Letter To The University Council Members

Date: December 3, 2009 Re: Appeal for Support of the University Council for the Re-admission of the Dismissed Graduating Law Students Dear Professor Good day! We are students of the UP College of Law and friends and blockmates of Mr. Robin Bryan Concepcion and Mario Vincent Diaz, the 2 graduating students who were dropped from the rolls from our college during the registration period of this second semester. As friends and blockmates of Mr. Concepcion and Mr. Diaz for more than 3 years, we attest to their good moral character and exceptional diligence. Mr. Concepcion is known amongst his classmates for being always prepared for class. For more than 3 years he commuted a minimum of 4 hours daily from his residence in Cavite to UP Diliman. Notwithstanding this fact, he was always present and prepared for class. Aside from his academic diligence, he is also very active in UP Law activities and headed a paralegal training and legal clinic outreach and seminar to different barangays. Mr. Diaz on the other hand is without a doubt a very disciplined and devoted student. As a law student and as intern in the UP Office of Legal Aid he demonstrated compassion for his indigent clients and OLA applicants. He is known for his initiative and goes beyond what is expected of him in order to achieve excellent results. He also headed legal seminars to barangays and is very active in his fraternity’s socio-civic endeavors. Both Mr. Concepcion and Mr. Diaz have already attained the status of a graduating student, having passed more than 75% of the total number of units for graduation. Out of the 133 units required to complete the law degree, they only have 19 units left in order to finish the course. They are also of good academic standing. Mr. Concepcion has a General Weighted Average of 2.55, while Mr. Diaz has a GWA of 2.59. These facts prove that Mr. Concepcion and Mr. Diaz are worthy to finish their law education in UP, and that their dismissal from the college is unjust and unfair. They both exemplify what a UP Law graduate should stand for – not only solid grasp of the law, but also active participation in creating a just and humane Philippine society. Mr. Concepcion and Mr. Diaz already filed their appeal to the Office of the Chancellor. We write to your good office to seek your support and vote this coming University Council meeting to be held on December 14, 2009. We appeal to your fairness and good judgment in deciding this urgent matter in their favor. The fulfillment of their life-long dream of graduating with a law degree from this prestigious university now lies in your hands. Attached herein is the summary of the facts and arguments of the appeal. Should you be interested in viewing the complete document, please feel free to communicate with us and we will email or send it to you. If your schedule permits it, we also request to have an audience with you in order for us to discuss the issue fully. Thank you for time. Sincerely, Block 2010 D and friends of Mr. Concepcion and Mr. Diaz Contact information: 09207421388 09155410306 [email protected] Supported by: UP Law Student Government UP Law Electoral Judicial Tribunal UP National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers Paralegal Volunteers Organization

UP Law Legal Network for Truthful Elections UP Portia Sorority UP Women in Law Upsilon Sigma Phi Fraternity

FACTS Petitioners Robin Bryan Concepcion and Mario Vincent Diaz have been dropped from the rolls of the College of Law in the last semester of their senior year. Petitioners were told that because they have been previously placed on probationary status during their 1st semester of their freshman year, and because they failed a 5-unit elective during the 1st semester of their fourth year, they would not be allowed to enroll because their situation fell under the “double probation” dismissal rule. According to the UP Law Handbook issued to Petitioners and other members of their batch: Dismissal A Student of the College shall be dropped from the rolls without the benefit of readmission if: xxx 3. having been placed on probation, he/she fails in more than 25 percent of the units he/she is taking in any subsequent semester. These rules do not apply to students who are enrolling for the last semester of their senior year, or for the last semester of their fifth year, in the case of students enrolled in the evening program.

However, the last paragraph was repealed the last year of the Petitioners’ stay in the college, meaning that the seniors’ exemption was removed. Thus, when Petitioners failed a 5unit elective in their senior year, the exemption was deemed inoperative and they were dismissed from the college.

ARGUMENTS An educational institution’s power to prescribe rules regarding academic delinquency and retention is not without limits. Students have an interest in their continued stay in school that constitutes property within the ambit of Constitutional due process clause. The ground and manner by which Petitioners were dismissed from the college are contrary to law, principles and reason. 1. The College’s authority to prescribe academic rules is limited. The University Code mandates that each faculty has the power to administer the educational and internal life of the college within the limits prescribed by the rules of the University System. 2. “Probation,” by its very term, implies a “test” and, corollarily, an opportunity to prove or redeem oneself. Thus, for a person placed on probation, such is not simply a test but, more importantly, also a chance for redemption. While it is admitted that the College has discretionary powers to define the consequences of probation, it certainly may not go beyond its very term. Practices worldwide have shown that such measures are instituted to benefit – not punish – the student. The College of Law’s rule on double probation goes against the very grain of its term. Accordingly, once a student in the College of Law is placed on probation, he/she can no longer afford to be placed on probation at any time thereafter. Otherwise, the student shall be dismissed – even where such student had already made good his academic standing. Thus, in the College of Law, a student placed on probation is placed at a position of prejudice for the rest of his/her stay at the College. This rule is highly unreasonable in view of the meaning and purpose of probation, as observed by the different Universities worldwide. 3. The College did not observe due process in amending the college rules. It did not publish the amended college rules. The email (containing the amendments) circulated by the Law Student Government (LSG) shows that it was drafted by the LSG and did not come from the College. It should therefore not be considered as an official notice from the College. The LSG came out with the email precisely because the College refused to issue an official memo of the changes of the academic rules despite the LSG’s repeated requests. The email does not purport to be a comprehensive list of the new rules on delinquency but only an attempt to answer frequently posed questions to the LSG at the time. The College should not be allowed to

use as a convenient excuse the email of the LSG which was sent out because the College did not perform its duty of officially notifying students of the changes to the academic rules and rules on dismissal. 4. Assuming but not conceding that it observed due process, nonetheless the college cannot apply the “new rules” retroactively. The principle of prospectivity provides that statutes, rules, guidelines, including administrative rulings and circulars, shall be presumed as having only a prospective operation. This principle recognizes the inherent injustice that results from applying rules to facts that have already occurred prior to the rules’ effectivity. Rules serve to act as guides for future conduct. Thus, rules should not be made to apply retroactively, especially if, by doing so, they would prejudice those who are governed. 5. The only exception to the general principle of prospective application of rules is when retroactive application is expressly mandated in the rules, or when it can be reasonably inferred from the text of the rules that retroactive application is implied. There is nothing in the “New Rules” of the College that suggests retroactive application thereof. 6. Even before the changes in the rules were made, and even before students were effectively apprised of such changes in the rules, both Petitioners already attained the status of graduating students enrolling for their last semester, and consequently, attained the concomitant right to be exempted from the application of the scholastic delinquency rules. 7. The College cannot dismiss Petitioners on account of “double probation”. Article 390 of the University Code provides for the only instance under the University System where probationary status can lead to dismissal. The ordinary and plain meaning of Article 390 is simple: a student on probation cannot be dismissed unless he or she incurs a failing grade in fifty percent (50%) or more of his total number of units. Article 390 should be the only rule to be applied if a student were to be dismissed on account of probationary status. The College’s double probation dismissal rule is clearly invalid and cannot be invoked as ground to dismiss the Petitioners. 8. The application of the “new rules” to the Petitioners violates the reciprocal contract of education between the college and Petitioners. This contractual relationship between the school and the student is not only semestral in duration, but subsists “for the entire period the [student] is expected to complete it.” Thus, the College’s decision to remove the exception in favor of graduating students – exempting them from the application of the double probation rule – constitutes a violation of the College’s covenant with its students. The contract the petitioners had with the College included, among others, an assurance that students who are enrolling for the last semester of their senior year shall no longer be dismissed upon the abovementioned grounds. The said assurance was never changed during the first, second and third year of the petitioners’ stay in the College. Upon enrolment for their fourth year, second and final semester in the College, Petitioners are thus already vested with the right not to be dismissed from the College. Education is a constitutional right in the 1987 Constitution, which states that: "Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. " Thus “students do not lose their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. "