G.R. No. 216930/G.R. No. 217451/G.R. No. 217752/G.R. No. 218045/G.R. No. 218098/G.R. No. 218123/G.R. No. 218465. October 9, 2018

**G.R. No. 216930/G.R. No. 217451/G.R. No. 217752/G.R. No. 218045/G.R. No. 218098/G.R. No. 218123/G.R. No. 218465. October 9, 2018** is a decision 2018 made by the Supreme Court.

Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (COTESCUP), et al. Vs. Secretary of Education, et al./Dr. Bienvenido Lumbera (Pambansang Alagad ng Sining at Professor Emeritus, UP), et al. Vs. Pangulong Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III, et al./Antoniio "Sonny" F. Trillanes IV, et al. Vs. Hon. Paquito N. Ochora, Jr., et al./Eduardo R. Arlicias, Jr. and Aurelio P. Ramos, Jr. Vs. Department of Education and The Secretary of the Deped/Richard Troy A. Colmenares, et al. Vs. Department of Education Secretary Armin A. Luistro, et al./Congressman Antonio Tinio, et al. Vs. President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III, et al./Ma. Dolores Brillates, et al. Vs. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/october2018/216930.pdf

Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa

## Overview

***History of the Philippines' Basic Education System***

On January 21, 1901, the Philippine Commission created the Department of Public Instruction[4] through Act No. 74. All schools established under the auspices of the Military Government were made under the control of the officers of the Department of Public Instruction and as early as this law, the primary education established through it was considered free. Act No. 74 also made English language as the basis of all public school instruction and allowed optional religious instruction in all schools.

***Education for All 2015 and the Kindergarten Education Act***

In 2000, at the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal, one hundred sixty four (164) governments, including the Philippines, pledged to achieve, by 2015, the following six (6) Education for All (EFA) goals: (1) expansion and improvement of early childhood care and education; (2) universal access to complete free and compulsory primary education of good quality; (3) equitable access to appropriate learning and life skills program for youth and adult; (4) improvement of levels of adult literacy, especially for women; (5) gender parity and equality in education; and (6) improvement of all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring their excellence.

***K to 12 Program Implementation and CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 20, Series of 2013***

The K to 12 basic education was implemented in parts. Universal kindergarten was offered starting School Year (SY) 2011-2012. In 2012, DepEd started unclogging the BEC to conform to the K to 12 Curriculum. Thus, DO No. 31 was issued setting forth policy guidelines in the implementation of the Grades 1 to 10 of the K to 12 Curriculum. DO No. 31 provides that effective SY 2012-2013, the new K to 12 BEC, which follows a spiral approach across subjects and uses the mother tongue as a medium of instruction from Grades 1 to 3, shall be first implemented in Grades 1 and 7 of all public elementary and secondary schools; and while private schools are enjoined to do the same, they may further enhance the curriculum to suit their school's vision/mission.

## Issues

A. Procedural:

* Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy;
* Whether certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are proper remedies to assail the laws and issuances.

B. Substantive:

* Whether the K to 12 Law was duly enacted;
* Whether the K to 12 Law constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power;
* Whether DO No. 31 is valid and enforceable;
* Whether the K to 12 Law, K to 12 IRR, DO No. 31 and/or the Joint Guidelines contravene provisions of the Philippine Constitution on:
* establishing and maintaining a system of free elementary and high school education and making elementary education compulsory for all children of school age (Section 2[2], Article XIV);
* the right to accessible and quality education at all levels and duty of the State to make such education accessible to all (Section 1, Article XIV);
* the primary duty of parents to rear and prepare their children (Section 2[2], Article XIV);
* the right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study (Section 5[3], Article XIV);            patriotism and nationalism (Sections 13 and 17, Article II, Section 3[1] and [2], Article XIV);
* the use of Filipino as medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system (Section 6, Article XIV);
* and regional languages as auxiliary media of instruction (Section 7, Article XIV);
* academic freedom (Section 5[2], Article XIV); and
* the right of labor to full protection (Section 18, Article II, Section 3, Article XIII and Section 5[4], Article XIV);
* Whether CMO No. 20 contravenes provisions of the Philippine Constitution on:
* the use of Filipino as medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system (Section 6, Article XIV);
* preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture (Sections 14, 15, and 16, Article XIV);
* inclusion of the study of the Philippine Constitution as part of the curriculum of all educational institutions (Section 3[1], Article XIV);
* giving priority to education to foster patriotism and nationalism (Section 17, Article II and Sections 2 and 3, Article XIV); and
* the protection of the rights of workers and promotion of their welfare (Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII).
* Whether CMO No. 20 violates the following laws:
* RA No. 7104 or the Commission on the Filipino Language Act;
* BP Blg. 232 or the Education Act of 1982; and
* RA No. 7356 or the Act Creating the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, Establishing National Endowment Fund for Culture and the Arts and For Other Purposes.
* Whether the K to 12 Law violates petitioners' right to substantive due process and equal protection of the laws.

## Info

**The Supreme Court should not be thought of as having been tasked with**
 the awesome responsibility of overseeing the entire bureaucracy. **Unless there is a clear showing of constitutional infirmity or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,** the Court's exercise of the judicial power, pervasive and limitless it may seem to be, still must succumb to the paramount doctrine of separation of powers. **After a careful review of the records of the case, we find that this jurisprudential element of abuse of discretion has not been shown to exist.**

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, the consolidated petitions are hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Court declares Republic Act No. 10533, Republic Act No. 10157, CHED Memorandum Order No. 20, Series of 2013, Department of Education Order No. 31, Series of 2012, and Joint Guidelines on the Implementation of the Labor and Management Component of Republic Act No. 10533, as **CONSTITUTIONAL**. The Temporary Restraining Order dated April 21, 2015 issued in G.R. No. 217451 is hereby **LIFTED**.

**SO ORDERED.**

## Separate Concurring Opinion

* Marvic Leonen
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/october2018/216930\_leonen.pdf

## Trivia

* *En Banc*
* K-12 program