The No ID, No Entry policy is applicable in every school and is very important because it

makes students feels secure every time and it ensures our identity as students. ID is a part of
the uniform and it is strictly required for every student to wear ID for discipline and proof of being
part of the community.

Impressions on “No ID, No Entry” Policy: An Inquiry of its

It pains me everyday in seeing students who have no ID on hand are strongly being sent home or simply sent away by
guards and teachers. Such depressing scenario achingly engulfs me even more with the thought that some students may
have unfortunately left their IDs and have come far, far places just to attend their classes.

The “no ID, no entry” policy may have a two-fold objectives: foremost is security and secondly, discipline.

“No ID, No Entry” policy as a measure of Security

Principally, the said policy is a security measure of the school. The word “security” has been taken to mean “the state of
being or feeling secure[1]“, “safety[2]“, “freedom from risk or danger[3]“, or ” measures adopted to prevent a crime[4].”
Ergo, this rule is a “net’ against sham students and visitors who may have ill-motives in entering school premises. It is in
its imposition that we can afford our students and teachers a conducive learning and working environment where they
can feel secure and free from risk, danger or crime.

The act of security guards in barring and sending away students who have no ID to present, however, is not the ideal
method of fulfilling the spirit of the objectives of this policy, if not completely defeating it. If the school meant to provide
security to its bonafide students, it should not have barred them for lacked of ID alone, and hence exposing them to
dangers of any genre from outside school premises.

The identification of bonafide students cannot only be identified through their school IDs alone. There are other means of
identifying bona fide students from the sham ones like library IDs, scholarship IDs, and the registration or enrollment
forms. A bona fide student who have no ID to present should not automatically be divested of his right to enter school
premises and attend his classes. In fact, the Code of Discipline as embodied in the Student Handbook is silent on the
imposition of penalty of students who are entering school premises without IDs. The closest provision found that can be
applied so far on IDs is:

” xxx reporting to class without ID properly worn shall be punished by a mark of unexcused absence.”

If we could deduce the provision to apply to students who cannot present an ID in entering school premises, the penalty
of “barring and sending away students is a far-fetched penalty that has no tinged basis even in the Student Handbook nor
in law.

Moreover, the act of barring and sending away students unduly exposes the school and authorities of claims for suits and
damages. In a 2005 National Convention[5] for Campus Advisers, Dr. Adelaida C. Fronda, speaking on Effective
Management of Campus Organization and Students, forwarded the premise that, “If my child have been barred and sent
away by a school because of “no ID, No entry: policy, I am going to file a case against that school in view of the fact
that students rights to education is higher than that of the school’s right of “barring and sending away student for non-
presentation ID.”

Is it more dangerous for students to be exposed to social ills of society when they are outside the school than when they are in?

Furthermore, the Notes of Legal Management of Judge Philip Aguinaldo[6] provides the following provisions gleaned from
the New Civil Code (NCC) and the Family Code which may establish more the liability of the school:

Art. 19. NCC. Every person[7] must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Art. 20 NCC. Every person, who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.

Art. 21. NCC Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Article 2176. FC. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another by fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damaged caused,

Art. 2180. FC. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also
for those persons for whom one is responsible.

“No ID, No Entry” policy as a way of Discipline

A school undoubtedly can exercise discipline over its students. This power of discipline is inherent and elementarily lies
in its essence as a school. Etymologically “to school” means “to educate, train or discipline”.[8]

This duty of schools to discipline has its strong basis in the Fundamental Law which provides that “all educational
institutions xxx shall xxx strengthen ethical and spiritual values, development moral character and personal discipline
xxx”[9] In pursuit of this mandate, the school may implement and enforce rules and regulations and assigned fair
penalties in violations thereof.

The same duty of schools to discipline has its support on the “academic freedom[10]” which are also enjoyed by
institutions of higher learning. From the standpoint of educational institutions, the academic freedom has been viewed as
” the freedom of the university to determine ‘ who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be
admitted to study’.”[11]

In the exercise of this academic freedom, the school “has the right to withdraw a doctoral degree already granted, but
which was obtained by fraud, upon the discovery that the doctoral dissertation of the petitioner was plagiarized”.[12]

Moreover, a disciplinary action of suspension or dismissal is held valid by the courts over students who published a short
story and poems in the school newspaper which the school considered obscene and sexually explicit. The arguments of
students that under RA 7079, a student cannot be penalized solely because of an article written in a statement publication
and that the regional office of DECs has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving school publication did not hold water.
The courts have ruled that “the freedom to admit includes the freedom to exclude. Free speech of students is not absolute.
Speech may be disciplined if it materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights. The
school has the right to consider the action of students as substantial disorder.”[13]
The second consideration in the adoption of the policy “No ID, No Entry” is to enforce a discipline among students. The
said policy aims to motivate or compel the students in wearing their IDs in entering and one inside school premises.

However, the present penalty given in barring and sending away students as a means of enforcing this rule may just
backfire at it will open a Pandora’s box of problems for the school. A school meting such penalty may unknowingly be
depriving the students of many things they can learn on the very day they were kick away from school and jeopardizing
them to a more perilous social environment.

The authority and discipline of a school does not only lie within its premises or within its gates. It extends wherever its students
and teachers go. The acts of teachers and students mirrors the image of their school wherever they are and whatever they do.

Imagine a scenario where a student who have no ID was barred and sent away home, the student however did not go
home but instead have gone to immoral places, went gambling or drinking, or smoking, or malling, and have been injured
or killed in the course”. Can the school be held responsible ?

I strongly believed that school may have fared better in disciplining them if it could only imposed fines and penalties
similar to that provided in misbehavior in the Code of Discipline.

It is possible to forge discipline and learning at the same time to these students?

Conclusion and Recommendations:

In view of the following premises, it is humbly recommended the following:

A clearer provision shall be provided in the Code of Discipline of the PSU Student Handbook on the coverage, penalties or
fines of students who have no ID to present upon entering school premises.

Security Guards of Campuses shall be instructed not to bar or send away students who have no IDs to present but instead
should ascertained the identity of students through other means like library IDs, or registration forms, or other valid
modes of identification.

Students who have no school ID’s shall be allowed to enter the school premises provided :

they hall be issued a temporary ID similar to that of a Visitor’s Pass

They shall be fined and given penalties as follows (or accordingly adjusted):

First Offence – Fine of Php20

Second Offence – Fine of Php30

Third Offence — Suspension for one week and a fine of Php50

The accumulated fines shall be forwarded to the college fund to

improve the security services of the college.

The imposition of penalty and fine is a more rational disciplinary measure as it will not unduly deprive students of their
classes for those who cannot present their IDs in entering school premises than that of barring and sending away
students.
The students, after all, actively sought to enter school premises to learn. Lets open our portals then and afford them what
they are truly seeking for.

Adrian Lawrence Carvajal, LLB. MDM

CSC Adviser / Deputy Director, PRIMO

First Semester 2006