Digest Format (Final)

Malabanan v.
Ramento
G.R. No. L-62270 – May 21, 1984
C.J. Fernando
Digest Author: Gatus
Topic: Bill of Rights – Freedom of Assembly
Case Summary:
Petitioners: Crispin Malabanan, Evelio Jalos, Ben Luther Lucas, Sotero Leonero, and June Lee
(Students of The Gregorio Araneta University Foundation or commonly known as De La Salle Araneta
University)
Respondents: Anastacio D. Ramento (NCR Director of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports),
The Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, Cesar Mijares (President), Gonzalo Del Rosario
(Director for Academic Affairs), Tomas B. Mesina (Dean of Student Affairs), Atty. Leonardo Padilla
(Chief Legal Counsel and Security Supervisor), Atty. Fablita Ammay, Rosendo Galvante and Eugenia
Tayao (Ad Hoc Committee Members)
Doctrines Involved: Right to Freedom of Peaceable Assembly
FACTS:
1. Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of La Salle Araneta
2. Aug. 27, 1982 - They were granted a permit by the school to hold a general assembly from 8:00
AM to 12 NN so they held it at the VMAS (Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science) Basketball
Court, the place indicated in the permit, but not in the court but at the second floor lobby where
they held a rally and vehemently opposed the proposed merger of the Institute of Animal Science
and the Institute of Agriculture believing that it will lead to an increase in their tuition fees
a. 10:30 AM – They marched toward the Life Science Building, which was outside the area
covered by the permit
b. Using megaphones, they severely criticized the school authorities and as a result, classes
were disturbed and the maintenance personnel stopped their work due to the noise and
commotion
c. They were asked to explain why they should not be liable for illegal assembly
3. Sept. 9, 1982 – They were informed through a memorandum that they were under preventive
suspension for failure to explain why they held an illegal assembly
4. Petitioners filed for mandamus with damages against La Salle Araneta before CFI-Rizal and
the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports
5. Oct. 20, 1982 – Ramento, NCR Director, found petitioners guilty of violating par. 146 (c) of the
Manual for Private Schools for holding an illegal assembly characterized by the violation of their
permit
a. Penalty was 1-yr. suspension
6. Hence, this petition
7. Nov. 16, 1982 – SC issued a TRO on Ramento’s order
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

 Petitioner’s Argument related to Doctrine: Violated their rights of freedom of peaceable assembly
and free speech
 Respondent’s Argument related to Doctrine: Ramento argued that he did not abuse his discretion
and that the petition is moot because the suspension is not enforced
ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N right to freedom of peaceable assembly and consequently, right to free speech is violated by
the school’s disciplinary action – YES.
o SC compared the case to Reyes v. Bagatsing and said that the case at hand is about an
assembly held in private premises rather than in a public place as in the aforementioned
case
o SC cited an excerpt from Reyes which said that: “If it were a private place, only the
consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required.”
 In the case at bar, petitioners sought such consent and was granted
o Justice Fortas in Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District: whatever the student
does in school, anytime he is able to express his opinions even on controversial subjects
if he does it without 1) materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of
appropriate discipline and 2) colliding with other’s rights
 Conduct by student which materially disrupts classwork and substantially
invades other’s rights is not protected by freedom of speech
o SC ruled that no clear and present danger of public disorder is discernible despite the
fiery language of the student leaders because by virtue of their youth and position which
the audience understands, they must be assertive and dogmatic
o SC cited US v. Apurado which ruled that one must draw a line between seditious and
disorderly conduct and between a peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising and said
that the respondents must be careful in attaching a subversive character to the rally held
by the students
o BUT, the students are not totally absolved because there was a violation of the terms of
the permit: 1) they rallied in the second floor lobby rather than the basketball court and 2)
continued longer than the period allowed, until 5:30 PM
 The appropriate penalty is admonition or censure but not 1-yr suspension as it is
too severe even if classes were disturbed and work was interrupted
 The dictate of fairness calls for a much lesser penalty, there must be
proportionality between the offense committed and sanction imposed
 SC ruled that 1-week suspension would be punishment enough
o Quote: “The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed students of
educational institutions. Necessarily, their exercise to discuss matters affecting their
welfare or involving public interest is not to be subjected to previous restraint or
subsequent punishment unless there be a showing of a clear and present danger to a
substantive evil that the state has a right to present”
o Guidelines:
 If assembly is to be held in school premises, permit must be sought and it cannot
be denied by the school arbitrarily or unreasonably
 In the permit, there may be conditions as to the time and place to avoid disruption
of classes and stoppage of work
 If there are violations, penalty should not be disproportionate to the offense
RULING: Petition is GRANTED. Order of NCR Director Ramento is NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE.
Students had already served 1-week penalty when they were suspended for more than a week.

Digest Format (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Format (Final)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Format (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malabanan v.

Digest Author: Gatus

Topic: Bill of Rights – Freedom of Assembly

Doctrines Involved: Right to Freedom of Peaceable Assembly

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

You might also like