Individual academic freedom

Last week, I cited the case of Mercado et al vs. AMA Computer College (G.R. No. 183572), where the Supreme Court included “how lessons shall be taught” in the academic freedom of an institution. That seemed to imply that the academic freedom of the institution would prevail in case there is a conflict between the institution and the individual teacher.

In fact, the Supreme Court itself already tackled the issue of such a conflict. In the 1975 case of Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology (G.R. No. L-40779), the Court mentions the usual understanding by teachers of academic freedom:

Academic freedom, said the Court, “is more often identified with the right of a faculty member to pursue his studies in his particular specialty and thereafter to make known or publish the result of his endeavors without fear that retribution would be visited on him in the event that his conclusions are found distasteful or objectionable to the powers that be, whether in the political, economic, or academic establishments.”

The Court immediately added, however, that “That is only one aspect though. Such a view does not comprehend fully the scope of academic freedom recognized by the Constitution. For it is to be noted that the reference is to the ‘institutions of higher learning’ as the recipients of this boon. It would follow then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right.” The Court even quoted University of the Philippines president Vicente G. Sinco, who wrote in his book “Philippine Political Law” that the Constitution “definitely grants the right of academic freedom to the university as an institution as distinguished from the academic freedom of a university professor.”

Let me again point out the logic of this. Saying that the Constitution grants academic freedom to the institution does not mean that the individual professor has no academic freedom. All it means is that the Constitution does not guarantee it.

The Supreme Court, of course, decides matters only from the point of view of the Constitution. Nevertheless, although it cited its 1975 decision in the 2010 case of the Parents-Teachers Association of St. Matthew Christian Academy vs. Metrobank (G.R. No. 176518), the Court itself admitted that there was such a thing as individual academic freedom. It just did not say that the Constitution guarantees it.

Said the Court in 2010 as a historical note: “Academic freedom did not go beyond the concept of freedom of intellectual inquiry, which includes the freedom of professionally qualified persons to inquire, discover, publish and teach the truth as they see it in the field of their competence subject to no control or authority except of rational methods by which truths and conclusions are sought and established in these disciplines.” This was taken from a famous sentence by Sidney Hook in the latter’s “Academic Freedom and Academic Anarchy”: “What is academic freedom? Briefly put, it is the freedom of professionally qualified persons to inquire, discover, publish and teach the truth as they see it in the field of their competence. It is subject to no control or authority except the control or authority of the rational methods by which truths or conclusions are sought and established in these disciplines.” (And, yes, dear plagiarism hunters, the Court footnoted the quote.)

By the way, when it comes to the similar conflict between the academic freedom of the individual teacher and the constitutional protection of labor, the Court decided, in the 1977 case of Montemayor vs. Araneta University Foundation (G.R. L-44251), in favor of labor. Curiously, though, this particular decision bases part of its argument not on legal documents, but on an encyclopedia of social sciences.

Just a brief note on what “freedom” means. In a Resolution on Sept. 29, 1989, the Court made it clear that the word “freedom” does not mean absolute freedom: “Academic freedom in all its forms, demands the full display of discipline. To hold otherwise would be to subvert freedom into degenerate license.” There is a big difference between freedom and license. (What that difference is, however, is another issue.)

There is also a big difference between academic freedom and freedom of speech. An interesting case to read is the 1990 case of Ariel Non et al. vs. Mabini Colleges (G.R. No. 89317), where the Court had to decide which one is more important – academic freedom or freedom of speech. (Again, that is an interesting issue, but not the one I want to tackle in this column.)

Why is the relationship, often a conflict, between the Constitutionally-guaranteed academic freedom of the HEI and the historically respected academic freedom of the individual teacher crucial to any discussion of academic freedom? Let us take a hypothetical and extreme case to make the issue clearer.

Just for the sake of the argument, suppose the administrators of a Philippine school say that all classes should be online.

Now, suppose there is a teacher who is computer-illiterate. Can this teacher insist that s/he meet her/his students in a classroom on campus? (To be continued)