Supreme Court

declares K-12
constitutional
The law is an exercise of the
stateʼs police power, the
High Court says

Lian Buan

9)11)42am November 10, 2018

9)14)19am November 10, 2018

K12 CURRICULUM. Members of the Alliance

of Concerned Teachers (ACT) gathered
signatures from parents and passersby as
they rallied against the K to 12 program in
2015. Photo by Ben Nabong/Rappler

K12 CURRICULUM. Members of

the Alliance of Concerned
Teachers (ACT) gathered
signatures from parents and
passersby as they rallied against
the K to 12 program in 2015.
Photo by Ben Nabong/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines – The

Supreme Court has declared the
K-12 curriculum constitutional,
saying that it was an exercise of
the stateʼs police power, and that
problems that may result from
the policy are not concerns of the
Court.

The 94-page ponencia was

promulgated October 9, and
penned by Associate Justice
Benjamin Caguioa with
unanimous votes. Associate
Justices Lucas Bersamin,
Alexander Gesmundo, and Jose
Reyes Jr were on leave and did
not cast a vote.

The en banc denied the

consolidated petitions of groups
who questioned K-12, declared
the law constitutional, and even
lifted the Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) in 2015 that stopped
the exclusion of Filipino in the
General Education (GE)
curriculum.

Police power and Filipino

Police power is the power of the

state to enforce laws that will
benefit the general welfare of its
people.

For the en banc, the Philippines

has revised its education laws
throughout history and passing
the K-12 law was another revision
that is in compliance with the
Stateʼs police power.

“One can easily discern that the

enactment of education laws,
including the K to 12 Law and the
Kindergarten Education Act, their
respective implementing rules
and regulations and the
issuances of the government
agencies, are an exercise of the
State's police power,” said the en
banc.

The en banc also said that the

Congress had the right to add
years to basic education
because “by no means did the
Constitution foreclose the
possibility that the legislature
provides beyond the minimum set
by the Constitution.”

In declaring K-12 constitutional,

the en banc also lifted the 2015
TRO that stopped the exclusion
of Filipino in the GE.

The en banc said that the

petitionerʼs basis, which is
Section 6, Article XIV of the
Constitution, is a non-self-
executing provision.

Self-executing provisions are the

parts of the Constitution that do
not need a law to be enforceable.
Non-self-executing provisions
need a law. Section 6, Article XIV
says “the Government shall take
steps to initiate and sustain the
use of Filipino as a medium of
official communication and as
language of instruction in the
educational system.”

Because it is a non-self-
executing provision, the en banc
said they are not “judicially
enforceable constitutional rights.”

Effect on teachers, jobs

One of the arguments against K-

12 is the supposed job losses that
would result from the shift.

The en banc reasoned that the

right to security of tenure is
already “set in stone” in the
Labor Code and civil service law.

The en banc also did not give

merit to the argument that K-12
discriminated against a sector of
students. The petitioners argued
that K-12 gave premium to
preparing students for
international standards, when not
every student intends to join
global industries.

For the en banc, the intent of K-

12 as seen by the “spiral
approach” that claims to address
congestion and responsiveness,
means that the “law caters to the
interest of the public in general,
as opposed to a particular group
of people.”

The Manila Science High School

also disputed the global
preparedness aspect of K-12,
saying its students are not trained
for immediate employment, but
for further studies to become
experts based in the Philippines.
The en banc said the Manila
Science High School was not able
to prove why it must be given a
valid classification.

Policy not Courtʼs concern

Throughtout the decision, the en

banc made disclaimers that it was
in no way ruling whether or not K-
12 was effective.

The Court claimed its only

concerns were judicial in nature,
and not on effectiveness.

“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,” said the en banc.

Higher Education Institutions

(HEI) teachers complained that
they were being moved out of
colleges to senior high school,
and that this supposedly violated
their academic freedom.

The Court reminded teachers

that they could still be fired for
valid cause under labor and civil
laws.

“While the Court agrees, in

principle, that security of tenure
is an important aspect of
academic freedom -that the
freedom is only meaningful if the
faculty members are assured that
they are free to pursue their
academic endeavors without fear
of reprisals -it is likewise equally
true that convergence of security
of tenure and academic freedom
does not preclude the termination
of a faculty member for a valid
cause,”said the en banc.

Finally, the Court said: “Absent

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.” –
Rappler.com

RECOMMENDED STORIES

The week in photos: November

3-9, 2018

Adamson spoils Alvin Pasaol's

record-breaking effort

2010 Election Results: Santa

Maria, Laguna | Comelec Live
Data | Philippine National and
Local Elections | Updated Real
Time