Habijan, Ma. Reina F. Research Perez, Jo-Anne Geneive DJ. Sarmiento III Taradji, Fatima Zahra H.

1-O ISSUE Dean

Legal

Ulpiano

As Catholicism has always become encompassing in the customary affairs and dealings of life in the Philippines, establishment of Catholic schools have been rampant and prevalent, as to the rule it bequests channeled by the Roman Catholic Church1. Furthermore, these sectarian educational institutions such as Ateneo de Manila University, University of Santo Tomas, De La Salle University, San Beda College have proven to provide good quality education, making them ranked as the top performing schools and universities in the Philippines. Due to this fact, there are a number of non-Catholic students who enroll in Catholic schools in the status quo despite the difference in religion. Covered and guided by Catholic education, part of the requirement that students take in Catholic schools is the mandatory religious classes included in the schools curriculum. However, non-Catholic students may find these religious classes and activities irrelevant, offensive or counter to their beliefs. Thus, leading to the issue of whether or not a non-Catholic student enrolled in a Catholic school may refuse in taking the mandatory religious subjects.

RULING
1

Philippine Business for Education. (2011). The Role of Higher Private Education in the Phlippines.

The student has no right to refuse in taking the mandatory religious subject on two (2) grounds: First, there is a reciprocal contract between schools and students. Second, the school has academic freedom as supported by the Presidential Decree No. 603, Title IV, Article 80; Establishment of Schools and Section 13, Batas Pambansa 232, Education Act of 1982 of the Philippines. ARGUMENT There are two rights to be discussed based on the issue: the right of the student to freedom of religion and the practice of such belief and the right of the school to academic freedom. The non-catholic student believes that taking the mandatory subject is counter to his beliefs. Thus, the act of the school to require him in taking mandatory religious subject impairs his right to freedom of religion. This right is guaranteed by the Constitution under Article III Bill of Rights, Section 5 which states that: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be requires for the exercise of civil or political rights.2 On the other hand, the school has the right to academic freedom for it shall determine the subjects of the study and research under Section 13 of Education Act 1982 which provides: 1. The right of their governing boards or lawful authorities to provide for the proper governance of the school and to adopt and enforce administrative or management systems.

Bill of Rights, Section 5 (1987)

2. The right for institutions of higher learning to determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall be subjects of the study and research.3 Both rights are ensured by the Bill of Rights and Education Act. The court is bound to decide on to whose right shall prevail. It is important to determine first if the rights are conflicting. In the ruling of S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chnes, parents appealed from the Qubec Court of Appeals to exempt their children from taking the mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture course for the reason that it will expose students and would interfere with their ability to pass their faith on to their children. However, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that "exposing children to a comprehensive presentation of various religions without forcing the children to join them does not constitute an indoctrination of students that would infringe the freedom of religion of the appellants. Furthermore, the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society."4 It is ruled that imposing mandatory religious subject will not impair the right to freedom of religion of students. There is a difference between indoctrination and instruction. Teaching mandatory religious subject to students is a form of instruction and not indoctrination. It aids students to understand the diversity of religion in the society. The ruling in this case at hand is that a non-Catholic student shall not refuse to take mandatory religious subjects due to the fact that there is a reciprocal contract between schools and students in general. Although Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, provides the student the freedom to believe in religion and to act in

3 4

Education Act, Section 13 (1982)

S.L. v. COMMISSION SCOLAIRE DES CHNES, 33678 SCC 7, February 17, 2012 (Canada LexisNexis 2012)

accordance with such belief, he is also bound into a contract with the school. In the ruling of PSBA v. CA, When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations5. In the abovementioned provision, the student is subject to the curriculum, policies, rules and regulations of the school upon his enrollment. Catholic schools have policies requiring non-Catholic who seek admission to adhere with all the major Catholic dimensions of the school program, including a mandatory religious subject since entering in such school means accepting Catholic style of education as well. In the presence of a reciprocal contract, the student is bound to comply with the requirement of the school. Presidential Decree No. 603, Title IV, Article 80, Establishment of Schools, provides that: All churches and religious orders, congregations or groups may, conformably to law, establish schools for the purpose of educating children in accordance with the tenets of their religion6. Alongside with this provision, Section 13 of Batas Pambansa 232 also known as the Education Act of 1982, ensures the right of institutions of higher learning to determine on academic grounds what shall be the subjects of the study7. Therefore,
5

6
7

Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84698, 1992 The Child and Welfare Youth Act, Title IV, Section 80. Education Act of 1982, Section 13, (1982)

the giving of mandatory religious subjects is justified and the student is compelled to take the mandatory religious subjects. CONCLUSION Evidently, the non-Catholic student shall not to refuse taking the mandatory religious subjects. Given the fact that the student agreed to enroll in a Catholic school, he is aware that there is a reciprocal contract that obliges him to follow the rules and regulations set by the school, which includes the taking of the mandatory religious subjects. Merely taking a required religious subject, may it be according to his belief or not, is not aimed at indoctrinating him but is rather intended to objectively instruct him. Also, as supported by the schools academic freedom, the school has the right to plan and construct its own curriculum.

References:
Bill of Rights (Article III), Section 5 (1987). Education Act of 1982, Section 13. Philippine Business for Education. (2011). The Role of Higher Private Education in the Phlippines. Mandaluyong: Philippine Business for Education. Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84698, (1992) S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chnes, 2012 SCC 7, (Canada LexisNexis 2012) The Child and Welfare Youth Act, Title IV, Section 80.