The Supreme Court ruling on K to 12 and Filipino subjects
So much vitriol has been thrown at Padre Faura Street since the release of the Supreme Court decision upholding the K to 12 basic education reform and the removal of Filipino subjects from college. Most, if not all of it, are misplaced, and betrays the propensity of many critics to fire away without informing themselves first.
What was the ruling of the high tribunal? In summary, the Supreme Court has left the issues — the number of years of basic education and the content of the college curriculum — to the competency of Congress and the Executive branch.
And rightly so. Whether basic education should be 10 years or 13 years is outside the realm of the high tribunal. Making kindergarten and two years of senior high school mandatory is not a constitutional issue, and there is no sign that Congress abused its discretion when it passed the law that mandated K to 12 — Republic Act 10533 or the
“Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.”
So is the removal of Filipino and Panitikan (Literature) subjects from the college general education curriculum (GEC). It would be highly absurd for anyone, more so those in academia, to make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of university education.
There is no more significant resistance to the imposition of senior high school today, perhaps because of the fact that most of the world have long adopted the K to 12 scheme, and the Philippines’ previous recalcitrance had made it difficult for Filipinos to have their academic credentials recognized by foreign employers and schools.
What needs sense is the debate on the court’s decision to lift a 2015 restraining order on the removal of Filipino subjects.
The opposition to it is largely emotional and at times, irrational. Some of the critics — prominent writers among them — have gone as far as to question the nationalism of Supreme Court justices and label them “anti-Filipino.”
Such statements are thoroughly unfair. The high court did not pass judgement on the merits or demerits of the inclusion of Filipino and Panitikan in the university curriculum. Why should it? The Supreme Court does not determine policy. It cannot and should not direct schools on the number of units of Filipino that students must take up in college.
“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,” the high court said in its 94-page ruling dated October 9.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court did not ban Filipino in college or the entire educational system; it merely upheld the prerogative of the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) to remove it from the GEC and “download” it to senior high school. Anger should be directed at the educational bureaucrats, not the high court.
Colleges and universities are still allowed to offer Filipino subjects if they wish to. Better yet, they can offer certain GEC courses in Filipino, something that can help in the intellectualization of the national language.
Since this is CHEd policy, however, it should make good on its earlier promises to help college professors who might lose their jobs, through financial assistance, scholarships, retraining or retooling to handle other courses, or transitioning to senior high school.
CHEd has won its battle for supremacy over the college curriculum. It should use the Supreme Court ruling as a justification for the national government to give it more resources to smoothen the effects of the K to 12 reform, not cause any more disruption.
The post The Supreme Court ruling on K to 12 and Filipino subjects appeared first on The Manila Times Online.