13/08/2026
It is so easy to cite (and most people wonât bother checking the citations anyway), but these points are clearly misleading.
First, there is nothing in CHED CMO 09, s. 2013 that requires student consultation as part of due process. The most is Sec. 17.3 which provides that a representative from the student body âmustâ be âincludedâ in the development and revision of the student handbook. If any, CMO 09, s. 2013 only affirms and bolsters the HEIâs right to REGULATE its own internal rules for student welfare and safety (cf. Secs. 18, 19, 22.1)
Second, if heâs citing Sec. 22.1, it pertains to student discipline, and specifically provides, in part, for âgender and disability sensitive rules and regulations formulated in consultation with students and faculty and published in a student manual that is accessible and disseminated to students including students with disabilities, faculty and concurred in by parents.â
To say this pertains to the formulating of the UST Student Handbook is misleading, considering that:
1. The provision pertained to student discipline;
2. It specifically provided for the addition of gender and disability sensitive rules and regulations; and,
3. Contained in a specific student manual for that purpose.
We also checked BP 232 and even RA 7722 (CHED Law) and there is clearly nothing there to support his claim that students are âcore membersâ of the educational community with the âright to be heard.â These words cannot even be found in the text of the law itself.
If any, BP 232 again supports the HEIâs right to its own institutional rules:
âSec. 9 Rights of Students in School
###
â8. The right to form, establish, join and participate in organizations and societies RECOGNIZED by the schoolâŠ
###â
âSec. 15 Duties and Responsibilities of Students. - In addition to those provided for under existing laws, every student shall:
###
â3. Promote and maintain the peace and tranquility of the school by observing the rules of discipline, and by exerting efforts to attain harmonious relationships with fellow students, the teaching and academic staff and other school personnel.
###â
So: what statutory rights and basic administrative consultation is he talking about? Assuming without conceding that consultation is mandated, would a negative student response to a consultative process equate to a veto of a proposed administrative regulation?
In the case of UST, and based on USTâs own constitution/by-laws, the legislation of its own internal rules and regulations is entirely up to the discretion and exclusive prerogative of the Academic Senate, subject to the approval of the Board and concurrence of the Rector.
Additionally, sa academic unit level pa lang, may mga consultations na regarding curriculum, tuition fee increases and all.
Note that even The Varsitarian reported that the UST CSC 2024-2025 was asked for recommendations on the revisions of the 2018 Handbook. Moreover, asking for recommendations is not the same as asking for approval, precisely because approval was, and is, never a matter requiring student imprimatur. UST is a private educational corporation, and corporate governance such as crafting of policies is solely the corporationâs governing boardâs right and obligation.
If inupuan ni University of Santo Tomas Central Student Council PRO (24-25) then 2-termer President Anay Agon (25-26; 26-27) yang request for recommendations, well, wala na kaming masabi sa gross inexcusable negligence niya. Not surprised, ask some OSA student assistants and OSA staff, they have a lot of stories to tell.
