K-12 court ruling aligns with broad reform push

THE Basic Education Act, or the K to 12 program, stands out as perhaps the most consequential and progressive policy decision enacted into law by the former President Benigno Aquino 3rd administration.

In one determined push for policy change, the initiative succeeded in lengthening to 12 years the prescribed period for basic education (elementary and secondary school) of young Filipinos, preparatory to college education.

In so doing, the reform brought Philippine education up to speed with the rest of the world. It set the stage for the equally important work of making all levels of Philippine education competitive in the world.

Yet inexplicably, this laudable and necessary reform came under intensive challenge from various sectors of the polity. - fore the Supreme Court in the vain hope of having the reform legislation annulled, and by preventing the Department of Education from carrying out the changes.

- stitutionality of Republic Act 10533, or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, and Republic Act 10157, or the Kindergarten Education Act.

Mercifully, the prolonged litigation since 2015 before the high released only last week, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the government’s K to 12 education program.

In the 94-page decision written by Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the Court denied the consolidated petitions.

The decision said emphatically: “the Court declares Republic Act No. 10533, Republic Act No. 10157, CHED Memorandum Order No. 20, series of 2013, Department of Education Order No. 31, Series of 2012, and Joint Guidelines on the implementation of the Labor and Management component of Republic Act No. 10533, as constitutional.”

With the decision, the Court lifted its April 21, 2015 temporary restraining order (TRO) against Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order 20, which directed the exclusion of Filipino and Panitikan as core courses from the curriculum of college courses.

The Court released the decision in response to numerous individuals, including students, teachers and lawmakers.

One of the issues raised by the petitioners was that they were deprived of their constitutional right to be consulted on matters of their interest prior to to the passage of the law.

The SC said: “the Court holds that contrary to petitioners’ contention, the K to 12 law was validly enacted.”

It narrated the process whereby the Congress enacted the law. The court also said that other allegations of the petitioners had all failed to convince the Court to look beyond “the enrolled copy of the bill.”

It wrote: “Scattered throughout the K to 12 law are the standards to guide the DEPEd, CHEd and TESDA in carrying out the provisions of the law, from the development of the K to 12 BEC (Basic Education Curriculum) to the hiring and training of teaching personnel and the formulation of appropriate strategies in order to address the changes during the transition period.”

In sum, the Court decision is comprehensive and persuasive. One nagging question for us is why such laudable and necessary reform has elicited so much opposition from groups who, in all logic, should have been its advocates or champion.

The opposition included members of the Makabayan bloc of lawmakers in Congress, teachers who are active members of our teaching community and students who will be the

The SC voted unanimously in favor of the K to 12 decision for one compelling reason: it is manifestly time for the nation to make this change.