Six-month proby for teachers?

ABILL has been filed in Congress, which provides for a shorter period of probationary employment for teachers, from the current maximum three-year period to a six-month probation like the usual employees.

At the outset, under the Education Act of 1982 or Batas Pambansa Bilang 232, the teaching and non-teaching academic personnel are given special employment status recognizing their special roles in the advancement of knowledge. The standards and terms and conditions of their employment are governed by relevant policies promulgated by the Department of Education (DepEd), Commission on Higher Education ( CHEd), and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda) for academic personnel in basic education, higher education and technical-vocational education, respectively.

Specifically, these are the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools in Basic Education (DepEd Order 88 series of 2010); the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (CMO 40 series of 2008); and the relevant issuances of the Tesda for tech-voc institutes.

These manuals are pursuant to a law passed by the legislature, and while they are not laws by themselves, they have the character of law. (

GR 82325 Sept. 26, 1989, 258 PHIL 600-607.)

The provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines apply suppletorily.

Probationary employment

The six-month probationary period under the Labor Code is the general rule and the exceptions to this rule has long been recognized and set forth in Policy Instructions 11 issued by the secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) on April 23, 1976. For private school teachers, the probationary period of not more than three consecutive years was governed by the 1970 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, adopted by the then-Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) pursuant to the provisions of Act 2076, as amended by Act 3075 and Commonwealth Act 180.

This was supplemented by DoLE-DECS-CHEd-Tesda Order 1, dated Feb. 7, 1996, which provides that the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three consecutive school years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary and secondary levels.

We cannot agree on the statement of the distinguished authors of the bill that the basis for the three- year probationary period for teachers is “unjust” and is pursuant to “mere” administrative issuances.

On the contrary, DoLE-DECSCHEdTesda Order 1 as cited above, was issued pursuant to Section 32 of Batas Pambansa 232.

This policy on probationary period of academic personnel has also long been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of

This policy has been consistently and continuously adopted by the DepEd and CHEd up to the current versions of the manuals.

For the benefit of teachers

This longer period of probation is also for the benefit of the probationary teacher, which actually gives the latter ample time to comply with the requirements for permanency, especially the academic requirement, which is the license to teach after passing the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET). Given the difficulty of passing the LET, the proposal to fix the probationary period of employment for teachers to six months would actually result in faster turnover and disqualification of teachers for failing to meet the license requirement.

It is worth noting that the current three- year probationary period for teachers is the maximum, not the minimum period. This means that the private school can actually reduce this and grant tenure as soon as the teacher meets all requirements for permanency without waiting for the end of the third year.

Schools’ prerogative to set high standards for teachers

We cannot agree to the proposition of the authors of the bill that once the teacher acquires the necessary license or master’s degree required,

This is contrary to the right of the private school to provide its own standards for regular employment of its teachers. In fact, the Supreme Court in

(GR 100629, July 5, 1996) said: “It is the prerogative of the school to set high standards of efficiency for its teachers since quality education is a mandate of the Constitution. As long as the standards fixed are reasonable and not arbitrary, courts are not at liberty to set them aside. Schools cannot be required to adopt standards which barely satisfy criteria set for government recognition.”

No probation for public school teachers?

In the explanatory note, the authors stated that in the public sector, teachers, by mere fact of their appointment under the DepEd, are presumed fit and competent enough for regular employment, there being no such thing as a probationary period pursuant to Republic Act 4670 or the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.” This is not entirely accurate. The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers provides un