Scribd
Upload
11 views

ASSIGNMENT Legal

The document discusses legal aspects of education and summarizes a case related to the rights of teachers. It provides answers to questions about self-executing constitutional provisions, academic freedom, and how the K-12 law relates to transferring teachers between education levels.

Uploaded by

Pegalongan ES
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views

ASSIGNMENT Legal

The document discusses legal aspects of education and summarizes a case related to the rights of teachers. It provides answers to questions about self-executing constitutional provisions, academic freedom, and how the K-12 law relates to transferring teachers between education levels.

Uploaded by

Pegalongan ES
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

LEGAL ASPECTS OF EDUCATION

ASSIGNMENT: Read the case of Council of Teachers vs.


Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 216930, October 09, 2018
and answer the following questions:

1. When is a constitutional provision considered self-executing?

A constitutional provision is self-executing when it can be given


effect without the aid of legislation, and there is nothing to
indicate that legislation is intended to make it operative.

2. Are constitutional provisions presumed self-executing? Why


or why not?

ans: In Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance


System, 179 it was ruled that all provisions of the Constitution
are presumed self executing, 180 because to treat them as
requiring legislation would result in giving the legislature "the
power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the
fundamental law." 181 And this could result in a cataclysm.

3. Is Art. XIV Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution which provides


that “the State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens
to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps
to make such education accessible to all” self-executing?

Ans.
In the specific application to the present petitions,in Tolentino
v. Secretary of Finance, the Court also ruled that section 1,
Article XIV on the right of all
citizens to quality education is not self-executory.
The provision "for the promotion of the right to 'quality
education' put in the
Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, not as judicially
enforceable
rights.

4. Is Art. XIII Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution which provides


that “the State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all”
self-executing?

Ans: There are some which this Court has declared not
judicially
enforceable, Article XIII being one, particularly Section 3
thereof, the
nature of which, this Court, in Agabon v. National Labor
Relations
Commission, has described to be not self-executing:

5. What is Academic Freedom?

Academic freedom granted by Constitution. The Court, in its


previous decisions, has defined academic freedom for the
individual member
of the academe as "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.
6. What does the 1987 Constitution say about Academic
Freedom? Cite the article and section.
Ans. Article XIV
Section 5. (1) the State shall take into account regional and

sectoral needs and conditions and shall encourage local planning

in the development of educational policies and programs.

(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher

learning.

7. How does the Joint Guidelines on the Implementation of the


Labor and Management Component of Republic Act No. 10533
(Joint Guidelines) optimize employment retention or prevent, to
the extent possible, displacement of faculty and non-academic
personnel in private and public HEIs during the transition from
the existing 10 years basic education cycle to the enhanced K to
12 basic education?

ANS: As a result of the tripartite consultations, DOLE, DepEd,


TESDA and CHED issued on May 30, 2014 the Joint Guidelines
on the Implementation of the Labor and Management
Component of Republic Act No. 10533 (Joint Guidelines). The
Joint Guidelines was issued to (a) ensure the sustainability of
private and public educational institutions; (b) protect the
rights, interests, and welfare of teaching and non-teaching
personnel; and (c) optimize employment retention or prevent,
to the extent possible, displacement of faculty and non-
academic personnel in private and public HEIs during the
transition from the existing 10 years basic education cycle to
the enhanced K to 12 basic education.
8. What do petitioners allege about the K to 12 Law in relation
to their academic freedom?

Petitioners in G.R. No. 216930 also allege that faculty from HEI
stand
to lose their academic freedom when they are transferred to
senior high school
level as provided in the K to 12 Law, the K to 12 Law !RR and
the Joint
Guidelines.

9. Did the Supreme Court agree with petitioners that their


transfer to the secondary level, as provided by the K to 12
Law and the assailed issuances, constitutes a violation of their
academic freedom?

The Court does not agree with petitioners that their transfer to
the secondary level, as provided by the K to 12 Law and the
assailed issuances, constitutes a violation of their academic
freedom. While the Court agrees, in principle, that security of
tenure is an important aspect of academic freedom - that the
freedom is only meaningful if the faculty members are assured
that they are free to pursue their academic endeavors without
fear of reprisals - it is likewise equally true that convergence of
security of tenure and academic freedom does not preclude the
termination of a faculty member for a valid cause.224 Civil
servants, like petitioners, may be removed from service for a
valid cause, such as when there is a bona fide reorganization, or
a position has been abolished or rendered redundant, or there is
a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to meet
the exigencies of the service. 225 Hence, petitioners' contention
that the law is unconstitutional based on this ground is
spec10us.

You might also like