i received an sms from two of my classmates last sunday, january 8, asking me to flip over the column of justice cruz published at the philippine daily inquirer. it was a sunday, hence, more bedtime hours for me. i was intrigued by these messages and ask one of them, azela, on what was it about. i asked my dad to buy a copy for me (i am bent on buying tabloid newspapers during weekdays and manila bulletin during sundays...you see, it would be perfect for any law student/graduate/ or even a lawyer, perhaps to browse over the 'news articles' of a tabloid. you can test your criminal and remedial law skills here. hehe.). and so, i was appalled.
Separate Opinion : Tempest at San Beda
First posted 04:17am (Mla time) Jan 08, 2006
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer
Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the January 8, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
NOW that the yuletide is over, let me relate the interesting issue of academic freedom at the San Beda College of Law, where I was a professor and bar reviewer in Political Law and International Law for 20 years.
San Beda is a distinguished law school that has produced an impressive number of bar topnotchers led by former Supreme Court Justice Florenz D. Regalado, whose bar rating of 96.7 percent remains unsurpassed to date. Among its more prominent alumni are the late Raul Roco, Rene Saguisag, Antonio Martinez, Antonio Nachura, and many other successful practitioners.
One of the important features of the academic discipline of San Beda College is its retention policy providing that any student who flunks twice in any subject will be ineligible for enrollment in the succeeding semester. This is a condition every applicant for admission to the law school must accept in writing before he may be enrolled.
This rule has been rigidly enforced over the years with beneficent results. The elimination of students who do not come up to its academic standards has given the college an enviable record in the bar examinations and burnished the pride of San Beda lawyers in their alma mater.
This semester, however, this policy was not applied. Three senior students who had failed twice in Torts and Damages (a bar examination subject) were originally disqualified under the rule but, upon their request for reconsideration, were allowed to re-enroll. This was done upon recommendation of Dean Virgilio B. Jara to the Father Rector, who approved it.
Upon learning of this irregularity, the Law faculty registered a strong protest with the Father Rector. His excuse was that he had acted "in the exercise of a discretionary power that is inherent in my position as Rector-President of the College."
One faculty member disagreed and immediately resigned. In his letter to Dean Jara, he wrote in part:
"I regret I cannot but take strong exception and express my disappointment in your recent decision, as affirmed by our Rector, to re-admit students who have failed twice in the same subject. I view this radical departure from what has been consistently practiced by your predecessors as both unwarranted and unfair and may well lead to the 'commercialization' of our institution, which I have come to cherish dearly.
"I view this action of our Rector as a clear sign that, unlike his predecessors, he is determined to undermine our autonomy with respect to our College's admission and retention policies. If this were to be tolerated now, what would prevent him from later on changing or 'reconsidering' the grades we give our students? He can well claim to possess as well the authority, or the discretion, to interfere in our academic freedom as professors.
"I would not be effective as a teacher in an academic atmosphere which allows unjustified intrusions in the determinations of the faculty. We are responsible professors with the interest and welfare of our institution and our students at heart. I feel that, at the very least, we ought to be trusted to do what becomes us as teachers."
Dean Jara read the letter, abruptly said. "Okay," and without further comment wrote on it the single word, "Accepted."
The reaction of the faculty members was to invoke their academic freedom and deny the "inherent discretion" the Father Rector claimed he possessed to reverse their academic decisions. The academic regulations embodied in the Students' Code, they argued, "cannot be reviewed, suspended or disregarded by the Rector or the Board of Trustees."
"The Dean cannot abdicate faculty authority over academic matters by choosing not to make a stand or by allowing or even voluntarily asking the Rector or the Board of Trustees to interfere," which was what Dean Jara had done.
"The members of the faculty are members of the legal profession and are in the best position to train students who aspire to join them in the same profession."
"To be candid, a number of faculty members have already expressed their intention to resign from the College of Law. However, they were prevailed upon to defer any final decision so we can have a final dialogue with you regarding this matter."
In their subsequent dialogue, Father Rector Anscar J. Chupungco simply repeated that he had exercised his discretion in representation of the owners of the school who, he added, had approved his decision. He did not categorically answer if his discretion covered the right to order the admission of students disqualified by the faculty. But his order was admission enough.
I feel that the discretion claimed by the Father Rector impinged on the academic freedom of the professors who certainly know more about the competence of their students than the highest administrative official of the College. I am disappointed that, for all their principled objection, they obediently surrendered that precious freedom they had so vigorously invoked and defended as teachers of the law.
The lone teacher who resigned said he did so because he is the son of his father. His name is Carlo L. Cruz, and I am his proud father.
[Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.]
there are things, as they say, that has to be in their proper places. the law, has even provided for this fundamental law of order through remedial law - suits, say, must be filed at the proper court which has the jurisdiction and within the proper venue. this i believe, with all due respect, the great justice cruz has violated. having been a part of the institution that san beda college of law is, justice cruz could have at least aired his opinion FIRST to the proper recipients thereof - the dean and rector of san beda law. what he has created, is another monster out of the we-have-yet-to-see-monster allegedly created by the officials aforementioned.
apparently, this article has stirred a lot of emotions and views from amongst the members of the legal community, including UP Law's Atty. Disini, who has this to say in his blog:
Isagani Cruz writes about a problem at San Beda Law. Upon the Dean's recommendation, two students were allowed to re-enroll in violation of a retention policy that called for their dismissal. The faculty is obviously upset and one has already resigned in protest with the Dean blithely accepting the resignation without any comment. From what I know, this kind of "discretion" used to be wielded by the UP Law Dean but that hasn't happened, to my knowledge, in the past 15 years or so. And rightly so -- law school deans are not supposed to bend the rules in any way that compromises academic standards. They are there to maintain the quality of graduates expected from the institution. Fiddle with that and after some time, the school's cachet is lost. A school is only as good as its alumni.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want to trade places with those 2 fellows who were given the Dean's reconsideration. On the one hand, they have to stay -- if only to live up to the Dean's expectation that they deserve to stay or at least, gratitude for having been extended a new lease on life. On the other, they're marked for life. It doesn't matter what they do from now on, they'll forever be remembered by their peers for the wrong thing. Infamy is no good when you're starting out in a close-knit community of professionals. I wonder if they'll attend law school reunions.
Unfortunately, I don't see a way out. The Dean has made his stand and has justified his decision as the exercise of a power inherent in his office. The faculty for its part asserts academic freedom. In these kinds of polarized public disputes, there can be no resolution without one side giving way or being disgraced. This has quickly become a zero-sum game and the options for a compromise are fast disappearing.
Let's hope for the best for the folks at San Beda Law.
...and as it goes in remedial law,again, we must have "proper parties" to keep the ball rolling. otherwise, we lack cause of action which could lead to the dismissal of the case.
albeit the absence of any motion, i hereby motu propio dismiss this issue as nothing but mere tiny hoolaboola made gargantuan by people who barely had penetrated the world they had ruthlessly assassinated.
i may not agree with what they said but i will fight til death their right to say it. the superficiality of cliches! hehe...
meanwhile, i remain as a loyal child to her alma mater.
No comments:
Post a Comment