THE University of Santo Tomas suspended four student activists after they faced disciplinary complaints following a confrontation with military personnel at a Philippine Air Force (PAF) exhibit on campus on April 21, 2026. In addition to the suspension, the university will withhold certificates of good moral character from the four students, effectively ousting one of them from a student council officer position.
The case stemmed from the confrontation at the PAF exhibit, held as part of UST’s 415th anniversary celebrations. The student activists heckled Air Force personnel about military equipment and operations, as well as alleged human rights abuses, two days after an armed encounter in Toboso, Negros Occidental, that left 19 people dead.
The UST Central Student Council criticized the university’s decision, saying the suspensions amounted to the “weaponization of the student handbook” and would prevent students from exercising dissent. The student council wrote an open letter to Pope Leo XIV, asking the pontiff to intervene against the alleged suppression of UST.
UST’s academic freedom and students’ right to free speech
In determining whether the UST suspension move was proper or violated students’ rights requires the application of two constitutional guarantees: students’ right to freedom of speech and expression, and the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning. In other words, was the sanction within UST’s valid exercise of academic freedom? Or did it violate students’ rights to freedom of speech and expression?
While schools and universities are unique environments devoted to learning and discipline, they are not places where constitutional freedoms are completely left at the gate. Educational institutions like the University of Santo Tomas must balance their authority to maintain school peace and order with their duty to respect and protect students’ fundamental liberties while on campus.
Jurisprudence on students’ free speech
The landmark US case Tinker v. Des Moines firmly established that students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression upon entering the schoolhouse gate. Tinker introduced the now-classic standard that school authorities may regulate student expression only when it materially and substantially interferes with school activities or contradicts reasonable disciplinary policies. Note, however, that in Tinker, the students are participating in a public educational institution, not a private university like UST.
Building on this principle, key Philippine Supreme Court decisions — Malabanan v. Ramento, Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines, and Non v. Dames — adapt and apply it in the Philippine context. These cases recognize that student assemblies, rallies and protests, even when critical of school policies, are generally protected forms of expression so long as they do not create a clear and present danger to the educational process. At the same time, they affirm that schools may regulate the time, place and manner of such activities and impose penalties, provided they are lawful, proportionate, and respect due process.
In the UST incident, did the students obtain prior permission from the university administration before they held protests against guests from the Armed Forces of the Philippines? Was the venue of such protest valid based on applicable university rules?
On the other hand, did UST observe administrative due process in the disciplinary case involving the students before imposing the suspensions and accessory penalties? Are these sanctions proportionate to the gravity of the offense committed, consistently imposed, and imposed in good faith?
A central theme running through these issues is the tension between the university’s academic freedom and students’ rights. Institutions of higher learning, such as UST, have the prerogative to set academic standards and to enforce discipline. This pertains specifically to the freedom of the university to determine “who shall be admitted to study.” However, this prerogative cannot be used as a pretext to silence dissent or discriminate against students for exercising their constitutional freedoms.
On the other hand, the university’s obligation to respect students’ right to education, along with their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, also implies students’ obligation to follow the institution’s established rules. They cannot simply hold lightning rallies without the proper permit or outside designated areas on campus. Students should also observe proper conduct even when protesting, as these policies still apply. They cannot disrespect persons in authority, such as the PAF personnel.
After all, educational institutions such as the University of Santo Tomas have a constitutional mandate to instill personal discipline and inculcate patriotism and nationalism, among other values. The university’s authority to promulgate its own rules governing student discipline aligns not only with the constitutional guarantee of academic freedom but also with its duty to shape the character of the youth.
Ultimately, while upholding students’ rights to freedom of speech and expression as vital, universities like the University of Santo Tomas must also exercise academic freedom to maintain discipline and order in the academic environment. The institution’s authority to set standards and enforce guidelines is essential to fostering a conducive atmosphere for learning and growth. Upholding academic integrity and ensuring respectful dialogue help prepare students for responsible citizenship. By navigating this delicate balance, UST can cultivate an environment where respectful discourse thrives while maintaining the discipline and order necessary in an academic setting.
