| Free seminar-workshops for schools within Metro Manila and Rizal Province:
• RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations • English Proficiency • Photojournalism (with cinematography and MoJo) • Journalism (News, Features, Editorials, Sci-Tech, etc.) Atty. Gerry T. Galacio gtgalacio@yahoo.com 0927-798-3138 Index of my RA 7079 posts on Facebook and Reddit (post titles and text may be a bit different): • RA 7079 Campus Journalism Act of 1991 and its proposed repeal under House Bill No. 1155 and Senate Bill No. 1464 (19th Congress) Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079 Campus Journalism Act of 1991 (Part 1): How is the Editor-in-Chief of a high school or an elementary school publication selected? Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079 Campus Journalism Act of 1991 (Part 2): The schoolpaper adviser of a high school or an elementary school publication — appointment, functions responsibilities and liability Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079 Campus Journalism Act of 1991 (Part 3): With RA 7079 having no penalty clause, do campus journalists have any legal remedy if their rights are violated? | House Bill No. 1155 and Senate Bill No. 1464 (19th Congress), which seek to repeal RA 7079, provide penalties of fine, imprisonment, or both for violations of the rights of campus journalists Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079 Campus Journalism Act of 1991 (Part 4): Supreme Court decision in the Miriam College case (2000) involving censorship, press freedom, and the right of schools to discipline students Facebook; Reddit • "Editorial Board" is not the same as "Editorial Staff" or "Editorial Team"; What about "Editorial Board and Staff"? Facebook; Reddit • Why do SPAs and CJs from grade schools and high schools continue to misuse the term “Editorial Board”? Facebook; Reddit • Security of tenure of campus journalists under RA 7079 "Campus Journalism Act of 1991" and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Miriam College case (December 15, 2000) | "Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." — US Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 Facebook; Reddit • Which senator or representative will fight for campus journalism during the 20th Congress? | Chronology from 2010 to 2025 of House bills and Senate bills that sought to repeal and replace RA 7079 "Campus Journalism Act of 1991" | My favorite bill and what provisions I want to be included in any bill seeking to repeal and replace RA 7079 — penalties for violating the rights of student-journalists; mechanism for the mandatory collection and remittance of publication fees; the SPA's advising task/assignment considered as two teaching/work loads; mandatory requirement that top five winners in DSPC individual writing categories will advance to the RSPC and top three winners in the RSPC will advance to the NSPC; prohibition against "commissioned schoolpapers" Facebook; Reddit • An idea for pressuring our senators and representatives to support campus journalism by repealing RA 7079 "Campus Journalism Act of 1991" Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079: "Contest journalism" obstructs the enactment of a law that repeals and replaces RA 7079; "Campus Press Freedom Act" aka "Campus Press Freedom bill"; House bills filed in 1997 and 1998 — the earliest attempts to remedy RA 7079's "toothlessness" Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079: Selective compliance? Mere lip service? | Brief history of RA 7079 and the National Secondary Schools Press Conference (now known as the NSPC) Facebook; Reddit • Kudos to "Nudo Veritas" (Gusa Regional Science High School - X) and "Ang Agila" (Lun Padidu National High School) for correctly using "Editorial Staff" instead of "Editorial Board" Facebook; Reddit • EIC of high school newspaper elected by student-journalists? Facebook; Reddit • EIC and other editors chosen ("pinili") by the SPAs?" Facebook; Reddit • "How common is the practice of SPAs choosing who'll be the EIC, other editors, and staffers? | Administrative and criminal penalties for violation of RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079 "Campus Journalism Act of 1991" and "commissions" or "commissioned school newspapers" Facebook; Reddit RA 7079: My likes and dislikes with House Bill No. 4172, which seeks to repeal and replace RA 7079, filed by Kabataan Party-List and ACT Teachers Party-List (20th Congress) | Likes: Mandatory collection of publication fees; Penalties for violations of campus press freedom | Dislikes: Major error in its section on security of tenure of campus journalists; Removing the SPA and the PTA representative from the Editorial Board of elementary school and high school publications; Failure to address some issues in campus journalism such as "commissioned school papers" and severe limitation on number of winners who will advance to the RSPC and NSPC Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079: Egregious error in House Bill No. 4172 (filed by Kabataan Party-List, 20th Congress) on the security of tenure of campus journalists? Facebook; Reddit RA 7079: Your rights as campus journalists are violated? What to do and where to go for help | RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations prohibit the withholding of publication funds by the school administration; The publication funds must be exclusively used for the purposes stated in Section 2 of Rule V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7079; violation leads to "administrative and/or criminal action against the violator." Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079: Your rights as campus journalists are violated? What to do and where to go for help | RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations prohibit the withholding of publication funds by the school administration Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079: Three major issues facing SPAs of high school and grade school publications — (1) misuse of the term "Editorial Board"; (2) ignorance of RA 7079's Implementing Rules and Regulations as to the selection of editors and staffers; and (3) drafting or adapting for the school publication a Constitution and Bylaws that contains an egregious violation of RA 7079 Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079: A. Small victories; B. Why have Journalism supervisors, SPAs, and CJs either neglected or been unaware of RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations for the last 25 years or so?; C. Is RA 7079 now obsolete because it hasn't been followed all these years? D. Liability of the SPA and the Parents-Teachers' Association under RA 7079's Implementing Rules and Regulations Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079: "Contest journalism" obstructs the enactment of a law that repeals and replaces RA 7079; "Campus Press Freedom Act" aka "Campus Press Freedom bill"; House bills filed in 1997 and 1998 — the earliest attempts to remedy RA 7079's "toothlessness" Facebook; Reddit • RA 7079: Kudos to SPAs of a public high school in Quezon Province for their courage and humility in accepting their mistakes and admitting them before their student-journalists Facebook; Reddit • As SPA or SPJ teacher, which kind of students are you developing — "campus journalists" or "contest journalists"? Facebook; Reddit RA 7079: A. College professor/faculty member as head of the student publication?; B. CHED or DepEd Regional Office — which has jurisdiction over RA 7079 cases?; C. In conflicts between the college or university administration's policies set forth in its student manual or handbook and the editorial policies of the Editorial Board, which will prevail? Facebook; Reddit |
Index of topics:
• The foundational documents of campus journalism in the Philippines
• Three major issues facing SPAs and CJs of high school and grade school publications — (1) misuse of the term ‘Editorial Board’; (2) ignorance of RA 7079's Implementing Rules and Regulations as to the selection of editors and staffers; and (3) drafting or adapting for the school publication a Constitution and Bylaws that contains an egregious violation of RA 707
• Misunderstanding the role of the PTA representative in the Editorial Board
• Security of tenure of campus journalists under RA 7079 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Miriam College case (December 15, 2000)
• Although RA 7079 does not have an explicit penalty clause, campus journalists whose rights have been violated have possible legal remedies under the New Civil Code of the Philippines
Foundational documents of campus journalism in the Philippines
• Republic Act No. 7079 “Campus Journalism Act of 1991”: Supreme Court website; LawPhil Project
• Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7079: DepEd website
If you’re a school paper adviser (SPA), a campus journalist (CJ), a Special Program in Journalism (SPJ) teacher or student, you must read RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Three major issues facing SPAs of high school and grade school publications
A. Misuse of the term ‘Editorial Board’
B. Ignorance of RA 7079's Implementing Rules and Regulations as to the selection of editors and staffers
C. Drafting or adapting for the school publication a Constitution and Bylaws that contains an egregious violation of RA 707
A. School paper advisers and campus journalists have been misusing the term “Editorial Board”; Under RA 7079, the Parents-Teachers Association has the right and duty to have its representative be a part of the Editorial Board
1. The vast majority of campus journalists in elementary and high school publications erroneously refer to themselves as “Editorial Board” or “Editorial Board and Staff.” Some school paper advisers include themselves in the “Editorial Board.”
Dictionaries use “editorial board” and “editorial staff” interchangeably. Thus, both terms (in reference to professional and campus publications) refer to the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Managing Editor, section editors, reporters, photographers, layout artists, etc. But here in the Philippines, school paper advisers, campus journalists, Special Program in Journalism (SPJ) teachers and students must keep in mind that the term "Editorial Board" is defined in RA 7079 and must not be confused with “editorial staff,” “editorial team,” or any similar term.
Section 3, paragraph (d) of RA 7079 states:
“(d) Editorial Board. – In the tertiary level, the editorial board shall be composed of student journalists who have qualified in placement examinations. In the case of elementary and high school levels, the editorial board shall be composed of a duly appointed faculty adviser, the editor who qualified and a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association, who will determine the editorial policies to be implemented by the editor and staff members of the student publication concerned.
“At the tertiary level, the editorial board may include a publication adviser at the option of its members.”
The section and paragraph cited above can be found in RA 7079's "Implementing Rules and Regulations" in Rule III Definition of Terms, Section 1, paragraph (d).
RA 7079 thus differentiates between (1) an “Editorial Board” for tertiary institutions, and (2) an “Editorial Board” for elementary schools and high schools.
• For tertiary institutions, the “Editorial Board” is composed of the “student journalists who have qualified in placement examinations.” (The student journalists have the option of including a publication adviser in the Editorial Board.)
• For elementary schools and high schools, the “Editorial Board” is composed of:
- a duly appointed faculty adviser (SPA),
- the editor who qualified (EIC), and
- a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association.
Whether the Editorial Board is for tertiary, elementary school, or high school publication, its function is the same, that is, to determine the publication's “editorial policies” as stated in paragraph (e) of Section 3.
What about the term “Editorial Board and Staff”?
School paper advisers and campus journalists use the “Editorial Board” portion of the term to refer to the troika of the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, and Managing Editor; they use “Staff” to refer all other student-journalists in the publication. Thus, “Editorial Board and Staff” is still wrong because it excludes the PTA representative.
2. Based on Section 3, paragraph (d) of RA 7079, the Parents-Teachers Association has the legal right and duty of selecting its representative who will become part of the Editorial Board. But most of the Parents-Teachers Associations across the Philippines are unaware that they're supposed to have a representative in their respective school publications' Editorial Boards.
If you’re an SPA, it’s not just a matter of from now on using “Editorial Staff” (or some other term) instead of “Editorial Board.” Besides informing your principal of this matter, you need to inform your Parents-Teachers Association of its right and duty under RA 7079 to have its representative become part of the publication's Editorial Board.
And here’s where things become complicated ....
• As school paper adviser, how will you explain to the principal and the staffers that your school paper has been misusing the term “Editorial Board” all these years?
• As school paper adviser, how will you explain to the PTA officers why they were not informed all these years of their right and duty under RA 7079?
One school paper adviser told me that he immediately deleted my comment (about the misuse of the term “Editorial Board”) on his publication's FB page, hoping that his principal wasn't able to read my comment.
Newbie school paper advisers might be able to avoid being blamed for this matter by claiming that when they were appointed, the school publication was already misusing the term “Editorial Board.” They might also claim that their SDOs’ Journalism supervisors didn't give them any kind of seminar on RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Veteran school paper advisers, on the other hand, will have a much more difficult time explaining this matter to their principals and PTA officers. All these years and they haven’t read RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations?
I understand the dilemma of school paper advisers who have realized that they’ve been wrong all these years about this matter (and the other matters I will discuss below). They want to comply with RA 7079, but they’re afraid of the possible adverse reactions from their principal and PTA officers. It’s like having the air sucked out of their lungs or getting trapped in quicksand.
The blame for this sorry state of things goes mostly to the school paper advisers who have not read or who refuse to comply with the provisions of RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. But the Journalism supervisors of SDOs across the Philippines are also to be blamed. In training seminars both for veteran and newbie school paper advisers and during division press conferences, they could have and should have reminded school paper advisers and campus journalists of what RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations provide.
If the Journalism supervisors themselves have not read RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, then campus journalism in the Philippines is in real trouble.
3. RA 7079’s Implementing Rules and Regulations impose a liability upon the SPA and the Parents-Teachers Association.
RA 7079’s Implementing Rules and Regulations provide under Rule VI, Section 1:
“In the elementary and secondary levels, the teacher-adviser, exercising special parental authority over student staffers who are minors shall, jointly with the Parent-Teacher Association, be held fully responsible for the contents of the student publication.”
B. How are editors and staffers of grade school and high school publications selected?
1. Contrary to what a lot of elementary schools and high schools practice or have formalized into their publication's Constitution and Bylaws, editors and staffers of elementary and high school publications are not (1) selected by the school paper advisers, or (2) elected by their fellow journalists.
RA 7079’s Implementing Rules and Regulations provide in Rule VII, Section 1, paragraph (2) that “secondary and elementary student publication staffers” are selected through a qualifying examination conducted by a committee that’s composed of:
• the student publication adviser as chairperson,
• the past student-editor as vicechairman,
• one faculty member, and
• two former student editors.
The committee will select the Editor-in-Chief, section editors such as news editor, sports editor, etc., and other staffers. (In the traditional hierarchy, the top editors include the Associate Editor and the Managing Editor.)
So why do many elementary and high school publications across the Philippines either have their editors and staffers selected by the school paper advisers or elected by their fellow campus journalists? Simple answer, these school paper advisers and campus journalists have not read RA 7079's Implementing Rules and Regulations.
2. Unlike the various “Campus Press Freedom” bills, RA 7079 does not use the term “Editor-in-Chief.”
The term “Campus Press Freedom Act” was first used in House Bill No. 4287, filed during the 15th Congress by Kabataan Party-List Rep. Raymond V. Palatino and Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Teddy Casiño. Except for a bill filed by _____ during the ____ Congress, all other bills filed to repeal and replace RA 7079 from the 16th Congress up to the present 20th Congress used the term “Campus Press Freedom Act.” All these bills included a definition of the term “Editor-in-Chief.”
RA 7079 does not use the term “Editor-in-Chief.” But there are two instances where the word “editor” probably means “Editor-in-Chief.” These instances are in Paragraph (d) of Sec. 3 Definitions of Terms, which states:
“Editorial Board. - In the tertiary level, the editorial board shall be composed of student journalists who have qualified in placement examinations. In the case of elementary and high school levels, the editorial board shall be composed of a duly appointed faculty adviser, the editor who qualified and a representative of the Parents-Teachers’ Association, who will determine the editorial policies to be implemented by the editor and staff members of the student publication concerned.” [Boldfacing supplied]
Notice the phrase “the editor who qualified,” which probably refers to the “Editor-in-Chief.”
Notice also the phrase “the editor and staff members” where the word “editor” in context refers to “Editor-in-Chief.”
In RA 7079's IRR, Rule III Definition of Terms also does not use the term “Editor-in-Chief” but similarly uses the phrases “the editor who qualified” and “the editor and staff members.”
The term “chief editor” is used only in relation to tertiary publications as you can read in Section 1 of Rule VII (Selection of Staff Members) of RA 7079's IRR.
In the various “Campus Press Freedom” bills, “Editor-in-Chief” is defined as “the publication's primary editor chosen through a competitive but fair selection process, which shall be determined by the student body.”
C. Should a campus publication have a Constitution and Bylaws? Answers: No, yes, and yes. | Beware of drafting or adapting a Constitution and Bylaws by copying/pasting from online sources; some sources contain a section that egregiously violates RA 7079.
Notes: The phrase “Constitution and Bylaws” can be a compound or singular subject depending on the context. “Bylaws” is spelled both with and without a hyphen, according to Black’s Law Dictionary. As is common with hyphenated words, “bylaws” is being used more and more, according to Kenneth Adams, author of “A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting.” In this post, I will use “Bylaws.”
1. No, it’s not necessary for an existing campus publication to have a Constitution and Bylaws because it already has a de facto Constitution and Bylaws consisting of the following:
(a) the “editorial policies” crafted by the Editorial Board under RA 7079;
(b) RA 7079’s Implementing Rules and Regulations; and
(c) the publication’s regular practices and procedures.
(In the public high school where I worked as Journalism teacher and yearbook adviser, our publications did not have a Constitution and Bylaws before and after RA 7079 was enacted. As far as I know, the school publications for which I’ve given seminar-workshops in recent years do not have Constitutions and Bylaws.)
Let’s define the terms “Editorial Board” and “editorial policies.”
(a) “Editorial Board” is defined in Section 3, paragraph (d) of RA 7079:
“In the tertiary level, the editorial board shall be composed of student journalists who have qualified in placement examinations. In the case of elementary and high school levels, the editorial board shall be composed of a duly appointed faculty adviser, the editor who qualified and a representative of the Parents-Teachers’ Association, who will determine the editorial policies to be implemented by the editor and staff members of the student publication concerned.
“At the tertiary level, the editorial board may include a publication adviser at the option of its members.”
(b) “Editorial policies” is defined in Section 3, paragraph (d) of RA 7079:
“A set of guidelines by which a student publication is operated and managed, taking into account pertinent laws as well as the school administration’s policies. Said guidelines shall determine the frequency of publication, the manner of selecting articles and features and other similar matters.”
The 2nd paragraph of Section 4 of RA 7079 provides:
“Once the publication is established, its editorial board shall freely determine its editorial policies and manage the publication's funds.”
2. Yes, it’s desirable for an existing campus publication to have a Constitution and Bylaws. Having a Constitution and Bylaws may not be necessary as I explained above, but it is desirable for the following reasons:
(1) to formalize the editorial policies crafted by the Editorial Board and the publication's regular practices and procedures,
(2) to provide a reliable continuity from one batch of staffers to another,
(3) to address issues not provided under RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and
(4) to address other issues.
A campus publication’s Constitution and Bylaws should contain a section on the Code of Ethics for student journalists, which could be based on the following:
• “Model Code of Ethics for High School Journalists” from National Scholastic Press Association: 2009 edition; 2019 edition.
• Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ): “Code of Ethics: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, Be Accountable and Transparent”
3. Yes, it’s necessary if your school doesn't have a student publication yet. Your Student Council, Supreme Student Government, Journalism Club, or a group of interested students should draft a Constitution and Bylaws, and get it ratified by the student body in a plebiscite.
Section 1, Rule IV of RA 7079's Implementing Rules and Regulations states: “All educational institutions on the elementary, secondary and tertiary levels, public or private, shall be encouraged to establish a student publication.”
If your school, for one reason or another, doesn’t take the initiative in establishing a student publication, you and your fellow students can follow the steps outlined in “CampusJourn Manual: A guide for student media organizations in the Philippines” written by Jed Asaph Cortes and published by the “Amaranth” through the VSU Press. On pages 68-71, the CampusJourn Manual outlines what the Charter of a student publication should contain and how to get it ratified by the student body.
Notes: The CampusJourn Manual differentiates between “Charter” and “Constitution.” In effect, however, both “Constitution” and “Charter” mean the same thing; the CampusJourn Manual’s sample Charter contains the same provisions or sections that a Constitution and Bylaws has. For example, the “Position Paper of Faculty Members of the UP Department of Political Science on the Congressional Initiative to Undertake Constitutional Revision” contains this sentence: “Any attempt to amend the constitution or change the charter requires prior consultative and deliberative processes involving a genuinely informed citizenry.” Notice the phrase “amend the constitution or change the charter.”
4. Beware of drafting or adapting Constitutions and Bylaws by copying/pasting from online sources; some sources contain a section that egregiously violates RA 7079.
(a) Some school publications drafted their Constitutions and Bylaws by copying/pasting from the same template or by copying from each other. Notice for example that the Preamble of these Constitutions and Bylaws all contain the word “desirous.”
(b) The Constitutions and Bylaws of some grade school and high school publications misuse the term “Editorial Board.”
As I discussed earlier in this post, RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations differentiate between an “Editorial Board” for tertiary publications and an “Editorial Board” for grade schools and high schools.
An “Editorial Board” for tertiary publications is composed of “student journalists who have qualified in placement examinations,” with the option of including a publication adviser.
On the other hand, an “Editorial Board” for grade schools and high schools is composed of only three persons:
- a duly appointed faculty adviser,
- the editor who qualified, and
- a representative of the Parents-Teachers Association.
I found, however, Constitutions and Bylaws of an elementary school in Dagupan City, Pangasinan and a high school in Camarines Sur which contain the following section: “The Editorial Board shall be composed of students who have qualified in the competitive editorial examination.”
This section is an egregious violation of RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations because it excludes the SPA and the PTA representative from the Editorial Board. Why did this error arise? Because the persons who drafted these Constitutions and Bylaws did not read RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations; they simply copied/pasted from the Constitutions and Bylaws they found online.
The SPAs might have played a big part in adapting Constitutions and By-Laws for their school publications, including the flawed section on the composition of the Editorial Board. If so, it’s pathetic because they ignorantly excluded themselves from membership in the Editorial Board.
If your publication has a Constitution and Bylaws, check if it has the same flawed section on the composition of the Editorial Board. If yes, you’d better amend your Constitution and Bylaws to comply with RA 7079. Otherwise, your SPA and school principal could get into trouble if your Parents-Teachers Association finds out that it has the right of having its representative become part of the Editorial Board.
The Parents-Teachers Association’s representative to the “Editorial Board” — misunderstanding the representative’s role may be the biggest reason Journalism supervisors and school paper advisers have neglected RA 7079 for the last 25 years or so
| As I narrated in my FB post “Why do SPAs and CJs from grade schools and high schools continue to misuse the term ‘Editorial Board?’” and elsewhere:
“... in early 2024, I was the speaker/judge on Editorial Writing in a school-based press conference. When I asked the contestants and the coordinating SPJ teacher if they had read RA 7079 ‘Campus Journalism Act of 1991,’ none of them even knew there was such a law.” “Way back in 2005, I spoke to several hundred SPAs about RA 7079. I can’t remember exactly what the event was, but it was a 'Young Writers Conference'(?) on a regional level; it was held in Quezon City, and I was invited through the Journalism supervisors of Makati City. Anyway, when I asked these several hundred SPAs about RA 7079, only a few said that they had read it.” 2005 was 14 years away from 1991 (when RA 7079 was signed into law). This is why I estimate that Journalism supervisors, SPAs, and CJs have been neglecting or have been unaware of RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and for the last 25 years or so. “Several months ago, an SPA from Mountain Province told me that when she was a high school student, her publication used the term “Editorial Board” to refer to their group of editors and staffers, and that’s why she herself is now using it. She said that her SDO’s Journalism supervisors didn’t provide her and other SPAs in her division some kind of seminar on RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.” |
(1) The vast majority of Journalism supervisors, school paper advisers, and campus journalists across the Philippines have been misusing the term “Editorial Board” to refer to a publication’s group of student editors and staffers. They don’t know that RA 7079 provides that the Editorial Board of a grade school or high school publication is composed only of the school paper adviser, the Editor-in-Chief, and a representative of the Parents-Teachers Association.
(2) A few Journalism supervisors, school paper advisers, and campus journalists know how RA 7079 defines “Editorial Board,” but they don’t know how to refute the claim that it’s the PTA representative alone who determines a publication’s “editorial policies.”
B. Some grade school and high school publications have either negligently or intentionally drafted into their respective Constitution and Bylaws the definition of “Editorial Board” for tertiary publications, thus effectively depriving the PTA of its right and duty to have its representative be a part of the Editorial Board.
C. Most PTAs across the Philippines do not know that they have the right and duty under RA 7079 to have their representative be a member of their respective school publication’s Editorial Board for two reasons:
(1) Journalism supervisors and schoolpaper advisers either unknowingly or intentionally did not inform the PTAs in their division or in their school about RA 7079.
(2) Through an egregious oversight, the DepEd’s operating manual for PTAs, DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2022, doesn’t mention anything about RA 7079.
D. Since 1991 when RA 7079 was enacted, the role of the PTA representative to the Editorial Board has been misunderstood by some PTA representatives and by most Journalism supervisors and school paper advisers. Some PTA representatives have claimed that they alone determine their respective school publication’s editorial policies. Journalism supervisors, school paper advisers, and campus journalists didn’t know then and don’t know now how to refute this false claim.
Section 3, paragraph (d) of RA 7079 states:
“Editorial Board. - In the tertiary level, the editorial board shall be composed of student journalists who have qualified in placement examinations. In the case of elementary and high school levels, the editorial board shall be composed of a duly appointed faculty adviser, the editor who qualified and a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association, who will determine the editorial policies to be implemented by the editor and staff members of the student publication concerned” [Boldfacing supplied]
“At the tertiary level, the editorial board may include a publication adviser at the option of its members.”
Because of the clause introduced by the relative pronoun “who” after the phrase “a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association,” some PTA representatives have claimed that they alone determine the publication’s editorial policies. These PTA representatives may have arrived at this claim by interpreting the paragraph based on their understanding of English grammar, or they may have been (wrongly) advised by lawyers who told them that this claim is supported by what is known in statutory construction as the “doctrine of last antecedent.” I will explain below why the “doctrine of last antecedent” cannot be used to argue that the PTA representatives alone decide a publication’s editorial policies.
Reasons why the PTA representatives who claim that they alone determine the editorial policies of their respective publications are wrong: (1) English grammar distinguishes between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses; (2) The “contextual reading” canon or principle of statutory construction provides that RA 7079 must be read as a whole; and (3) The comma rules of the “doctrine of the last antecedent,” plus legislative intent and common sense, contradict the PTA representatives' claim.
(1) These PTA representatives do not know English grammar’s distinction between a restrictive clause and a nonrestrictive clause.
“A restrictive clause contains essential information that is necessary to identify the noun it modifies.” In “the editor who qualified,” the relative clause (“who qualified”) is restrictive because there’s no comma after “editor.” The clause had to be restrictive to specify which editor is being referred to because there are several editors on the staff — EIC, Associate Editor, Managing Editor, and section editors.
On the other hand, a nonrestrictive clause provides additional, non-essential information, and is set off by a comma before the “who.” The additional information can be removed without altering the core meaning. Notice that there’s a comma between “a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association” and the “who ...” clause, making the clause nonrestrictive. In simpler terms, the “who ...” clause can be removed without altering the meaning. Without the nonrestrictive clause, paragraph (d) would thus be:
“(d) Editorial Board. – In the tertiary level, the editorial board shall be composed of student journalists who have qualified in placement examinations.In the case of elementary and high school levels, the editorial board shall be composed of a duly appointed faculty adviser, the editor who qualified and a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association.”
Note: Section 3, paragraph (d) is awkwardly constructed; its drafters should have avoided using a trailing modifier (“who will determine the editorial policies to be implemented by the editor and staff members of the student publication concerned”). I would use three sentences to rewrite paragraph (d) by turning the trailing modifier into its own sentence. My revision would thus be:
“(d) Editorial Board. – In the tertiary level, the editorial board shall be composed of student journalists who have qualified in placement examinations.In the case of elementary and high school levels, the editorial board shall be composed of a duly appointed faculty adviser, the editor who qualified and a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association.
“At the tertiary level, the editorial board may include a publication adviser at the option of its members.
“The Editorial Board will determine the editorial policies to be implemented by the editor and staff members of the student publication concerned.”
(2) The “contextual reading” canon or principle of statutory construction provides that RA 7079 must be read as a whole.
“Statutory construction, also known as statutory interpretation, is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. While some statutes may have a plain meaning, many contain ambiguity that may need to be resolved by a judge. To determine the meaning of a statute, judges use various tools of interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and statutory purpose.” (Cornell Law School)
The “contextual reading” canon or principle of statutory construction provides that a statute must be read as a whole, and the courts should try to give effect to every word within its context. Thus, any question or controversy about Section 3, paragraph (d) can be resolved by reading it together with the 2nd paragraph of Section 4, which states:
“Once the publication is established, its editorial board shall freely determine its editorial policies and manage the publication’s funds.”
By reading RA 7079 as a whole and not simply cherry picking, it’s clear that a grade school or high school publication’s editorial policies are determined by its editorial board, not by the PTA representative alone.
(3) The comma rules of the “doctrine of the last antecedent” contradict the PTA representatives' claim. As I said earlier on this post, these PTA officers may have been (wrongly) advised by lawyers that the “doctrine of the last antecedent” supports their claim.
The “doctrine of last antecedent” is another canon or principle in statutory construction that judges and lawyers use in interpreting what a statute (law) or contract means. The doctrine provides that, GENERALLY, the trailing modifier refers to the antecedent nearest to it (that is, the last antecedent), excluding the other antecedents which are farther away.
Briefly stated, the “doctrine of last antecedent” means:
• “The general rule is that qualifying words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they are immediately associated.”
• “In other words, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, preferential and qualifying words and phrases must be applied only to their immediate antecedent, and not to the other remote or preceding words or association of words.”
• “In simple terms, the doctrine of last antecedent means that a qualifying words or phrase should be understood as referring to the nearest antecedent.”
• “The use of comma to separate an antecedent from the rest exerts a dominant influence in the application of the doctrine of last antecedent. Thus, it has been held that the qualifying effect of a modifying words or phrase will be confined to its immediate antecedent if the latter is separated by a comma from the other antecedents.”
• “This rule, however, is neither controlling nor inflexible. Thus, where several words in a statute are followed by a general expression which is applicable as much to the first and other words as to the last, the natural construction of the language demands that the expression be read as applicable to all.”
• “The doctrine of last antecedent is subject to the exception that where the intention of the law is to apply to the phrase all antecedents embraced in the provision, the same should be extensive to the whole.”
An example where the US Supreme Court applied the “doctrine of last antecedent” (as cited by Kenneth Adams):
“... relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward”
Issue: Does the trailing modifier “involving a minor or ward” modify just “abusive sexual conduct” or also modify “aggravated sexual abuse” and “sexual abuse”?
US Supreme Court ruling (through Justice Sotomayor: The trailing modifier “involving a minor or ward” modifies only the last element (“abusive sexual conduct”). Based on the doctrine of the last antecedent, a limiting clause or phrase should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.
Let’s break down paragraph (d):
• First antecedent: “a duly appointed faculty adviser”
• Second antecedent: “the editor who qualified”
• Third (last) antecedent: “a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association”
• Trailing modifier (introduced by the relative pronoun “who”): “who will determine the editorial policies to be implemented by the editor and staff members of the student publication concerned”
Question: Which antecedent does the trailing modifier refer to?
| You can read more about the “doctrine of last antecedent” in “The Doctrine of the Last Antecedent, the Example in Barnhart, Why Both Are Weak, and How Textualism Postures” by Prof. Joseph Kimble @ SSRN or Scribes (40 pages; 142 KB). |
(b) Moreover, under the “doctrine of the last antecedent,” IF there’s a comma AFTER the last antecedent (“a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association”), then the trailing modifier (“who will determine the editorial policies to be implemented by the editor and staff members of the student publication concerned”) refers to ALL the antecedents (“a duly appointed faculty adviser, the editor who qualified and a representative of the Parents-Teachers' Association”). As you can read in Section 3, paragraph (d), there is such a comma between the last antecedent and the trailing modifier.
(c) Legislative intent and common sense provide exceptions to the “doctrine of last antecedent.”
If it’s the PTA representative alone who will determine the publication’s editorial policies, why did Section 3, paragraph (d) include the SPA and the EIC in the Editorial Board? What’s even the point of having an Editorial Board if it’s the PTA representative alone who will determine the publication’s editorial policies?
E. This misunderstanding of the role of the PTA representative to the “Editorial Board” may be the biggest reason Journalism supervisors and SPAs have neglected RA 7079 for the last 25 years or so.
The Journalism supervisors and SPAs during the 1990s and 2000s probably didn’t want the hassle of dealing with some PTA representatives who claimed to be the only parties who could determine the publication’s editorial policies. This neglect has probably resulted in the 2010s and 2020s generations of Journalism supervisors, SPAs, and CJs not knowing what the provisions of RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations are.
This misunderstanding of the PTA representative’s role in the Editorial Board probably continues even now.
Through an egregious oversight, the DepEd’s operating manual for PTAs, DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2022, doesn’t mention anything about RA 7079.
Security of tenure of campus journalists under RA 7079 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Miriam College case (December 15, 2000)
“Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” — US Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969
A. Provisions of RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations on the security of tenure of campus journalists
(1)The security of tenure of campus journalists is guaranteed by Section 7 of RA 7079, which states:
“A member of the publication staff must maintain his or her status as student in order to retain membership in the publication staff. A student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he or she has written, or on the basis of the performance of his or her duties in the student publication.”
Take note of the words “shall not” and “solely” in the last sentence above.
RA 7079’s Implementing Rules and Regulations reiterate the security of tenure of campus journalists in Rule VIII, Section 1 in slightly different words:
“A member of the student publication staff must maintain his/her satisfactory academic standing in order to retain membership in the staff. A student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he/she has written, or on the basis of the performance of his/her duties in the publication staff.”
Take note of the words “shall not” and “solely” in both RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
(2) Meaning of the term “security of tenure”
Google’s AI search result says that “security of tenure, in its broadest sense, refers to the assurance of the right to remain in a position (whether a job or a place of residence) without arbitrary removal. It’s the guarantee that your rights to that position or residence are legally recognized and protected, especially against threats of eviction or termination.”
(3) Who is a student journalist?
In RA 7079’s “Definition of Terms” (Section 3), a “student journalist” is defined as “any bona fide student enrolled for the current semester or term, who has passed or met the qualification and standards of the editorial board. He must likewise maintain a satisfactory academic standing.”
(4) Summing up, under Section 7 of RA 7079 and Section 1 of Rule VIII of RA 7079’s IRR:
• Campus journalists must maintain their “status as student” (RA 7079) or their “satisfactory academic standing” (RA 7079’s IRR);
• Campus journalists cannot be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles they have written, or on the basis of their performance of their duties in the student publication.
In other words, campus journalists who lose their satisfactory academic standing cannot continue being part of the campus publication. But exactly how this will be implemented isn’t clear from RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. What if the Editorial Board of a tertiary publication refuses to remove these journalists who have lost their satisfactory academic standing and continues to allow them to fulfill their responsibilities or to write for the publication? What actions can the school administration take against the Editorial Board?
Take note that, under RA 7079’s IRR, conflicts or cases involving RA 7079 are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DepEd Regional Office (including cases that involve tertiary publications, IMO).
B. In its Miriam College ruling dated December 15, 2000, the Supreme Court provided an exception when security of tenure won’t apply:
“Consistent with jurisprudence, we read Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act to mean that the school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has written, except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” [Boldfacing supplied]
Note: You can read the full text of the Miriam College case in the Supreme Court website.
1. The opening sentences of the Supreme Court’s ruling state:
“‘Obscene,’ ‘vulgar,’ ‘indecent,’ ‘gross,’ ‘sexually explicit,’ ‘injurious to young readers,’ and ‘devoid of all moral values.’ This was how some members of the Miriam College community allegedly described the contents of the September-October 1994 issue (Vol. 41, No. 14) of Miriam College’s school paper (Chi-Rho), and magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho).”
2. Because of the complaints of members of the Miriam College community and the father of an Ateneo grade school student, Miriam College’s Disciplinary Board imposed penalties of suspension, dismissal, and expulsion on members of the Editorial Board and contributors of the school paper (Chi-Rho) and magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho) for having violated regulations in the student handbook.
Represented by Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, the editorial board and contributors questioned the impartiality of the Discipline Board and its jurisdiction over their case. They argued that, based on “DECS Order No. 94, S. 1992 dated August 19, 1992” (the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7079), the regional office of the DECS had jurisdiction over their case.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the Chi-Rho Editorial Board members and the contributors but prevented Miriam College from enforcing its penalties of suspension, dismissal, or expulsion. Later, when the Court of Appeals ruled against it, Miriam College brought the issue before the Supreme Court.
3. Exception to Section 7 of RA 7079 — when security of tenure of campus journalists isn’t applicable
(a) The Supreme Court cited its previous rulings on the right of students to free speech in school premises such as:
• Malabanan vs. Ramento, 1984, involving students of Gregorio Araneta University Foundation:
“Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” (From US Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969)
• Villar vs. Technological Institute of the Philippines, s1985
• Arreza vs. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, 1985
• Non vs. Dames II, 1990
Note: A legal principle that Philippine courts follow is the “doctrine of stare decisis” or the “rule of precedents.” Meaning, for purposes of integrity, stability, and consistency, courts will follow previous court rulings on the same or closely related issues. Thus, the Supreme Court prefaced its exception to Section 7 of RA 7079 with the phrase “consistent with jurisprudence.”
The doctrine of stare decisis, however, is “not an inexorable command, and an appellate court is not bound by precedent when there is a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of a legal rule, or an error in legal analysis.”
(b) In its Malabanan ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that the right of the students to free speech in school premises is not absolute:
“The right to free speech must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Thus, while we upheld the right of the students to free expression in these cases, we did not rule out disciplinary action by the school for ‘conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - which materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.’”
(c) The Supreme Court ruled against the Chi-Rho Editorial Board members and the contributors, striking a balance between the school’s right to discipline its students and the right of students to free speech by providing an exception to Section 7 of RA 7079:
“Provisions of law should be construed in harmony with those of the Constitution; acts of the legislature should be construed, wherever possible, in a manner that would avoid their conflicting with the fundamental law. A statute should not be given a broad construction if its validity can be saved by a narrower one. Thus, Section 7 should be read in a manner as not to infringe upon the school’s right to discipline its students. At the same time, however, we should not construe said provision as to unduly restrict the right of the students to free speech. Consistent with jurisprudence, we read Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act to mean that the school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has written, except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” [Boldfacing supplied]
On the question of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled in Miriam College’s favor on the basis of academic freedom.
“From the foregoing, the answer to the question of who has jurisdiction over the cases filed against respondent students becomes self-evident. The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel. It is a necessary corollary to the enforcement of rules and regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational environment conducive to learning. That power, like the power to suspend or expel, is an inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution. We therefore rule that Miriam College has the authority to hear and decide the cases filed against respondent students.”
In simpler terms, under Section 7 of RA 7079, schools cannot suspend or expel campus journalists solely on the basis of the articles they have written, EXCEPT when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.
C. Previous House and Senate bills that sought to repeal RA 7079 (from the 15th Congress up to the 19th Congress) changed the wording of the Supreme Court’s exception to Section 7.
Supreme Court’s exception: “except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others”
Exception under House and Senate bills: “except when such articles constitute a violation of the law and the school’s valid and reasonable rules and regulations”
The authors of these House and Senate bill' said that the Supreme Court’s exception (1) “rendered the security on tenure provision practically useless” and (2) the exception was too broad such that “even a simple factual article” could fall under the exception.
As I will explain below, I disagree with the authors of these House and Senate bills. The Supreme Court’s exception to Section 7 should not be interpreted in isolation. Based on the facts and the circumstances of the Miriam College case, campus journalists cannot be suspended or expelled for writing a “simple factual article.” Rather than the Supreme Court exception, it’s the exception under the House and Senate bills that is too broad.
As far as my research goes, the change in the wording of the Supreme Court’s exception to Section 7 was first made by House Bill No. 4287 filed during the 15th Congress by Kabataan Party-List Rep. Raymond Palatino and Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Teddy Casiño. In their bill’s Explanatory Note, Rep. Palatino and Rep. Casiño explained that the Supreme Court’s exception in the Miriam College case was too broad:
“While Section 7 of the law supposedly gives freedom and space for student journalists to write without fear of any threat of suspension or expulsion, the qualification made by the Supreme Court on the said provision by providing exemptions has rendered the security on tenure provision practically useless. The exemptions, namely, 'material disruption of class work or involving substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others' are too broad that even a simple factual article may fall within its application.”
The change in the wording of the exception to Section 7 proposed under House Bill 4287 was adopted by subsequent House and Senate bills such as House Bill No. 1155 and Senate Bill No. 1464 filed during the 19th Congress.
The rephrased exception states (boldfacing supplied):
“Section 10. Security of Tenure. — A member of the publication staff shall maintain his or her status as student in order to retain membership in the publication staff. The student journalist shall not be suspended, expelled or punished with administrative sanctions solely on the basis of the articles he or she has written, except when such articles constitute a violation of the law, and the school’s valid and reasonable schools and regulations.
“His or her performance as a student should not be used as basis for his or her dismissal from the student publication.”
Note: Senate Bill No. 1464, filed by Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. during the 19th Congress, also used the same rephrasing of the Supreme Court exception in House Bill No. 4287.
D, An egregious error in House Bill No. 4172 filed by Kabataan Party-List and ACT Teachers Party-List (20th Congress)
House Bill No. 4172 doesn’t contain this rephrased exception of the Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the bill states:
“Section 11. Security of Tenure. - A member of the publication staff shall maintain their status as a student in order to retain membership in the publication staff. The student journalist shall not be suspended, expelled or punished with administrative sanctions solely on the basis of the articles they have written. Likewise, their performance as a student should not be used as a basis for their dismissal from the student publication.”
Because it lacks the rephrased exception of the Supreme Court ruling which previous "Campus Press Freedom" bills had, House Bill No. 4172’s provision on the security of tenure of campus journalists is practically the same as that of RA 7079.
I think this error is a matter of sloppy proofreading because House Bill No. 4172 in its Introductory Note mentions the Supreme Court ruling:
“(2) Section 7 of the law supposedly gives freedom and space for student journalists to write without fear of any threat of suspension or expulsion, the qualification made by the Supreme Court on the said provision by providing exemptions has rendered the security of tenure provision practically useless. One notable exemption is 'material disruption of class work or involving substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others,' which is too broad that even a simple factual article may fall within its application.”
With due respect to our Representatives and Senators, any bill that seeks to repeal RA 7079 should not change the wording of the Supreme Court’s exception to Section 7.
A “simple factual article” doesn’t fall under the Supreme Court’s exception to Section 7. How can a simple factual article “materially disrupt class work, or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others”? Were the articles in the Chi-Rho in the Miriam College case simple factual articles?
Lawyers and judges have been trained to interpret and apply any Supreme Court ruling on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case in which the ruling was made. Thus, if a school administration suspends or expels a campus journalist because of an article, lawyers and judges will compare the facts and circumstances of the Miriam College case with the facts and circumstances of the article in question. If the article is indeed a “simple factual article,” then the Supreme Court exception will not and cannot be applied; the campus journalist who wrote the article cannot be suspended or expelled. (The term used by lawyers and judges when comparing the facts and circumstances of cases is “on all fours.”)
In simpler terms, the Supreme Court’s exception to Section 7 should not be interpreted in isolation. Rather than the Supreme Court’s exception, it’s the exception under the House and Senate bills that is too broad.
Although RA 7079 does not have an explicit penalty clause, campus journalists whose rights have been violated have possible legal remedies under the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
A. The problems of campus journalists — censorship, pressure from school officials, withholding of funds, etc. — have happened and will continue to happen because RA 7079 doesn’t have a penalty clause. Despite RA 7079’s lack of a penalty clause, campus journalists whose rights under RA 7079 have been violated by school officials should consult a lawyer as to the following possible legal remedies:
1. If the school is a public institution — elementary, high school, or tertiary — the campus journalists might be able to file an administrative complaint (for misfeasance or malfeasance) against the erring school officials with the Office of the Ombudsman.
2. If the school is a public institution — elementary, high school, or tertiary — the campus journalists might be able to file a civil case for damages against the erring school officials based on Article 27 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which states:
“Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.”
3. Other provisions of the New Civil Code of the Philippines that campus journalists might be able to resort to against erring school officials, whether public or private, are Articles 19, 20, 21, and 32:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
Articles 19, 20, 21, 27, and 32 are part of the New Civil Code provisions on "Human Relations."
Notes:
(a) Before campus journalists can file a civil case against erring school officials, they must first comply with what is called in law as “doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.” That is, they should file first a complaint against the school officials with the DepEd Regional Office, as provided by RA 7079’s Implementing Rules and Regulations, specifically, the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule XII.
The “doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies” has several exceptions (for example, “time is of the essence”).
(b) A possible remedy that your lawyer might undertake for you if, for example, the administrator of your public school refuses to release the publication funds:
Your lawyer will send the school administrator a demand letter asking for the fund’s release within a reasonable period of time. The demand letter that the school administrator will receive will show that copies of the demand letter have been furnished to the Division Office, DepEd Regional Office that has jurisdiction over your school, and the Office of the Ombudsman.
Chances are good that once the school administrator sees that the demand letter was "copy furnished" to the Office of the Ombudsman, the funds wiill be Immediately released.
What if the administrator hangs tough and refuses to release the funds? In keeping with the “doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,” your lawyer will then follow through with filing (i) a complaint with DepEd’s Regional Office, or (ii) an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, or (iii) a civil case for damages with the Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court or the Regional Trial Court, depending on the amount of damages that you'll be asking for.
What if the school is a private school?
(i) Your lawyer will send a demand letter to your school administrator asking for the release of the funds within a reasonable period of time.
(ii) What if the administrator hangs tough and refuses to release the funds? In keeping with the “doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,” your lawyer will then follow through with filing (a) a complaint with DepEd’s Regional Office, or (b) a civil case for damages with the Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court or the Regional Trial Court, depending on the amount of damages that you'll be asking for.
What if you and your fellow campus journalists don’t have the money to pay for the lawyer’s professional fees and the filing fee, aka docket fee, for the civil case for damages? (The filing fee is a percentage of the total damages that you'll be asking from the school administrator.)
You and your fellow campus journalists will have to negotiate with a lawyer who might agree to accept your case either on a “full contigent fee” basis or “partial contingent fee” basis.
(i) “Full contigent fee” basis means that the lawyer will shoulder all the expenses; the lawyer’s share in whatever damages that the trial court might award will be .much greater than your share.
(ii) “Partial contingent fee” basis.means that you, your fellow campus journalists, and your lawyer will share in the expenses.
Another option that you and your fellow campus journalists might have is to ask the legal clinics of law schools in your town or city to take your case on a “pro bono” basis (meaning, for free). But you and your fellow campus journalists will still have to come up with the filing fee.
(c) It’s not entirely accurate to say that RA 7079 has no penalty clause for violations of its provisions; “Technical malversation” under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code
RA 7079 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations prohibit the withholding of publication funds by the school administration
1. Section 5, paragraph (2) of RA 7079 states:
“In no instance shall the Department of Education, Culture and Sports or the school administration concerned withhold the release of funds sourced from the savings of the appropriations of the respective schools and other sources intended for the student publication. Subscription fees collected by the school administration shall be released automatically to the student publication concerned.”
2. Section 1, paragraph (3) of RA 7079’s Implementing Rules and Regulations states:
“In both public and private schools, all student publication funds shall be automatically released to the student publication staff one month after the last day of enrolment.”
3. Section 3, paragraph (b) of RA 7079’s Implementing Rules and Regulations states:
“The publication funds shall be deposited in the account of the student publication in an authorized depository bank through at least two (2) authorized signatories of the editorial board.”
C. The publication funds must be exclusively used for the purposes stated in Section 2 of Rule V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7079; violation leads to “administrative and/or criminal action against the violator.”
Section 2 of Rule V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7079 enumerates the purposes for which the publication funds can be used:
• expenses for the printing costs of the student publication;
• transportation and needs of the staff and the teacher-adviser during their work at the printing press;
• office and photo supplies;
• attendance of the student publication representatives at the annual divisional, regional, and national press conferences/workshops;
• honoraria/allowances for staffers and teacher-adviser; and
• other incidental expenses.
Section 6 of Rule V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7079 states:
“Publication fees, savings, donations, grants and other funds collected from other sources for the student publication shall be for its exclusive use. The money collected shall not be spent for purposes other than those cited in Section 2 of this Rule. Violation of this rule by the editorial board, any student-staff, faculty-adviser, and/or school administrator/official shall be cause for administrative and/or criminal action against the violator.” [Boldfacing supplied]
One criminal action that can be brought against the administrators or officials of public educational institutions is “technical malversation” under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for technical malversation ranges from fine to “prision correccional in its minimum period” (6 months and 1 day up to 2 years and 4 months).
(d) A brilliant lawyer might be able to argue that when school officials violated the rights of the campus journalists, they also violated the rights of the whole student body. Thus, a “class action suit” can possibly be filed against the school officials.
(e) The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7079 provides:
“In the elementary and secondary levels, the teacher-adviser, exercising special parental authority over student staffers who are minors shall, jointly with the Parent-Teacher Association, be held fully responsible for the contents of the student publication.”
No comments:
Post a Comment