spot_img
28.6 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Moves to block K-12 gaining steam at SC

- Advertisement -

Another group has asked the Supreme Court to stop the implementation of the government’s K-12 education program for being unconstitutional and “anti-Filipino.”

In a petition, a group of professors from universities, student leaders and   party-list lawmakers Antonio Tinio, Fernando “Ka Pando” Hicap and Terry Ridon sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order  against the  program that would entail a new curriculum for colleges and universities.

They said the new college curriculum, which abolishes mandatory subjects in the current curriculum such as Filipino language, Literature, and Philippine Government and Constitution, to be implemented by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) through Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 20 -2013 is “anti-Filipino.”

The petitioners stressed that the new policy violates the constitution as it “disregards the pro-national language spirit of the framers of the Constitution, the emphasis on nationalism and cultural awareness as core values of Philippine education and the pro-labor provisions that gives workers.”

They also lamented the failure of the CHED to conduct public consultation before they issued the order.

- Advertisement -

Besides, they said, the policy violates the Education Act of 1982 because it does not comply with the law’s provision on a nationalist-oriented general education curriculum in college, as it abolishes subjects that are vital in promoting national identity, indigenous culture, and responsible citizenship – including the subjects Filipino Language, Literature, and Philippine Government and Constitution.

Last month, the Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines filed a similar petition questioning the legality of the K-12 program under Republic Act 10533 and its implementing rules and regulations.

Petitioners claimed that RA 10533 violates the rights of education workers to full protection of labor, promotion of full employment and equality of employment opportunities, which are all mandated under Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The groups told the high tribunal that more than 70,000 college teachers and non-teaching personnel stand to lose their jobs as a result of the full implementation of the program in 2016.

Because of this, they told the high court there would be a lag of two years in enrolment at the tertiary level by 2016 as additional two years of senior high school.

Apart from the law and its IRR, they also questioned before the SC the joint guidelines dated May 30, 2014, Department of Education (DepEd) Memo No. 2 Series of 2015 dated January 2015 and House Bill No. 5493 filed on February 23, 2015.

Petitioners alleged that the orders had no basis under the K-12 Law when they provided for compensation (upon transfer to senior high school) and retrenchment of workers.

They further argued that the issuances are contrary to law and jurisprudence as education workers are forced to suffer such forms of unjust labor practices.

 The SC has already ordered the DepEd and CHED to answer the first petition in a resolution dated March 24.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles