SC: FILIPINO, ‘PANITIKAN’ NO LONGER CORE COLLEGE SUBJECTS

Jerome Aning, Tetch Torres-Tupas

The Supreme Court. INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO

Updated @ 12:08 a.m., Nov. 11, 2018

The Supreme Court has ruled that Filipino and Panitikan (Philippine Literature) may now be excluded
from the core subjects in college as it upheld the constitutionality of the controversial K-12 law.

The unanimous ruling was dated Oct. 9 but released to the media by the court only on Friday.

The court declared that a Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) memorandum that reduced the
general education curriculum to a minimum of 36 units was valid.

CHEd’s Memorandum Order No. 20 Series of 2013 considered Filipino and Panitikan as no longer core
subjects.

University and college professors, national artists and lawmakers grouped under Alyansa ng Mga
Tagapagtanggol ng Wikang Filipino (Tanggol Wika) had argued that the CHEd directive violated the
Organic Act of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino, the Education Act of 1982 and the Organic Act of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts.

The court said changes in the General Education (GE) curriculum also ensured that there would be no
duplication of subjects in grade school, high school and college.

It said petitioners’ allegations that CHEd “removed” the study of Filipino and Panitikan from the GE
curriculum was “incorrect.”
The high tribunal issued a temporary restraining order on the implementation of the new curriculum in
2015. But in ruling to affirm the constitutionality of the K-12 program, it also lifted the order.

10-0 vote

Voting 10-0, the high court denied the petitions against the K-12 law, or Republic Act No. 10533, filed by
seven groups of teachers, academic organizations, education sector employees, parents, students and
legislators, including Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and members of the Makabayan bloc in the House of
Representatives.

The court ruled that the K-12 law was duly enacted, did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative
power and did not infringe on constitutional provisions regarding right to education, right of parents to
rear their children, the right of persons to choose their profession, academic freedom, right of labor to
full protection and the use of Filipino as medium of instruction in the educational system.

It also upheld Republic Act No. 10157, or the Kindergarten Act of 2012, and other issuances of the
Department of Education, CHEd, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority and the labor
department that implemented the K-12 basic education program.

“The court, despite its vast powers, will not review the wisdom, merits, or propriety of governmental
policies, but will strike them down only on either of two grounds: unconstitutionality or illegality and/or
grave abuse of discretion,” it said.

It said the petitioners “failed to show any of the above in the passage of the assailed law and the
department issuances” and suggested that they should instead seek remedies from the executive and
legislative branches of the government, not the court.

Rejected arguments

It rejected the arguments that K-12 increased the resource gap by creating more need for resources;
that the government did not have enough funds to add two more years of senior high school; that
student-teacher ratio was far from ideal; that teachers were lowly paid; and that there was no assurance
that senior high school students would get good employment.

It said these were policy matters that were “not the concern of the court.”

Former Education Secretary Armin Luistro, who had pushed for the crafting and implementation of the
K-12 program, said he was “very impressed” with the court’s handling of the petitions.

“The decision enshrines many of the positions taken by the DepEd when it formulated and implemented
the K-12 reform. It is a reaffirmation of the work of the former DepEd team and the continuing support
of the current administration,” Luistro said.

‘Antinationalist’

United Petitioners Against K-to-12 and Tanggol Wika slammed the ruling for affirming what they
described as an “antinationalist and rotten system” that reeked of neocolonial agenda.

David San Juan of Suspend K-to-12 alliance, one of the petitioners, said they would continue to exhaust
all legal and constitutional remedies against the Supreme Court ruling.
San Juan said the Supreme Court decision was influenced by the government’s “attempt to secure the
neocolonial restructuring of our education system.”

One criticism against K-12 was that it was supposed to produce employable high school graduates who
could serve as cheap labor. —With reports from Krixia Subingsubing and Mariejo S. Ramos
 SC: FILIPINO, ‘PANITIKAN’ NO LONGER CORE COLLEGE SUBJECTS

Our group identify this article in Domain 1, Content Knowledge and Pedagogy and under the
strand 6, Mother Tongue, Filipino, English in teaching learning.

As we relate the Article of removing of Filipino subject in strand no. 6, we should first define
what is Mother Tongue; it is the language which a person has grown up speaking from early childhood.
That is way the subject Filipino has been remove by Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) in tertiary.
If the CHED removed it, as an educator, we should build a good foundation for the student in primary to
grade school until secondary so that they will become fully-equip with all the knowledge and ideas they
already want to work or to proceed to tertiary education. And if any Philippine dialects could be
used/taught in the education curriculum, then not only instructors who are proficient in English or
Filipino will be able to teach said subjects, but also those who are proficient in other Philippine dialects.

If the panitikan or the Filipino subject was already removed by the Supreme Court as a core
subject in tertiary, as an educator however there are good sides of this article in terms of the
prioritization and focus of the college students who are taking their courses. They can be fully focused
on their major subjects that earned more units than the Filipino subject. As the article mentioned that
“changes in the General Education (GE) curriculum also ensured that there would be no duplication of
subjects in grade school, high school and college”, but unfortunately the implication of this issue to the
learners would be in terms of their nationalistic and respect to our old Panitikan. Some students will
surely forget the significance of our Filipino subject. As an educator this issue will affect our profession
especially to the grade school and secondary teachers, because we have to enriched our knowledge and
foundation of the Filipino subject that we will impart to the learners, we need to have better discussion
and strategies. Our goal is to give them better and good foundation to Filipino subject in grade school to
secondary so that they will not easily forgot what was taught to them.