By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA

Will online learning become a standard learning modality?
When the pandemic prevented the learners from going to their physical
classrooms, it was extremely difficult for teachers and learners to transition to other
learning modalities.
The use of printed modules by primary, elementary, and secondary schools was a
horrifying experience for teachers who needed to go the extra mile of spending from
their pockets to print the modules and deliver them to the learners. There were reports
of parents or other persons answering the modules while their children were assigned
to household chores or just played with their neighbors.
Those who adopted video conferencing and learning management systems
encountered problems of low internet connectivity, cheating, plagiarism, and many
more among students.
The foregoing horror stories and many more made different education
stakeholders conclude that face-to-face learning is still the best learning modality.
In August 2022, the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) issued orders mandating the return to in-person classes.
CHED, however, allowed the graduate school to continue using online learning for
School Year 2022-2023.
Now that the WHO has declared that the COVID-19 pandemic is over, the Legal
Education Board (LEB) that regulates law schools is poised to mandate the return to in-
person classes. While DepEd and CHED did not encounter strong opposition when
these agencies mandated face-to-face classes, the LEB draft memorandum on in-person
classes was met with vehement objections by an overwhelming majority among law
deans, faculty, and students.
Testimonies during the consultation on the proposed memorandum claim that
the online learning modality widened access to legal education by capacitating students
who are remotely located to attend classes virtually. The stakeholders from Metro
Manila narrated how online learning saved their time and money from the heavy traffic
in the country’s capital.
But LEB appears to have stood its ground and insisted that it is within its power
to regulate law schools to order the return to in-person classes. Law deans fired back
by invoking the academic freedom of legal education institutions to decide how to
teach. The choice of the learning modality is part of their academic freedom.
When the memorandum finally comes out and becomes effective, the debate
may reach the Supreme Court. Previously, the high tribunal upheld the law school’s
academic freedom to choose whom to teach by declaring the Philippine Law School
Admission Test (PhilSAT) unconstitutional.
Will the Supreme Court declare the memorandum on in-person classes as a
curtailment of academic freedom? If the high court rules in the affirmative, this will
surely be a game-changer.