I HAD the honor and privilege of speaking before the parents of Ateneo de Manila University Basic Education on Sept. 12, 2026. As expected, parents came in droves, especially in light of increasing reports of tragic incidents and violence in schools across the country. In today’s column, I will share the key points I discussed to raise awareness among parents and school communities.
Student discipline is not isolated from safety.
Tighter campus security measures address external threats to students. But not all risks of harm, injury, or even death come from the outside. Mischief, pranks, bullying, sexual misconduct and aggression are risky behaviors that students may develop if not properly corrected or disciplined.
As a long-term solution to school violence, tighter security measures must be complemented with stronger student formation and discipline initiatives.
Parents are the first teachers of the child.
Our Constitution recognizes parents’ natural and primary right and duty to rear their children. Child-rearing necessarily includes the right to supervise, educate and discipline children. On the other hand, the Constitution also mandates that schools shape the character of the youth, specifically by developing their moral character and personal discipline. Thus, when parents enroll their child in school, child-rearing becomes a shared responsibility of the teachers and the educational institution. Teachers and schools exercise special parental authority when students are under their supervision, instruction, or custody.
Parental responsibility shifts to the teacher and school.
Under the New Civil Code, parents are responsible for their minor child’s behavior, including damages the child may cause or crimes the child commits against others. This is because parents have control and influence over their child while the child is in their custody and care. A negligent parent, therefore, is liable for the damages caused by the child’s acts or omissions.
This responsibility shifts to the teachers and schools when they have the child’s custody. Under the principle of in loco parentis, teachers in charge and school heads are presumed negligent and liable for any damages a student may cause while in their custody. This responsibility applies even if students are already of legal age. The school may avoid liability only by showing exercise of due diligence.
Parents cannot be totally hands-off.
The Education Act of 1982 obligates parents to cooperate and coordinate with the school in implementing school policies, including discipline. Thus, parents must undertake that their child adheres to school values and conduct even at home or elsewhere. This supports their character formation in line with the school’s mission. Under jurisprudence, parents are also bound as a party to the education contract forged when a child enrolls in school. The school’s obligation to educate a student implies a corresponding obligation on the student and his parents to obey the school’s rules and regulations.
Wider latitude and protection for teachers and schools
Under the law, where the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher and the school, the latter, not the parent, is answerable for damages, injuries and even death committed by the student while in their custody. According to the late Justice J.B.L. Reyes, this is also why the parent should not interfere with the school’s discipline or the teacher’s authority and supervision while the child is under instruction.
Because the law gives teachers and schools greater responsibility for students’ actions while in custody, they should have wider latitude and protection in carrying out their duty to discipline.
This resonates with today’s school communities, where stronger protection policies are adopted to ensure everyone’s safety. Parents must understand why schools take a prank call, a bogus text, or a bomb joke posted on social media seriously. At the end of the day, the school, in loco parentis and as a matter of built-in responsibility to ensure everyone’s safety, has greater responsibility than the parents when students are in its custody.
Schools and teachers are not insurers of all risks.
Jurisprudence also reminds us that it may be inappropriate to hold a teacher fully accountable for a student’s actions, as the teacher’s influence is inherently less direct than a parent’s. A parent has a greater capacity to command obedience and enforce discipline, so the child’s conduct warrants a higher degree of accountability than can reasonably be expected of a teacher.
Moreover, under the case law, it would not be equitable to expect schools to anticipate all types of violence upon their premises. Even with security measures in place, they may still fail to prevent a student or group determined to commit a crime on school premises. A school may still avoid liability by proving the incident was not due to its negligence in student discipline or its security measures.
Let us work together — schools, teachers and parents — to create a safer, more disciplined environment where every child can thrive.
