SC de­clares K-12 pro­gram con­sti­tu­tional

Tempo - - Front Page - (Jef­frey G. Dam­icog)

The Supreme Court has up­held the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of the K to 12 ed­u­ca­tional pro­gram of the gov­ern­ment.

In a 94-page de­ci­sion penned by Jus­tice Al­fredo Ben­jamin Caguioa, the SC de­nied the con­sol­i­dated pe­ti­tions which as­sailed the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of Repub­lic Act 10533 (K to 12 Law), RA 10157 (Kinder­garten Ed­u­ca­tion Act), and other gov­ern­ment is­suances con­cern­ing the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the K to 12 Ba­sic Ed­u­ca­tion Pro­gram, in­clud­ing Com­mis­sion on Higher Ed­u­ca­tion Me­moran­dum Or­der No. 20.

“Where­fore, the con­sol­i­dated pe­ti­tions are hereby de­nied. Ac­cord­ingly, 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,” the SC said in a de­ci­sion dated Oct. 9 but was only made avail­able re­cently.

The de­ci­sion was unan­i­mously con­curred in by then Chief Jus­tice Tere­sita Leonardo-de Cas­tro and Jus­tices An­to­nio Car­pio, Dios­dado Per­alta, Mar­i­ano del Castillo, Estela Per­las-Bern­abe, Fran­cis Jardeleza, Noel Ti­jam, An­dres Reyes Jr., and Mar­vic Leo­nen, who had a sep­a­rate con­cur­ring opin­ion.

Only Jus­tices Jose Reyes Jr., Alexan­der Ges­mundo, and Lu­cas Ber­samin failed to sign the de­ci­sion as they are on leave.

With this, the SC lifted its April 21, 2015 Tem­po­rary Re­strain­ing Or­der against the CHED Me­moran­dum Or­der No. 20 which di­rected the ex­clu­sion of Filipino and Pan­i­tikan as core cour­ses from the cur­ricu­lum of col­lege cour­ses.

The de­ci­sion was re­leased in re­sponse to nu­mer­ous is­sues raised in seven sep­a­rate pe­ti­tions filed by var­i­ous groups and in­di­vid­u­als in­clud­ing stu­dents, teach­ers, and law­mak­ers.

Among the is­sues raised by pe­ti­tion­ers is that they were de­prived of their con­sti­tu­tional right to be con­sulted in mat­ters con­cern­ing their in­ter­ests prior the pas­sage of the law.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.