1. Tangonan vs. Paño, 137 SCRA 245, No.

L-45157 June 27, 1985

Constitutional Law; Schools; Colleges and Universities; Nursing; A school’s right to refuse to
enroll a student falls, within the “academic freedom clause” of the Constitution.—The
foregoing notwithstanding, still petitioner would want Us to compel respondent school to
enroll her despite her failure to meet the standard policies and qualifications set by the school.
To grant such relief would be doing violence to the academic freedom enjoyed by the
respondent school enshrined under Article XV, Section 8, Par. 2 of our Constitution which
mandates “that all institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom.” This
institutional academic freedom includes not only 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, but also the right of the
school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them—
the grant being to institutions of higher learning—free from outside coercion or interference
save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It has a wide sphere
of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of students. Said constitutional provision is not
to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion. That would be to frustrate its
purpose and nullify its intent.

2. A Martinez vs. Morfe, 44 SCRA 22, No. L-34022, Nos. L-34046-7 March 24, 1972

The grant of certain privileges to any set of persons means the abrogation of this principle of
equality before the eyes of the law. (American Jurisprudence)

In re:

Honor graduates granted professional civil service eligibility pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
907 who are enrolling within two (2) years from their college graduation are exempted from
taking and passing the PhiLSAT for purposes of admission to the basic law course (LEBMO No. 7,
Exemption). Application for exemption shall be filed directly with the LEB.

3. Mercado vs. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc., 618 SCRA 218, G.R. No. 183572,
April 13, 2010

Teachers; Schools; Academic Freedom; Section 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees
all institutions of higher learning academic freedom; the freedoms subsumed in the term
“academic freedom” encompass the freedom of the school or college to determine for itself:
(1) who may teach; (2) who may be taught; (3) how lessons shall be taught; and (4) who may be
admitted to study.—A school enjoys academic freedom—a guarantee that enjoys protection
from the Constitution no less. Section 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all
institutions of higher learning academic freedom. The institutional academic freedom includes
the right of the school or college to decide and adopt its aims and objectives, and to determine
how these objections can best be attained, free from outside coercion or interference, save
possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. The essential freedoms
subsumed in the term “academic freedom” encompass the freedom of the school or college to
determine for itself: (1) who may teach; (2) who may be taught; (3) how lessons shall be taught;
and (4) who may be admitted to study.

4. Ateneo de Manila University vs. Capulong, 222 SCRA 644, G.R. No. 99327 May 27, 1993

Same; Words and Phrases; “Academic freedom” defined.—At this juncture, it would be meet to
recall the essential freedoms subsumed by Justice Felix Frankfurther in the term “academic
freedom” cited in the case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire, thus: (1) who may teach; (2) what may
be taught; (3) how it shall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study.