transfer him to
another school where he had to adjust
again. Such established circumstances
proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the petitioner was guilty of child abuse
by deeds that degraded and demeaned
the intrinsic worth and dignity of
Michael Ryan as a human being.
A parent whose child was kicked out
after he was caught in possession of
marijuana twice, filed a criminal case
of child abuse and perjury against the
school head.

As legal counsel of the school, EA

Law was able to assert the school's
authority and defended it against the
harassment complaint, which was
dismissed for lack of probable cause.
 defenses
- Complainants failed to substantiate their claim about the alleged harassment
and coercion committed by the School. There were several conferences
conducted where Complainants were given the chance to explain their side. It
cannot be said that there was no due process.

-The School never intended to discriminate or humiliate Complainant, when

he was dismissed from the School. As a Catholic School, there are standards,
values and rules and regulations, which each student must follow. By enrolling
in the school this means the student as well as his/her parents acceded to
follow these rules and regulations.
In order for a person can be said guilty of child abuse, the intent to debase
or demean the dignity of child must be apparent.

In Bangalon v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court held that the
intent to humiliate the child must be established, viz:

“x x x he [accused] lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean

the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so
essential in the crime of child abuse.”
 defenses
The school or administration of each private school shall be responsible for
the maintenance of good discipline among students inside the school
campus, as well as outside the school premises x x x. Each private school
shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate such reasonable
norms, rules and regulations as it may deem necessary for the maintenance
of good discipline. x x x. The school rules governing student discipline and
the corresponding sanctions therefore must be clearly specified and
defined in writing and made available to the students, or their parents or
guardians.
 Lessons from the case

OBSERVE DUE PROCESS

DOCUMENT AND ACCOUNT
EVERYTHING
HAVE WITNESSES
PRESERVE EVIDENCE
(document; object evidence)
HIRE EA! :)
 Case on Authority to Discipline Students
for Acts Committed in Cyberspace

VIVARES v. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE




• “The individual’s desire for privacy is

never absolute, since participation in
society is an equally powerful desire.
Thus, each individual is continually
engaged in a personal adjustment
process in which he balances the desire
f o r p r i va c y w i th th e d e s i re f o r
disclosure and communication of
himself to others, in light of the
environmental conditions and social
norms set by the society in which he
lives.”
• - Alan Westin, Privacy & Freedom (1967)
A and B, both minors and graduating students of
STC, Cebu City took pictures of themselves
while changing into their swimsuits for a beach
party they were about to attend clad only in
their undergarments. These photos were
uploaded on Facebook.
A computer teacher at STC learned
about this from her students at the
computer class. Using STC’s
computers, students logged in to
their Facebook accounts and found
more pictures of the students in
their undergarments. These photos
were not confined to the girls’
Facebook friends but viewable by
the public.

STC found the students to have

deported themselves in a manner
proscribed by the School’s Student
Handbook.
ISSUES:



-Whether a writ of habeas
data should be issued; 



-Whether there was indeed
an actual or threatened
violation of the right to
privacy in life, liberty, or
security of the minors
involved.

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA is a remedy
available to any person whose right
to privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or threatened
by an unlawful act or commission
of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person,
family, home, and correspondence
of the aggrieved party.

• The purpose is to protect
an individual’s right to
informational privacy.

• Informational Privacy- is
the right of individuals
to control information
about themselves.
• HELD:

• STC did not violate the girls’ right to privacy.

• The disclosure of the photos of the minors

were not limited or kept within their zones of
privacy and thus, they cannot invoke the
protection attached to the tight to
informational privacy.
“ A person who places a photograph on the
internet precisely intends to forsake and
renounce all privacy rights to such imagery,
particularly under circumstances such as
here where the defendant did not employ
protective measures or devices that would
have controlled access to the Web page or
the photograph itself.” -US v. Gines-Perez


 ”
 Responsible
The best Facebook filter
Social
No such thing as
“Friends Only”.
is the one between your Networking or
children’s ears.
“Netiquettes”
.
 Internet consumers ought
to be aware that, by
entering or uploading any
kind of data or
information online, they
are automatically and
inevitably making it
permanently available
online.

 
STC cannot be faulted for being steadfast
Whatever you in its duty of teaching its students to be
post on Facebook responsible in their dealings and activities
stays there… in cyberspace, when it enforces the
disciplinary actions specified in the
FOREVERMORE. Student Handbook, absent any showing
that, in the process, it violated the
students’ rights.
Gender Sensitivity in Student Discipline

Gender and sex are distinct in this context:

gender =
sex =
one's
biology, it
innate Thus, transgender (where the
is assigned
sense of Latin trans means "on the other
at birth; self.
side of") signifies someone whose
gender differs from their assigned
sex.
 

Case Study:

Here is a story of an administrative case that existed in one school. 


While it did not reach the courts of law all the way to
the Supreme Court and made part of jurisprudence, it
is worth sharing to the CEAP member institutions as
a guide in dealing with a similar case.
Alden, not his real name, is a
sophomore Nursing student in
a College. He styles himself as
a transgender on campus.
At the semester break,
he went abroad to
undergo certain medical
procedures to make his
appearance conform to
his gender identity as a
female.
When he reported back at the resumption of classes, he has
transformed completely into a woman, at least, physically. 

And to match his new body and new appearance, he wore the ladies’ school
uniform. He would usually pass the school entrance without being noticed
by the school guards wearing the improper uniform, but not for long.

One day when he swiped

h i s s c h o o l I D i n t h e
scanner, his old photo,
wherein he looks and
appears every bit a man,
projected in the screen
and was seen by the guard
o n d u t y. H e w a s n o t
allowed entry to the school
unless he wore the proper
uniform for male students.
He insisted on wearing the ladies uniform
and insisted also that he be regarded as a
woman. He requested the school to change
his name appearing on record to “Maine”
and his gender as “female” in all school
records.
 The school endorsed the matter to me and I
recommended denying the request of Alden. The school
stood firm in acknowledging and recognizing only the
details that appear in Alden’s birth certificate,
particularly his gender and his name. Alden eventually
opted to transfer to another school.

NO!
School’s Uniform Policy
 Schools have the right to adopt its own rules and
regulations….

With the school's new policy, they said they are now free to
express themselves through their choice of clothes, provided,
however, they wear the uniform.

Many students at the university, both homosexuals and heterosexuals, welcomed the
policy.
"It promotes and nurtures the diverse culture of FEU, an idea, a vision which allows
our LGBT fellows to feel a sense of democratized expression, to feel comfortable about
themselves," said Romel Bernardo, president of FEU's Central Student Organization.
CHUA-QUA V. CLAVE



“With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral
acts, it follows that the alleged violation of the Code of Ethics governing school
teachers would have no basis. Private respondent utterly failed to show that
petitioner took advantage of her position to court her student. If the two
eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic
levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons
of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle
and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The
deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern
cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.” (Evelyn
Chua-Qua vs. Hon. Jacobo Clave, G.R. No. 49549. August 30, 1990)

 Which reason
Love has
does not
reasons of its
know…
own…
Malto v. People of
the Philippines
AAA- 17 y/o, student from Assumption College

Professor - Philosophy II teacher

AAA and Professor’s relationship started when Professor insinuated about his
XXX movie collections.

Professor courted AAA.

At one time —-Accused told her that he gave her a final grade of 3. She protested,
stating that her mid-term grade was 1.2. He gave her a grade of 1.5 when she
promised not to disclose his intimate messages to her to anyone. He also
cautioned her not to tell anyone about their affair as it could jeopardize his job.
 .
Thereafter, Professor brought AAA to Queensland Lodge Once inside the
motel room, he kissed her at the back and neck, touched her breasts and
placed his hand inside her blouse.

AAA refused his professor’s sexual advances. He told her, kung hindi ko
makukuha ngayon, tapusin na natin ngayon. Pressured and afraid of his
threat to end their relationship, she hesitantly replied Fine. On hearing this,
he quickly undressed while commenting ibibigay mo rin pala, pinahirapan
mo pa akoand laughed. They had sexual intercourse.
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse,
when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money,
profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any
adult, syndicate or group.

On November 19, 1997, due to the influence of petitioner, AAA indulged in
lascivious acts with or allowed him to commit lascivious acts on her. This was
repeated on November 26, 1997 on which date AAA also indulged in sexual
intercourse with petitioner as a result of the latters influence and moral
ascendancy.
“We want our educators to teach our
students,” Judge McSpadden said in
court, “We want them to keep their
hands off the students.”

Teacher was booked on charges of

continuous sexual abuse of a child.
 RANDOM DRUG TESTING
Supreme Court has recognized that "the primary legislative intent of a random
drug testing among students is not criminal prosecution, as those found positive
for illegal drug use as a result of this random testing are not necessarily treated
as criminals.”

It must be stressed that in the conduct of random drug testing, there must be
full cooperation and participation from schools and its administrators.

"While it is the government's mandated responsibility as provided for in RA 9165

to conduct random testing on students both in public and private educational
institutions, COCOPEA and its member schools must, however, always be on
guard against unreasonable means that may be adopted by the government
agency in the guise of its responsibility to conduct the said random testing.”

Estrada urged CHED to consult school officials and discuss with stakeholders in
order to create clear implementing guidelines for the proposal, which Vitriolo
said could be implemented as early as 2017. —— RAPPLER

www.estradaaquino.com
Mobile No. 09998817412
Email:
jnme@estradaaquino.com
Instagram: @attyerap
Facebook:
Joseph Noel Estrada

Thank you!