A legal perspective in the Philippine context

I. What is a “Zero Tolerance” Attendance Policy?

In schools, a zero tolerance attendance policy usually means:

A fixed number of absences (for example, 5, 7, or 10) automatically results in:
- Dropping from the subject or from the school;
- An automatic failing grade; or
- Automatic ineligibility to take exams or be promoted
Regardless of the reason for the absences (illness, family emergency, calamity, poverty-related issues, etc.)
Often applied mechanically, without:
- Considering individual circumstances, or
- Giving students a chance to explain or contest the sanction.

In the Philippine legal framework, policies like this can clash with constitutional rights, statutory protections, and Department of Education (DepEd) / Commission on Higher Education (CHED) regulations.

II. Constitutional Foundations

1. Right to Education

The 1987 Constitution, Article XIV, provides that:

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 creates both:
- A positive duty on the State to help people access education; and
- A negative duty to avoid actions (including through public schools and public universities) that unnecessarily block access.

A zero-tolerance rule that automatically excludes students for absences, even when justified, can be argued as inconsistent with the State’s obligation to make education accessible, especially where:

The student is poor;
The absences are due to calamities, disability, or health; or
The student is otherwise willing and able to continue.

2. Due Process (Substantive and Procedural)

The Bill of Rights (Art. III) protects against being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

For many students, especially in higher education, continued enrollment, grades, and graduation are treated as property or liberty interests. Due process has two aspects:

Substantive due process – the rule itself must be:
- Reasonable;
- Related to a legitimate purpose (e.g., promoting attendance and learning); and
- Not unduly harsh or arbitrary.
Procedural due process – before a student is:
- Dropped,
- Given a failing grade solely based on absences, or
- Refused admission to examinations, they should have:
- Clear notice of the rule (e.g., in the student handbook);
- An opportunity to be heard (written explanation or hearing); and
- An impartial decision-maker.

Automatic sanctions with no room for explanation or appeal are prone to due process challenges.

3. Equal Protection and Non-Discrimination

The equal protection clause requires that laws and policies:

Treat similarly situated persons alike, and
Classifications must be:
- Based on substantial distinctions;
- Germane to the purpose of the law; and
- Not arbitrary.

Because absenteeism is often linked to poverty, disability, gender-related issues (pregnancy, caregiving), or geographic disadvantage (far-flung areas), a rigid, one-size-fits-all attendance rule may disproportionately punish vulnerable students, raising equal protection and social justice concerns.

4. Academic Freedom vs. Student Rights

The Constitution also recognizes academic freedom of institutions of higher learning, including:

Freedom to determine who may be admitted, and
Standards for promotion and graduation.

However, academic freedom is not absolute. It co-exists with:

The Constitution;
National laws; and
Students’ rights to due process and nondiscrimination.

Courts generally allow schools a wide margin of discretion, but not when policies are patently unreasonable or violative of basic rights.

III. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

A. Basic Education (DepEd Schools)

Key laws:

RA 9155 – Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001
RA 10533 – Enhanced Basic Education Act (K to 12)
Child-related laws:
- RA 7610 – Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
- RA 10627 – Anti-Bullying Act
- RA 11036 – Mental Health Act
Persons with Disability:
- RA 7277, as amended by RA 9442 and RA 10754

Key principles relevant to attendance:

Best interests of the child – Philippine child protection laws require that all school policies and practices prioritize the best interests of the child, not the convenience of the institution.
Child Protection Policy – DepEd’s Child Protection Policy (e.g., DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012) treats:
- Corporal punishment and degrading treatment as prohibited;
- “Other acts of abuse” can include excessive, unreasonable disciplinary sanctions.
A zero-tolerance attendance rule that ignores:
- Evidence of abuse at home,
- Mental health issues, or
- Disasters/evacuations may be incompatible with this policy.
No denial of education based on financial status – Various DepEd issuances stress that learners cannot be excluded from classes due to:
- Failure to wear prescribed school uniforms;
- Non-payment of voluntary contributions or similar charges.
By analogy, excluding a student simply for absences caused by poverty-related obstacles (e.g., transportation costs, need to work, household responsibilities) can be attacked as indirect discrimination against poor learners.
Assessment focus – DepEd policies generally emphasize:
- Mastery of competencies;
- Multiple forms of assessment (written work, performance, etc.). A policy that reduces educational assessment to mere physical presence, disregarding outputs, projects, or actual learning, is vulnerable to criticism as pedagogically and legally unsound.

B. Higher Education (CHED and Private HEIs)

Key legal bases:

RA 7722 – Higher Education Act (creating CHED)
CHED Memorandum Orders (CMOs) – especially those:
- Establishing the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE); and
- Enumerating student rights and responsibilities.

Typical regulatory standards include:

Schools must publish Student Handbooks stating:
- Academic policies (including attendance rules);
- Disciplinary procedures;
- Grievance mechanisms.
Disciplinary actions must observe due process:
- Written notice of charges;
- Opportunity to be heard;
- Decision in writing; and
- Access to appeal or review.

Attendance policies that instantly impose failure or dismissal without individualized review can be argued as disciplinary in nature and therefore subject to due process requirements — even if labeled as “academic.”

IV. Legal Issues Raised by Zero-Tolerance Attendance Policies

1. Reasonableness and Proportionality

Schools may legitimately want to:

Encourage regular attendance;
Prevent “ghost students”; and
Ensure that learners genuinely participate.

However, reasonableness requires that:

The threshold number of absences has a rational basis (e.g., not absurdly low);
The policy distinguishes between:
- Excused absences (illness, calamities, school-sanctioned activities, religious obligations, etc.); and
- Unexcused absences (deliberate truancy);
The penalty matches the seriousness of the offense:
- Some absences → lower class participation grade / requirement to submit make-up work
- Repeated, unjustified absences → more serious sanctions, but after due process

An automatic rule like “10 absences = automatic failing grade, no exceptions” is arguably disproportionate, especially in basic education where the State’s duty to keep children in school is strongest.

2. Substantive Due Process

A zero-tolerance rule may be attacked for substantive due process violations if:

It bears little relation to actual learning outcomes;
It punishes legitimate reasons, e.g.:
- Hospitalization;
- Pregnancy complications;
- Natural disaster displacement;
It fails to recognize that some learners (e.g. PWDs, working students, students in geographically isolated areas) face greater structural barriers to attendance.

Courts have, in various contexts, rejected arbitrary and oppressive school rules even when schools invoke academic freedom.

3. Procedural Due Process

Even if an attendance policy is not intrinsically invalid, the way it is enforced can violate due process if:

Students were never properly informed (e.g., not in the handbook, merely announced mid-year);
The policy is applied retroactively, affecting absences incurred before it was announced;
A student with serious reasons (e.g., medical) is not allowed to explain or to present documents;
There is no appeal or review mechanism;
The teacher’s decision is treated as final and unreviewable, even if manifestly unfair.

Proper procedure generally means:

Clear written policy, publicly available.
Advance notice at the start of the school year/semester.
Notification when the student is approaching the limit (e.g., counseling after several absences).
Chance to explain (written or face-to-face).
Reasoned decision, based on evidence.
Right to appeal to a higher academic or administrative authority.

4. Discriminatory Effects

A rigid attendance rule can indirectly discriminate against:

Students with disabilities
- Who may have more frequent medical appointments or flare-ups.
Pregnant or parenting students, particularly young mothers.
Working students and students from very poor families, who:
- Must juggle paid work, chores, or childcare;
- May have transportation problems.
Students from disaster-prone or geographically isolated areas, frequently affected by:
- Floods, landslides, or impassable roads.

Philippine anti-discrimination and social justice policies (including those found in PWD, women’s, and children’s laws) support the argument that schools should provide reasonable accommodation, not automatic exclusion.

5. Conflict with Special Excuses and Official Suspensions

Zero-tolerance rules may conflict with:

School- or government-sanctioned activities:
- Student council work, sports competitions, cultural events, official trainings.
Official class suspensions due to:
- Weather (storms, typhoons);
- Power or water interruptions; or
- Public safety concerns.
Religious obligations that have constitutional protection under freedom of religion.

If a policy does not acknowledge excused absences, or if excused absences still count against the “magic number,” it becomes increasingly indefensible.

V. Special Contexts: Health, Mental Health, and Calamities

1. Physical Illness and Disability

Under PWD laws and general health protections:

Schools are expected to give reasonable accommodation, which can include:
- Flexible attendance;
- Acceptance of medical certificates;
- Make-up classes or alternative assessments.

A student who misses classes due to hospitalization but is otherwise performing well should not be automatically failed solely because of a number.

2. Mental Health

The Mental Health Act (RA 11036) recognizes:

The right to mental health services and support in educational institutions.
Protection from discrimination based on mental health conditions.

Students with depression, anxiety, or other mental health conditions may have periods of difficulty attending classes. A rigid rule that:

Ignores mental health documentation, and
Refuses accommodations can be attacked as contrary to the Mental Health Act and to nondiscrimination principles.

3. Natural Disasters and Emergencies

Given the Philippines’ exposure to:

Typhoons, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions,

zero-tolerance rules that do not flexibly account for:

Evacuations;
Damaged homes;
Disrupted transport;

may be considered unreasonable per se, especially in public basic education where the State must actively prevent dropouts.

VI. Students’ Rights in Relation to Attendance Policies

Across levels (basic and higher education), students can generally assert:

Right to Clear Rules
- Policies must be written, consistent, and accessible (usually in the student handbook or official circulars).
Right to Information and Orientation
- Students should be oriented at the start of the school year/semester about:
  - Attendance requirements;
  - The effect of absences;
  - Remedies and appeals.
Right to Due Process
- Before a failing grade or exclusion is imposed solely for absences:
  - Notice, explanation, and appeal.
Right to Non-Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodation
- Especially for:
  - PWDs;
  - Students with long-term or recurring illnesses;
  - Pregnant/parenting learners;
  - Students affected by calamities.
Right to Participate in Policy-Making
- Through:
  - Student governments;
  - PTAs;
  - School governing councils / local school boards, where applicable.
- The adoption or revision of attendance policies should involve stakeholder consultation, not just unilateral imposition.

VII. Legal and Administrative Remedies

If a student or parent believes a zero-tolerance attendance policy violates their rights, they can consider:

1. Internal Remedies

Clarification with the teacher:
- Politely ask for the legal or policy basis of the rule.
- Submit explanations and supporting documents (medical certificates, barangay certifications, etc.).
Appeal to the principal, dean, or program head:
- Cite:
  - Right to education;
  - Due process;
  - Best interests of the child (for basic ed);
  - Relevant laws (PWD, mental health, women’s rights).
Use of grievance mechanisms:
- Student grievance committees;
- Guidance office;
- Office of student affairs.

Often, conflicts can be settled at this level through flexible arrangements (make-up work, partial lifting of sanctions, etc.).

2. Administrative Complaints

For public and private basic education schools:

File a complaint with:
- Schools Division Office (DepEd Division);
- Regional Office; and, if necessary,
- DepEd Central Office.

For higher education institutions:

Complaints can be submitted to the CHED Regional Office, particularly if there are:
- Violations of CHED rules on student rights or due process;
- Policies clearly inconsistent with national laws.

For human rights aspects (e.g., discrimination, inhuman or degrading treatment):

Complaints may also be brought to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

3. Judicial Remedies

When administrative remedies fail or when urgent relief is needed:

Possible court actions (with the assistance of counsel) may include:
- Petition for injunction – to stop implementation of an unreasonable policy;
- Petition for mandamus or declaratory relief – to challenge the validity of a policy;
- Civil actions for damages, if rights violations caused significant harm.

Litigation is costly and time-consuming, so it is usually a last resort, but the possibility of judicial review provides leverage to seek fair administrative settlements.

Important: For concrete situations, students and parents should consult a Philippine lawyer or legal aid group (e.g., PAO, law school legal clinics, NGOs) for advice tailored to their specific facts.

VIII. Best Practices for Rights-Respecting Attendance Policies

To harmonize legitimate school concerns with student rights, schools are encouraged to:

Avoid absolute zero-tolerance rules.
- Use attendance thresholds as warning triggers, not automatic doom.
Differentiate excused and unexcused absences.
- Clearly define excused absences (illness, calamity, official activities, religious observances, etc.).
- Provide guidelines for documentation.
Provide make-up mechanisms.
- Make-up classes, additional assignments, or alternative assessments where feasible.
Build in due process.
- Written notice when the student approaches the threshold.
- Opportunity to explain and present documents.
- Clear appeal procedure.
Embed reasonable accommodation.
- Special consideration for:
  - PWD learners;
  - Students with mental health conditions;
  - Pregnant/parenting students;
  - Learners affected by disasters or extreme poverty.
Consult stakeholders.
- Involve:
  - Teachers;
  - Parents and students;
  - Local officials, where applicable,
- When designing or revising attendance policies.

IX. Conclusion

In the Philippine legal framework, student rights and school authority must coexist. While schools may require regular attendance to promote learning and discipline, zero-tolerance attendance policies that operate blindly—without exceptions, context, or due process—are highly vulnerable to legal challenge.

Through:

Constitutional guarantees of education, due process, and equality;
Statutory protections for children, women, PWDs, and persons with mental health conditions; and
DepEd and CHED regulatory standards,

students and parents have strong grounds to demand that attendance rules be reasonable, humane, and rights-respecting. Any policy that effectively pushes learners out of school for reasons beyond their control conflicts with the spirit of Philippine law, which is firmly oriented toward access to education and social justice.