<div dir="ltr"><h1 class="">SC stops curriculum order</h1>
<span class=""><strong>By <span class="">Rey E. Requejo</span></strong> | Apr. 23, 2015 at 12:01am </span>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<a class=""><div class=""><span style="vertical-align:bottom;width:78px;height:20px"></span></div></a>
<a class=""><span class=""></span></a>
<a class=""><span></span></a><a href="http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/04/23/sc-stops-curriculum-order/#" title="View more services" target="_blank" class="">1</a>
</div>
</div>
<p>THE Supreme
Court stopped the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) on Wednesday
from implementing its memorandum that excludes from the curriculum for
college Filipino and Panitikan as core courses.</p>
<p>In its full court session held in Baguio City Tuesday, the SC issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining the CHED from implementing its
Memorandum No. 20, which prescribes the new General Education Curriculum
(GEC) for college, and reduces the GEC to a minimum of 36 units and
excluded Filipino as a subject in the core courses and deleted Panitikan
(Literature) as a core subject.</p>
<p>SC spokesperson Theodore Te said the TRO is effective immediately,
and the Court directed the respondents CHED to comment on the petition
filed by several professors from various universities and colleges
seeking to enjoin the implementation of CHED Memorandum Order No. 20.</p>
<p>“Acting on the petition for review on certiorari with prayer for TRO
and writ of preliminary injunction, the Court resolved, without giving
due course to the petition to . . . issue a temporary restraining order,
effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this
Court, enjoining the respondents from implementing and enforcing the
provisions of the Commission on Higher Education Memorandum No. 20
Series of 2013, insofar as it excluded from the curriculum for college
Filipino and Panitikan as core courses,” the Court declared.</p>
<p>The petitioners – National Artist for Literature and University of
the Philippines Professor Emeritus, Dr. Bienvenido Lumbera, and Alliance
of Concerned Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio, Anakpawis Partylist
Rep. Fernando Hicap and Kabataan Partylist Rep. Terry Ridon – earlier
argued that CMO No. 20, Series of 2013 violates five constitutional
provisions.</p>
<p>The provisions include those on the national language, Philippine
culture, nationalist education, and labor policy, contained in Article
XIV, Section 6; Article XIV, Sections 14, 15, 18; Article XIV, Section
3; Article II, Section 17; Article XIV, Section 2 and 3; Article II,
Section 18; and Article XIII, Section 3.</p>
<p>The group said CMO 20 disregards the pro-national language spirit of
the Constitution and its emphasis on nationalism and cultural awareness
as core values of Philippine education, and the Constitution’s pro-labor
provisions that gives workers the right to participate in policy-making
activities.</p>
<p>The petitioners claim that they were never consulted in the crafting of the assailed CMO.</p>
<p>The group also lamented that the assailed CMO violates Republic Act
7104 or “Organic Act of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino/KWF/Commission
on the Filipino Language”, Republic Act No. 232 or Education Act of
1982, and Republic Act No. 7356, otherwise known as “Organic Act of the
National Commission on Culture and the Arts/NCCA.”</p>
<p>With regard to RA 7104, the petitioners argue that CHED violated the
law when it usurped one of the KWF’s functions – which is to formulate
language policy.</p>
<p>They also asserted that the CMO 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 – such as Filipino
Language, Literature, and Philippine Government & Constitution.</p><p><a href="http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/04/23/sc-stops-curriculum-order/">http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/04/23/sc-stops-curriculum-order/</a><br></p><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">**************************************<br>N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members<br>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)<br><br>For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/" target="_blank">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>*******************************************</div>
</div>