ALMOST two decades ago, as a newly minted lawyer, I was requested to appear before the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) by a college that was summoned by the commission to represent itself in a complaint filed by students involved in a frat war. The students, through their lawyer, sought the commission’s intervention to nullify the decision of the college’s discipline board to exclude the students who were involved in the violent incident. After hearings were conducted, the decision of the college prevailed. But not until after hearings and conferences were held like we were in a mini court trial at the Development Academy of the Philippines building where the CHED previously held office. The college was forced to defend its decision to sanction the students as if the final judgment on the matter rests upon the commission.
The Commission on Higher Education is a regulatory agency in charge of the governance of higher education. However, it is not a quasi-judicial agency that has the power granted by Congress to adjudicate or settle actual controversies or even award damages to students. It is not also vested by law with appellate jurisdiction over actions or decisions of colleges and universities over the discipline of students, except when expulsion is imposed upon a student, which requires the approval of the chairman of the Commission on Higher Education.
While the powers and functions of CHED necessarily include the issuance of permits and government recognitions to offer higher education programs and enforcement functions on monitoring, investigating, and even revoking issued permits and recognitions, these do not constitute adjudicatory functions performed by quasi-judicial agencies and judicial bodies.
According to the Supreme Court, an administrative agency is said to be exercising quasi-judicial functions by which it has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function is a term that applies to the action or discretion of public administrative officers or bodies, which are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and exercise discretion of a judicial nature. The essence of adjudication is the settlement of actual controversies between parties.
In University of Santo Tomas v. Sanchez, the Court was explicit in holding that the CHED lacks adjudicatory powers under the Higher Education Act to rule whether UST should be held liable for not issuing the transcript of records of a student who was found to be not officially enrolled in the university. According to the Court, UST’s liability, if any, for damages will have to be decided by the courts, not CHED, since any judgment inevitably calls for the application and the interpretation of the Civil Code.
Aside from the fact that a quasi-judicial function is not included in the powers of CHED under the law creating it, the reason for the withholding of adjudicatory powers from the commission is also anchored on the constitutional mandate of reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions, and the guarantee of academic freedom to all institutions of higher learning.
* * *
Congratulations to the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges, and Universities (Paascu) on the successful holding of its general assembly on Nov. 22, 2024. Personally, this year also marks my 10th year as the accrediting body’s legal counsel. Also an important trivia, Paascu’s founding year in 1957 coincides with the birth of academic freedom, a doctrine first introduced in the landmark case of Sweezy Hampshire and since espoused by Paascu as an integral part of quality assurance.
info@estradaaquino.com
