Supreme Court upholds legality of education reform

The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the K to 12 basic education reform begun by the previous administration, and at the same time allowed the government to remove Filipino and panitikan (literature) subjects from the college curriculum.

The unanimous decision, made by the en banc or full court last month but released only yesterday, was a surprise defeat for petitioners composed of college faculty, Filipino teachers and parents who had argued that the K to 12 system, which essentially added three years to basic education — kindergarten and Grades 11 and 12 of senior high school — was unconstitutional.

The K to 12 scheme led to an overhaul of the entire educational curriculum because several general education subjects taken at the college level, including Filipino and literature, were “downloaded” to senior high school, which is supposed to prepare students for college, employment or entrepreneurship.

The reform forced a number of colleges and universities, including a private respondent, Miriam College, to lay off professors or transfer them to senior high school, or shut down altogether.

It also disrupted college enrolment — there were no freshmen in school year 2016-2017 as graduates of Grade 10, or the fourth year of junior high school, went to Grade 11, the first year of senior high, instead.

Joseph Noel Estrada, a lawyer for private schools, lauded the high court for upholding the law that mandated K to 12 — Republic Act (RA) 10533 or the “Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.”

“We laud the SC in upholding the constitutionality of RA 10533.

This landmark decision of the high court provides a wealth of discussions particularly on academic freedom, reasonable regulation, and substantive and procedural due process,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

“This ends all debates on the K to 12’s legality.”

“I am also happy and relieved that as the K to 12 law continues, the 1.2mn poor student beneficiaries of the Senior High School Voucher Programme shall continue to be supported in their education by the State…,” he added.

Petitioners, led by National Artist and UP professor Bienvenido Lumbera, declared an early victory in 2015 when the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the removal of Fililipino and panitikan subjects, equivalent to 15 units, from the college curriculum.

In the October 9 ruling, the high court, voting 9-0, admonished the petitioners for attempting to use the tribunal to change the government’s education policy under RA 10533.

It said the court could only review policy based on two grounds – unconstitutionality or illegality and grave abuse of discretion.

“Policy matters are not the concern of the Court.

To reiterate, government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the political branches of the government.

It is not for the Court to look into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination,” stated the ruling penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, an appointee of President Benigno Aquino 3rd.

The court pointed out that the 1987 Constitution and international agreements prescribed only minimum basic education standards, and that Congress was not prohibited from going beyond the minimum.

“The enactment of the K to 12 Law was the manner by which the Congress sought to realise the right to education of its citizens.

It is indeed laudable that Congress went beyond the minimum standards and provided mechanisms so that its citizens are able to obtain not just elementary education but also kindergarten and high school.

In the absence of any showing of a violation of any Constitutional self-executing right or any international law, the Court cannot question the desirability, wisdom, or utility of the K to 12 Law as this is best addressed by the wisdom of Congress,” the 94-page ruling stated.

The Tanggol Wika (Defend the National Language) movement that fought the K to 12 reform was up in arms following the Supreme Court ruling, and noted that the decision was not yet final.

The group was referring to the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) Memorandum Order No.

20, issued in 2013, removing Filipino subjects from college.

“We are saddened and angered by this decision of the court. The fight is not yet over,” it said.

Tanggol Wika said it would consult its lawyers on whether it should file a motion for reconsideration.

It called on the Supreme Court to call a public hearing on the issue and on Congress to pass a law making Filipino subjects mandatory in college.

In the meantime, CHEd should consider the “moral aspect” of the dispute and mandate Filipino subjects in college, adding that many teachers stood to lose their jobs before Christmas, Tanggol Wika said.