It has come to the knowledge of Sorsogon State University that a recent video interview has been posted by Brigada News FM Sorsogon in their official Facebook Page with radio anchor Christian Deyto and Board Member Rolando “Roland” Anonuevo of the Second District of Sorsogon giving libelous remarks on the University’s admission policies, implementation of Republic Act No. 10931 (Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act), class size, use of government funds, and malicious statements against our teachers.
As a public higher education institution, SorSU recognizes that constructive criticism is an essential part of good governance and institutional growth, and highly respects the right of every Filipino to express opinions on matters of public interest in accordance with their constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech and of expression under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. We welcome feedback that is grounded in facts, as it contributes to the continuous improvement of our programs and services. However, public statements were made online involving issues affecting the University’s operations and are intended to malign, discredit, or unfairly attack the integrity of the academic institution and the individuals involved, particularly the dedicated faculty, staff, and officials who work tirelessly to provide quality and accessible education to all our students. SorSU does not condone these actions and cannot turn a blind eye as these should be properly addressed to prevent public misunderstanding and the spread of misinformation.
The institution deems it proper to provide factual and legal clarification to each issue involved as stated by both Mr. Deyto and Board Member Anonuevo in the interview based on existing statutes, policies, and official data.
On the Deficiency of Government Funds
Board Member Anonuevo said, “Kung kulang ang pondo, bakit pag kulang ba ang pondo nababawasan ang classrooms, binabawasan ba ang teachers, binabawasan ang libro. Kung kulang ang pondo much better tumanggap ka ng studyante dahil ang studyante ay nagbabayad ng miscellaneous fees, di ba? Kung kulang ang pondo, mag admit ka ng maraming studyante para maraming kang miscellaneous fee na matanggap.”
It is explicitly provided in Section 4, Rule II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10931 that qualified students in SUCs are exempt from paying tuition and other school fees. SorSU therefore neither collects miscellaneous fees nor rely on student fee collections as a source of operating income for qualified beneficiaries of the Free Higher Education program. It sustains its operations, infrastructure, and salaries through the following sources of funds: (a) National Budget through the General Appropriations Act which stands as the largest source of funding for SorSU for the payment of Personnel Services, Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses, and Capital Outlays; (b) Reimbursements from the UniFAST Fund in accordance with Republic Act 10931; (c) Internally Generated Income based on Republic Act 8292 or the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997; (d) Research Grants and Inter-agency Funding; and (e) Financial Assistance from Private Donations, Endowments, and Official Development Assistance.
Ergo, since SorSU cannot charge tuition to offset the cost of extra students, its capacity is strictly dictated by government funding. Thus, the inadequacy or lack of funding from the national government directly affects the university’s operations and long-term sustainability. As a result, thereof, SorSU cannot afford to engage the services of more instructors and is forced to limit the admission of students simply because it has no sufficient funds to accommodate them. The statement that admitting more students would generate additional miscellaneous fee collection does not reflect the present legal framework.
On Free Higher Education
Further, Board Member Anonuevo stated that, “Itong ating mga state universities na siyang pinag-mamalaki ng National Government na libre daw na kolehiyo. Libre na kolehiyo pakatapos, sa 1000 na nag graduate 100 lang ang kinuha niyo?”
Under the express terms of Republic Act No. 10931 and its IRR, qualified Filipino students are granted free tuition and other school fees in SUCs, such as SorSU. However, they should qualify first under the admission and retention requirements by the university before they can be eligible to receive these free education benefits. Therefore, SorSU is expressly clothed with authority to prescribe its institutional admission policies and the qualification by a prospective student to the same is a condition sine qua nonbefore the sstudent can avail of the free higher education benefit.
On Admission Quotas, Carrying Capacity, and Class Size
The Board Member also pondered that, “Ang minimum sa SSU kuwarentang studyante sa isang classroom. Kung doblehin mo ang kuwarenta gawing mo 80, nababago ba ang manner of teaching ng isang professor or instructor? Mababago ba ang oras? Ang idiscuss mo sa isang oras, idiscuss mo pa rin sa isang oras kahit 1000 pa ang in attendance na students. Bakit niyo binabawasan ang quota? Ano ba ang standard niyo, anong rules sa pagtanggap ng studyante at pag determine ng quota.”
SorSU determines the number of students it can admit based on its institutional carrying capacity. This includes the availability of qualified faculty members, classrooms, laboratories, libraries, instructional equipment, and other academic resources necessary to deliver quality education. The statutory basis for this claim is found in the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education issued by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) which provides that class size shall be determined by the institution, taking into account its facilities, the nature of instruction, and factors that promote a conducive teaching-learning process. Likewise, CHED policies define enrollment capacity as the optimal number of students that may be admitted based on the University’s current carrying capacity and quality assurance requirements.
For Academic Year 2026–2027, the University is preparing to admit approximately 3,350 incoming students, consistent with its existing academic and physical resources.
On Quality Education
Another statement made by Board Member Anonuevo was, “May narinig ako kasi pinoproteksyunan namin yung quality of education o standard namin. Ang gusto namin maraming pumasa. Di baleng konti ang tanggapin basta maraming pumasa. Alam mo yung pondo na ginagamit mo kung kanino galing.. sa taong bayan galing. So hindi yan galing sa bulsa mo. So wala kaming paki-alam dyan sa standard, standard niyo nayan, noh. Kaya nandyan kayo na mga state universities and colleges para i-accommodate ang mahihirap na studyante o Kabataang Pilipino na makapag-aral ng libre upang maging edukado at maangat ang kabuhayan nila. Pinapa si-sweldo kayo ng gobyerno nagpapacute kayo diyan. Ayaw niyo mahirapan. Hindi standard ang pinag-uusapan diyan. You have to admit as many as you can. Kahit konti ang pumasa diyan, walang problema diyan ang importate dyan makatapos.”
SorSU remains firmly committed to providing quality, accessible, and inclusive higher education. This principle is codified by no less than the 1987 Philippine Constitution which guarantees not only access to education but also the protection and promotion of quality education. CHED, under Republic Act No. 7722, is mandated to formulate and enforce minimum standards for higher education institutions, including requirements relating to faculty qualifications, learning resources, laboratories, classrooms, and other instructional facilities. These standards exist to ensure that every student receives an education that meets nationally recognized quality benchmarks. If the law intended universities to admit as many students as possible regardless of standards, CHED would have no legal basis for regulating faculty qualifications, laboratories, classrooms, libraries, and instructional resources.
This position is further buttressed by Section 6(b), Rule II, of the IRR of RA 10931 which states that students who fail to comply with the admission and/or retention policies of the SUCs or LUCs are ineligible to enjoy free higher education programs. RA 10931 does not require SUCs to admit unlimited students.
Further, as mandated by Article XIV, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. This is the fundamental mandate for the country’s educational system which is the grounding principle of
SorSU. Thus, our university’s duty does not stop at simply providing education; the education provided must meet high standards and be globally competitive with the end in goal of transitioning from enrollment to employment.
On the Libelous Statements against Professors
Finally, Board Member Anonuevo said, “Kasi ayaw mapagod ng professor, ayaw mapagod ng instructor. Hanggang 40 kasi mahirap magturo sa mas marami, di napupukusan. Anong napupukusan, parang di tayo nag college lahat, wala naman nag po-focus na teacher sa mga studyante kahit sa college kahit pa sa private. Wala naman nag po-focus, magtuturo lang sya within an hour. After teaching, magbibigay ng homework o kaya mag quize bee, at mag score, i-rate ang studyante, igrade-dan, ito ang nakapasa ito ang hindi, anong focus? Kalokohan yan na focus focus niyo? Ang totoo ayaw niyong mainitan, ok. Kasi pag maraming studyante, masyadong mainit. Di kaya ng electric fan, di kaya ng aircon. Eh Kung ayaw mo mahirapan wag kang magturo sa panpublikong skwelahan, pumuta ka sa private, db?. Kasi dini-deprive ang karamihan mahihirap na makagpag aral.”
These assertions are obviously grounded on false and malicious narration of facts coupled with bias and prejudice with the intention of maligning and besmirching the reputation of our dear faculty members. Mr. Anonuevo’s claim that professors resist a larger class size due to inconvenience and laziness holds no water and has no place in the academic realm. Class sizes are specifically determined based on CHED’s quality assurance standards, safety and protection of students, and the capacity of the institutional facilities and not faculty convenience. To say that professors are “lazy” and do not want to conduct classes because of warm room temperature clearly undermines their capacity, qualification, and genuine intentions to provide quality education to students for which the university was constituted in the first place.
Faculty members likewise undergo regular performance evaluation by students and supervisors in accordance with CHED policies. Their dedication to instruction, research, extension, and public service remains central to the University’s mission of producing competent graduates who will contribute meaningfully to society.
On Academic Freedom
Jurisprudence dictates that academic freedom is a constitutionally protected right enshrined in Article XIV, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which states that “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.”
A landmark Supreme Court ruling in Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong, G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993, provides that SUCs enjoy institutional autonomy. The Court reaffirmed, borrowing from Justice Felix Frankfurter’s historic formulation, that institutional academic freedom guarantees a university the absolute right to determine for itself on academic grounds: (a) Who may teach (Faculty qualifications and hiring); (b) What may be taught (Curriculum and course content); (c) How it shall be taught (Grading systems and teaching methodologies); and (d) Who may be admitted to study (Admission criteria and retention rules).
Verily, SorSU in the exercise of its constitutionally guaranteed right of academic freedom, has the prerogative and freedom to choose “who may be admitted to study” based on its institutional policies.
On the Practice of Fair and Equal Journalism
As mandated by the Philippine Journalists’ Code of Ethics, journalists must report facts clearly and objectively. They must never suppress essential facts or distort information to favor a specific political or commercial interest. In the instant interview, the radio news channel failed to observe the practice of getting both sides of the story, as no initiative, invitation, or attempt was made to interview representatives from SorSU prior to the airing of the interview with Board Member Anonuevo. This clearly contradicts the principle of fairness in journalism to ethically provide an equal and unbiased news story especially that the issue is imbued with public interest.Moreover, while Philippine jurisprudence has consistently protected journalists who practice fair reporting when they are reporting on a matter of public interest or criticizing a public official, under the Doctrine of Fair Comment, this only applies if the report is a fair, true, and impartial account of events. The recent interview is far from being impartial as the anchor was seen assenting to the remarks of a politician without first verifying facts, conducting research and interviews with the other party. Verily, the anchor seemed to have abandoned the principle of fair and equal journalism exposing himself to possible legal consequences.
On Possible Liabilities for Spreading False Information
Public officials in the Philippines, such as a Provincial Board Member, are held to a much higher legal and ethical standard under the principle that “Public office is a public trust.” In Philippine jurisprudence, the remarks of a public official, as an agent of the government following Qualified Political Agency principle carry the weight of the State. When an official acts based on unverified facts and malicious remarks, the law strips away their institutional protection, exposing them to possible liabilities.
Ergo, a public official who spreads false, unverified information against an institution like SorSU might face multiple liabilities such as: (a) administrative liabilities in violation of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; (b) criminal liabilities for cyber libel under Republic Act 10175, or Article 154 on Knowingly Publishing False News under the Revised Penal Code; and (c) civil liabilities for damages under the Civil Code of the Philippines.
In the interest of mutual understanding and accurate public discourse, the Sorsogon State University, as a Pamantasang may Puso, is fully open to participating in a formal dialogue with Board Member Rolando “Roland” Anonuevo. We believe this forum will allow us to clarify any misconceptions and align our perspectives moving forward.
We appeal to the public to refrain from spreading unverified information. SorSU remains open and transparent to anyone who wishes to verify information concerning our admission and qualification processes, class size policies or carrying capacity, and student enrollment limits. We highly encourage concerned individuals to seek clarification directly from the University through the appropriate offices so that discussions are guided by accurate and verified information.
Sorsogon State University will continue to uphold transparency, accountability, academic excellence, and the rule of law in carrying out its mandate. We remain committed to expanding educational opportunities while ensuring that every student admitted receives a quality education.