Crispina

M. Reynera Law I UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS VS COURT OF APPEALS AND AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE G.R. No. 134625 CASE ANALYSIS CLAIM/ISSUE: Whether or not the court of appeals erred in holding that respondents doctoral degree cannot be recalled without violating her right to enjoyment of intellectual property and to justice and equity. WARRANT/RULE: Article XIV, Sec 5, Par 2 of the Constitution provides that Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. FACTS: Ms Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine, a citizen of India, enrolled a doctoral program in UP Diliman and during her defense on her dissertation, 4 out of 5 panel members gave a passing mark and signed her dissertation with condition to incorporate the panels suggestions. Dr. Medina, the panel member, who did not sign the dissertation, claimed that portions of the dissertation were lifted from sources without proper acknowledgment. Ms. Arokiaswamy submitted her final dissertation but failed to incorporate the suggestions of Dr. Medina and the other panel members. The revised copies were later disapproved by Dr. Teodoro and Dr. Midena, however, Ms. Arokiaswamy was still able to graduate because the letter of Dean Paz to exclude her from graduating did not reach the Vice Chancellor on time. The letter contained the request of Dean Paz to exclude Ms. Arokiaswamy from the list of graduates pending clarification on the charges against her.

Crispina M. Reynera Law I A committee was formed to investigate the case and they found out 90 instances of portions of lifted from other sources with no proper acknowledgment which was endorsed to the Board of Regents which then recommended approval on the withdrawal of the degree from Ms. Arokiaswamy.

ANALYSIS: Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. This is a Constitutional provision guarantees universities of their freedom and right to choose admission of their students as well as determine who to confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates. In this case, the committee found out that Ms. Arokiaswamy evidently lifted paragraphs of her dissertations with no proper acknowledgment which tantamount to plagiarism. Her degree was procured by error or fraud which is why the Board of Regents, ordered the cancelation of her degree. She further claimed that she was not given due process, but it was noted in the case that she was given the chance to give her explanation and meetings were even called but she failed to attend one of those meetings. Academic freedom of universities includes when a university will confer degrees on, if degree is procured by error or fraud then the Board of Regents, subject to due process being followed, may cancel that degree. CONCLUSION: Due to the weight given to Academic Freedom and with the failure of Ms Arokiaswamy to defend herself on the charge of plagiarism, the Court of Appeals decision was REVERSED.