Petition to the Supreme Court for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus to Declare the K-to-12...

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT

Manila

RICHARD TROY A. COLMENARES, RENE LUIS M. TADLE, ERLINDA C. PALAGANAS, RUTH THELMA P. TINGDA, RONALD TAGGAOA, JOSEPH PORFIRIO ANDAYA, FLORANTE DULACA, FROILAN A. ALIPAO; KATHLEA FRANCYNN GAWANI D. YAGOT, MIEL ALEXANDRE A. TAGGAOA, AGATHA ZITA DISTOR, ISABELLE C. UMINGA, ALDWIN GABRIEL M. PINAS, ATREENA MARIE DULAY, ZION GABRIEL SANTOS, SIBLINGS BRENNAN KEANE, BREN KIMI, AND BASLEY KICH, ALL SURNAMED DELA CRUZ, JASSEL ANGELO ENRIQUEZ, SIBLINGS GYRO MATTHEW AND MARGA RAUXIELLE AGLAIA, BOTH SURNAMED GUEVARRA, SIBLINGS ALTHEA, ALEXA, AND AMANDA, ALL SURNAMED ABEJO, AND ELEANNIE JERECE S. CAWIS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR PARENTS LEANDRO B. YAGOT, JR, JENNIFER A. TAGGAOA, MILO DISTOR, JOSE MARI UMINGA, GABRIEL PAUL PINAS, SOFRONIO DULAY, LUZ A. SANTOS, BARBY M. DELA CRUZ, RUBY G. ENRIQUEZ, ROWENA C. GUEVARRA, MARISEL P. ABEJO, AND VITTORIO JERICO L. CAWIS, RESPECTIVELY, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE CLASS THEY REPRESENT; REVENENDO R. VARGAS, ANNIELA R. YU-SOLIVEN, VILMA C. BENIGNO, MARIA CRISTINA F. DUNGCA, LIZA DAOANIS, ROMMEL M. FRANCISCO, FELIZA G. AGUSTIN, EMELITA C. VIDAL, ROMMEL D. RAMISCAL, JOCELYN ELEAZAR DE GUZMAN, ANDREA P. VILLALON, AND JOYCE FE T. ALMENARIO, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE CLASS THEY REPRESENT,

Petitioners,

SC-G.R. SP No. _____ for: CERTIORARI,

PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS under Rule 65 with PRAYER FOR Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction

vs. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SECRETARY ARMIN A. LUISTRO, COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION CHAIRPERSON PATRICIA

B. LICUANAN, TECHNICAL SKILLS AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DIRECTOR-GENERAL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECRETARY ROSALINDA D. BALDOZ, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SECRETARY CESAR V. PURISIMA, SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON, AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE,

Respondents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS

COME NOW, Petitioners, through the undersigned counsels, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully state:

PROLEGOMENA In 1987, the present Constitution was overwhelmingly adopted.

Regarded as the only direct legislation of the Filipino people, it is supreme. No law or act of any branch or instrumentality is valid when it contravenes any of the provisions of the Constitution. Any incompatible law or act is null and void1 and produces no force and effect. Vox populi, vox Dei.

Vox populi decided that the Philippines should have only one Congress comprised by the Senate and the House of Representatives. There is no third chamber. The Constitution is categorical :

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.2

This is unambiguous: Except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum, only Congress can enact statutes. However, this power may be delegated by statute to administrative

1 Sabio v. Gordon (G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 704). 2 Sec. 1, Art. 7, 1987 Constitution.

bodies3 and to local government units.4 What happens then when the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate President siphon legislative powers and supplant the judgment of the elected people's representatives by surreptitiously enrolling a bill different in substance and form from the product of their legislative work, which is subsequently signed into law by the President of the Philippines? What happens when an agency under the Executive Branch issues an order that creates new obligations for parents and unduly burdens the human right to education of every child without any statutory, much less constitutional, underpinning? What happens when provisions of the Constitution are infringed by statute or an administrative order? Then the judicial branch must step in when summoned to protect vox populi that the Philippines has only one Congress. The judicial branch is duty bound to enforce the supremacy of the people's voice. The judicial branch must fix what can only be a legal bedlam.

Courts act as guardians of the political processes when the political branches abuse them and rob the people of their voice in the democratic set-up. In a representative democracy like the Philippines,5 powers of the elected representatives are restricted by the Constitution. Its principal features include a system of checks and balances and entrenched individual rights protected by an independent judiciary.6

According to John Hart Ely, the judiciary is the most insulated branch of government7 owing to the fact that judges enjoy security of tenure, and, to a limited degree, the mode of their selection. This relative insulation from the democratic process, Ely argued, situates them well to police malfunctions in the process especially in cases of conspiracy between the legislature and the executive supplanting the majoritys will.8 He said that the courts can strike down the decisions of the elected officials if they are self-serving, are adverse to the political process, or affect discrete or insular minorities.9 Courts should construe the Constitution to fortify and strengthen democratic processes and reinforce popular representation and public participation.

Petitioners come before this Honorable Court asking that it exercise its power of judicial review to uphold processes indispensable to a working democracy protected by the Constitution. Essentially, they come to the

3 Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 696. 4 Please see Secs 3 and 20, Art. X, 1987 Constitution. 5 Sec. 1. Art. II of the Philippine Constitution provides: The Philippines is a democratic and

republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all governmental authority emanates from them.

6 Roberto Gargarella, A Majoritarian Reading of the Rule of Law in ADAM PRZEWROSKI, ET AL. (EDS) DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW 147 (2003).

7 JOHN HART ELY, WAR AND RESPONSIBILITY: CONSTITUTIONAL LESSONS OF VIET NAM AND ITS AFTERMATH 54 (1993).

8 Id. 9 JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST: A THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 87 (1980).

succor of the Constitution this herculean document which, while on the side of the powerful at times, also guards the rights of the weak and the unheard. By defending the Constitution, they are also defending themselves from the undemocratic, capricious exercise of governmental power.

Petitioners appeal to this Honorable Court to strike down the K to 12 Program of the government for having been adopted in violation of the provisions of the Constitution on legislation, the principles of separation of powers and constitutional supremacy which are deemed written in every republican basic law, and entrenched human rights which the Republic of the Philippines committed to respect, protect, and fulfill under international treaty obligations.

The K to 12 Program is no ordinary government program. It is set to

massively displace thousands of workers. It is set to redefine access to education especially for the poor who must spend for additional three years of education. It unduly burdens the exercise of the human right to education. If damage of this monumental magnitude must befall this nation, it must have constitutional grounds. Then we can say to those who must suffer that they have to make a sacrifice to honor the wishes of the Filipino nation articulated in their fundamental law.

On the premise that the Philippine educational system is already outdated and not globally competitive, the administration of Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III pursued and continues to pursue what it termed the 'enhancement' of basic education. One culprit identified by the present administration for the countrys supposedly poor and non-competitive educational system is its pre-university or basic education. Extending the number of years of basic education from 10 years to 13 years under what is now called the K to 12 Program is seen as the cure for what ails the country's educational system, often criticized for being irrelevant and unresponsive to the country's actual needs as it has a labor-export policy orientation and for being the driving force for brain drain. On January 20, 2012, Republic Act No. 1015710 entitled AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR entered the statute books. The law made kindergarten education compulsory, virtually amending the Constitution which textually expresses that only elementary education is compulsory.

In 2012, even devoid of statutory bases, the Department of Education (DepEd) precipitately issued DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 entitled POLICY

10 Also known as the Kindergarten Education Act.

GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013. Parents and parents' organizations were not consulted on and informed of this major shift in the curriculum and the additional years added to their children's educational life cycle, spelling more monetary burdens for them. It was made to take effect in the academic year 2012-2013 with the roll-out of Grades 1 and Grade 7. The government, by walling off parents and excluding them from the discourse, reduced them into passive objects and not active subjects of educational plans affecting their own children. This not only denied them their right to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect their families recognized by the Constitution and international law. It is downright disempowering as it invisibilizes them from the processes in which, constitutionally, they play vital roles.

In May 2013, Rep. Act 10533 or AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, was approved by Pres. Aquino.

The bill signed into law by President Aquino was not the final output of Congress. It is not the presumed will of the Filipino people who belong to what is supposed to be a republic. The enrolled bill is substantively and formally different from the Congress bill as reported in the Senate Journal. What he signed was the work of another Congress not recognized by the fundamental law of the land, the 1987 Constitution which is an articulation of the voice of the sovereign polity.

The K to 12 Program has no legal and constitutional basis. Petitioners beg this Honorable Court to strike it down.

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is an original petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court of the Rules of Court with a prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction.

2. The petition seeks to:

a. Strike down and declare as unconstitutional the K to 12 Program and the following which form its legal bases:

a. Republic Act No. 10533 entitled AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES also known as The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013,and its Implementing Rules and Regulations;

b. Republic Act No. 10157 entitled AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR also known as The Kindergarten Education Act; and

c. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 201211 entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013.

b. Enjoin all the respondents from implementing the above unconstitutional laws and administrative order or rule and regulation, and to restrain them from any and all acts relative thereto; and

c. Enjoin the release of public funds from the public treasury relative to the assailed K to 12 Program of the government.

3. Petitioners invoke the power of this Honorable Court as the last bastion of democracy and as the vanguard of the peoples right against unbridled grave abuse in the exercise of power by any branch or instrumentality of the government. They are ready to prove that the Republic Acts in question were unduly enacted and did not accordingly become law, and that DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 was illegally issued being in the nature of usurpation of legislative powers and is therefore null and void.

4. Petitioners have properly verified this petition and duly certified the same against forum shopping. They have also served copies of the Petition upon the respondents by registered mail, as attested to by the attached affidavit of service. The corresponding docket fees were also paid upon the filing of the petition.

11 Issued on April 7, 2012.

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

5. The administration of President Benigno Aquino III (President Aquino) introduced the K to 12 Program or the Kindergarten to Grade 12 Program in 2012. The K to 12 Program covers Kindergarten and 12 years of basic education (six years of primary education, four years of Junior High School, and two years of Senior High School). It was covertly inaugurated on January 20, 2012 with the passage of Republic Act No. 10157 entitled AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. It became an official government policy on April 17, 2012 with the issuance by Department of Education (DepEd) Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro of DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013. At that time, there was no K to 12 Law to be implemented, much less, to speak of.

6. All minor petitioners, with the exception of 7-month old Eleannie

Jerece Cawis, are forcibly under the K to 12 Program as rolled out in the school year 2012-2013 before the passage of Rep. Act 10533. They will have to undergo two more years of basic education under DepEd Order No. 31.

7. On May 15, 2013, Pres. Aquino signed Republic Act No. 10533 or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 into law. Petitioning parents are forced and will continually be forced to subject their children to the unconstitutional K to 12 Program unless it is sooner withdrawn from the statute books by judicial fiat. Along with the petitioning minors, they possess a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.12

8. This Petition, which presents the constitutionality of the assailed laws and administrative acts as the lis mota or crux of the controversy as the resolution of the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision of the case itself,13 is mature and timely for adjudication since it satisfies the prerequisite that something

12 IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000) citing Joya v. PCGG, 225 SCRA 568 (1993); House International Building Tenants Association, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 151 SCRA 703 (1987).

13 Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 86889, 192 SCRA 51 (1990).

had by then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture14 ensuring that the outcome will not be an abstraction, or a merely hypothetical exercise.15

THE PARTIES A. The Petitioners

9. Petitioner Richard Troy A. Colmenares is a private citizen who is filing this action by way of actio popularis considering that the issue of constitutionality of the K to 12 Program is a matter of strong public interest and of transcendental importance and has an overarching significance to society. Petitioner, a law student, has assiduously studied the K to 12 Program-related laws and is disturbed by the blatant disregard of constitutional precepts on the manner of passage of laws.

10. Petitioners Kathlea Francynn Gawani D. Yagot of Eagle Crest Subdivision, Bakakeng Norte, Baguio City; Miel Alexandre Taggaoa of San Carlos Heights, Irisan, Baguio City; Agatha Distor of Igorot Jewel Building, Km 4, La Trinidad, Benguet; Isabelle C. Uminga of Lower Irisan, Baguio City; Aldwin Gabriel M. Pinas of FB 101 Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet; Atreena Marie Dulay of 15 Isabelo Mendoza St., San Roque, Marikina City; Zion Gabriel Santos; siblings Brennan Keane, Bren Kimi, and Basley Kich, all surnamed dela Cruz; Jassel Angelo Enriquez; siblings Gyro Matthew and Marga Rauxielle Aglaia, both surnamed Guevarra; and siblings Althea, Alexa, and Amanda, all surnamed Abejo, are minors represented by their parents Leandro B. Yagot, Jr; Jennifer A. Taggaoa, Milo Distor, Jose Mari Uminga, Gabriel Paul Pinas, Sofronio Dulay, Luz A. Santos, Barby M. Dela Cruz, Ruby G. Enriquez, Rowena C. Guevarra, and Marisel P. Abejo, respectively. Because of the precipitate implementation of the K to 12 Program under Dep Ed Order No. 31 in 2012 when there was still no legislative measure institutionalizing the program, they will have to undergo two more years of high school education as a matter of compulsion. They are filing this suit on their behalves and on behalf of all other students of the Philippines who are similarly situated but are too numerous to file this action. They and their class stand to suffer direct injury in terms of two more years of high school education under a program which has no valid legal basis.

14 Tan v. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677 (1972) 15 De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010.

11. Petitioner Eleannie Jerece Cawis of Camp 7, Zigzag Road, Baguio City, is 7 months old and is represented in this suit by her father Vittorio Jerico L. Cawis. Under Rep. Act 10157 and Rep. Act 10533, she will have to compulsorily obtain kindergarten education before she may enter elementary school. She stands to be denied admission into elementary school should she be unable to complete kindergarten education.

12. Petitioners Revenendo R. Vargas of 2246 Amatista Street, San

Andres Bukid; Anniela R. Yu-Soliven of 2002 Visayan Avenue, Sampaloc, Manila; Vilma C. Benigno of 1806 A. Francisco St., San Andres Bukid, Manila; Maria Cristina F. Dungca of 1731 Donada St., Pasay City; Liza Daoan is of Block 1 Lot 5 Pinagpala Village, Acacia Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City; Rommel M. Francisco of 1227 Casaas St., Sampaloc, Manila; Feliza G. Agustin of Unit 2817 Manila Executive Regency, 1200 J. Bocobo St., Ermita, Manila; Emelita C. Vidal of B6 L6 Ph2 Sta. Catalina Avida, Salawag, Dasmarias, Cavite; Rommel D. Ramiscal of 17 Ngabangab, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte; Jocelyn Eleazar de Guzman of 146-B Ilang-ilang St., Gregoria Heights, San Isidro, Taytay, Rizal; Andrea P. Villalon of 45 S. Francisco, San Bartolome, Novaliches, Quezon City; and Joyce Fe T. Almenario of 1175 L. Guerrero St,. Ermita, Manila are parents of children who are subject to the K to 12 Program. They are filing this suit on their behalves and on behalf of all other students of the Philippines who are similarly situated but are too numerous to file this action. They and their class stand to suffer direct injury in terms of additional cost for at most three more years (representing kindergarten and two years of senior high school) for the education of their children under unconstitutional laws and/or administrative order.

13. Petitioners Rene Luis Tadle of the University of Sto. Tomas, Manila;

Erlinda Castro-Palaganas of the University of the Philippines, Baguio City; Ruth Thelma P. Tingda of the Cordillera Career Development College, Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benguet; Florante Dulaca of Saint Louis University, Bonifacio Road, Baguio City; Froilan A. Alipao of 1 Mahabagin St., Teachers Village, Diliman, Quezon City; Ronald Taggaoa of Saint Louis University, Baguio City; and Joseph Porfirio Andaya of Saint Louis University, Bonifacio Road, Baguio City, are taxpaying citizens who are concerned that public funds are being illegally and improperly disbursed resulting in wastage of public funds through the enforcement of the invalid or unconstitutional Rep. Act 10533, Rep. Act 10157 and Dep. Ed Order No. 31. Public funds to which they contribute as taxpayers are being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protection against abuses of legislative power, or there is a misapplication of such

funds, or public money is being deflected to any improper purpose16 thus qualifying them to sue herein as taxpayers.

B. The Respondents

14. Respondent Secretary of Education Armin Luistro holds office at the Department of Education (DepEd) Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City, Metro Manila.

15. Respondent Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson

Patricia Licuanan holds office on C.P. Garcia Avenue, UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila.

16. Respondent Secretary of Labor Remedios Baldoz holds office at the

Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) Building, Muralla corner Gen. Luna Streets, Intramuros, Manila, Metro Manila.

17. Respondent Technical Skills and Development Authority (TESDA)

Director-General Joel Villanueva holds office on East Service Road, Taguig, Metro Manila.

18. Respondent Department of Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima holds

office at the Department of Finance, Roxas Boulevard, Manila, 1004 Metro Manila

19. Senate President Franklin Drilon holds office at the Senate Building,

Roxas Boulevard, Pasay, 1300 Metro Manila.

20. House of Representatives Speaker Feliciano Belmonte holds office at the House of Representatives Complex, Constitution Hills 1126, Quezon City, Metro Manila.

21. These public respondents may be served notices, orders, writs, processes, resolutions, decisions, and papers issued by this Honorable Court at the stated addresses.

ANNEXES TO THE PETITION

22. The following are appended to this Petition and are hereby incorporated as an integral part hereof:

16 Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)

a. Annex A- Department Order No. 31, series of 2012 issued by the Department of Education, entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013;

b. Annex B- Republic Act No. 10157 entitled AN ACT

INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR also known as the KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION ACT;

c. Annex C- Senate Bill No. 3286, also known as AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;17

d. Annex D- House Bill No. 6643 also known as AN ACT

ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;18

e. Annex E- Senate Journal No. 52, s. of 2013;

f. Annex F- Enrolled Bill of Rep. Act 10533; and

g. ANNEX G- Rep. Act 10533 entitled AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, otherwise known as the ENHANCED BASIC EDUCATION ACT OF 2013.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

23. The K to 12 Programs genesis is traceable to President Benigno Aquino IIIs presidential campaign in 2010. Foremost in his 10-Point Education Agenda19 was his goal of expanding basic education in the Philippines from a 10-year cycle to a globally comparable 12-year cycle. It was his plan to implement the same, should he win, starting school year 2011-12.

17 Available online at http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1417511918!.pdf. 18 Available online at http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/billtext_15/hbt6643.pdf. 19 Noynoys Education Agenda, http://www.philstar.com/education-and-

home/554429/noynoys-education-agenda, (Last accessed May 2, 2015, 3:48 A.M. PST).

24. Included in President Aquinos 10-Point Education Agenda was the

plan to make kindergarten education universal and mandatory. This would make basic education a 13-year program.

25. Thus this proposed reform came to be known as the K to 12 Program.

26. Aquino was elected President and assumed office on June 30, 2010.

But the K to 12 Program did not come to actual fruition in 2011 as President Aquino hoped during his campaign.

27. However, on July 25, 2011, Congress initiated the passage of

Republic Act No. 10157 entitled AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. This became a law on January 20, 2012.

28. On April 17, 2012, even before there was a law creating the K to 12

Program, the Department of Education (DepEd) already issued DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013. It is worth emphasizing that at the time of the issuance of DepEd Order No. 31, Congress had yet to enact a statute establishing a K to 12 Program.

29. The Order was addressed only to the following: Undersecretaries,

Assistant Secretaries, Bureau Directors, Directors of Services, Centers and Heads of Units, Regional Secretary of the ARMM, Regional Directors, Schools Division/City Superintendents, and Heads of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary Schools.

30. Even if the public and parents were not notified of this revolutionary change in the country's educational set-up and without a law authorizing it, the K to 12 Program was implemented for the first time in the school year 2012-2013, and this is evident from the language of DepEd Order No. 31: Effective School Year (SY) 2012-2013, the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) shall be implemented starting with the roll-out of Grades 1 and 7 in all public elementary and secondary schools. Private schools are enjoined to do the same. They may further enhance the curriculum to suit their school vision/mission.

31. All of the petitioning minors, with the exception of Eleannie Jerece Cawis who is less than a year old, were subjected to the Program ordered by the Department of Education.

32. In no time, Congress was urged to hasten the passage of a K to 12 Bill.

33. On September 24, 2012, Senate Bill No. 3286, also known as AN ACT

ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, was recommended for approval.20

34. Meanwhile, on October 15, 2012, House Bill No. 6643 with similar title as Senate Bill No. 3286 was also introduced in the House of Representatives and was eventually approved on 3rd Reading on November 19, 2012.21 Three days later or on November 22, 2012, the approved version of House Bill No. 6643 was transmitted to and was received by the Senate.22

35. On January 21, 2013, Senate Bill No. 3286 was finally approved on 3rd Reading.

36. Due to disagreeing provisions between House Bill No. 6643 and Senate Bill No. 3286, a Bicameral Conference Committee was formed to settle the conflict. It was agreed that the Senate version would be used as the working draft.23

37. On January 30, 2013, both Houses agreed on the Conference

Committee Report as contained in Senate Journal No. 52, s. of 2013. This committee report contained the Joint Explanation24 of the bicameral committee on how it settled the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643, the text of which is reproduced below:

20 15th Congress, Senate of the Philippines, Legislative History, Senate Bill No. 3286, Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2012; accessed from http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=15&q=SBN-3286.

21 House of Representatives, Legislative Information System, House Bill/Resolution No. HB06643, Republic Act No. RA10533; accessed from http://www.congress.gov.ph/legis/search/hist_show.php?save=1&journal=&switch=0&bill_no=HB06643&congress=15.

22 Id. 23 Senate Journal No. 52, s. 2013, 1715-1717; approved February 5, 2013. 24 Id.

JOINT EXPLANATION OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON THE DISAGREEING PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL NO. 3286 AND

HOUSE BILL NO. 6643

The Conference Committee on the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643, after having met and fully discussed the subject matter in a conference, hereby report to their respective Houses the following, that:

1. The conferees25 agreed to use the Senate version as the working draft;

2. Sec. 1 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 1 of the reconciled version with amendment to replace the year "2012" with 2013;

3. Secs. 2 and 3 of the Senate version were adopted as Secs.

2 and 3 of the reconciled version;

4. Sec. 4 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 4 of the reconciled version with amendment to include the following provisions:

"Basic education shall be delivered in languages

understood by the learners as language plays a strategic role in shaping the formative years of learners.

"For kindergarten and the first three years of elementary education, instruction, teaching materials, and assessment shall be in the regional or native language of the learners. The DepEd shall formulate a mother language transition program from Grade 4 to Grade 6 so that Filipino and English shall be gradually introduced as languages of instruction until such time when these two (2) languages can become the primary languages on instruction at the secondary level.

"For purposes of this Act, mother language or first Language (L1) refers to language or languages first

25 These were Senators Angara, Drilon, Villar, Revilla, and Recto designated for the Senate, and Representatives Ocampo, Gunigundo I, Piamonte Jr., Sarmiento, and Dimaporo designated for the House of Representatives. Please see, 15th Congress, Senate of the Philippines, Legislative History, Senate Bill No. 3286, Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2012; accessed from http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=15&q=SBN-3286.

learned by a child, which he/she identifies with, is identified as a native language user of by others, which he/she knows best, or uses most. This includes Filipino sign language used by individuals with pertinent disabilities. Regional or native language refers to the traditional speech variety or variety of Filipino sign language existing in a region, area or place."

4. Sec. 5 of the House version was adopted as Sec. 5 of the

reconciled bill;

5. Sec. 6, paragraph I of the House version was adopted as Sec. 6 of the reconciled version with the following amendments:

a) Include the National Commission for Culture and the

Arts (NCCA) in the membership of the Consultative Committee; and

b) Require the Consultative Committee to submit a report every two (2) years.

6. Sec. 7 of the House version was adopted as Sec. 7 of the

reconciled version;

7. Sec. 7 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 8 of the reconciled version;

8. Sec. 8 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 9 of the

reconciled version with the following amendments:

a) On the first paragraph between the words "institutions" and "hire," delete the word "may" and in lieu thereof, insert the word "shall";

b) On paragraph [a], after the word "Licensure," delete the word Exam," and in lieu thereof, insert the word "Examinations"; and

c) On paragraph [c], after the word "relevant," delete the

phrase "Master's degree, or Master's degree with relevant professional license," and in lieu thereof, insert the words "Bachelor's degree.";

9. Sec. 10 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 10 of the reconciled version with amendment to insert the words "or accredited" between the words "developed" and "by";

10. Secs. 11 and 13 of the Senate version were adopted as Secs. 11 and 12 of the reconciled version,;

11. Secs. 14,15, and 17 of the Senate version were adopted as

Secs. 13, 14 and 15 of the reconciled version;

12. Sec. 15 of the House version was adopted as Secs. 16 of the reconciled version;

13. Secs. I8,19 and 20 of the Senate version were adopted as

Secs. 17, 18 and 19 of the reconciled version;

14. The conferees adopted without amendment the title of the Senate version as the title of the reconciled version, which reads as follows:

AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGHTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

In case of a conflict between the statements/ amendments stated in this Joint Explanation and that of the provisions of the consolidated bill in the accompanying Conference Committee Report, the provisions of the latter shall prevail.

APPROVAL OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, the Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 was approved by the Body.

xxx

EDWIN B. BELLEN (sgd.) Acting Secretary of the Senate

Approved on February 5, 2013.26

38. On April 4, 2013, enrolled copies of the consolidated version of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 were sent to the House of Representatives for the signature of the Speaker and the Secretary General.27

39. On April 15, 2013,enrolled copies of the consolidated version of

Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 were received by the Senate already signed by the Speaker and the Secretary General of the House of Representatives.28

40. On April 16, 2013, the consolidated version of Senate Bill No. 3286

and House Bill No. 6643 was transmitted to the Office of the President. 29

41. On May 15, 2013, Pres. Aquino signed Rep. Act 10533 known as the ENHANCED BASIC EDUCATION ACT OF 2013.

42. However, there are discrepancies between the consolidated or

reconciled version of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 as reflected in Senate Journal Session No. 52 dated 30 January 2013 of the 15th Congresss Third Regular Session and Rep. Act 10533.

GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

I. CONGRESS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT MADE KINDERGARTEN COMPULSORY UNDER REP. ACT 10157 AND Rep. Act 10533.

a. The K to 12 Program, in making kindergarten compulsory under Republic Act 10157 and both kindergarten and high school education mandatory under Rep. Act 10533, is a violation of the Constitution.

b. Republic Act 10157 and Rep. Act 10533 unduly expand basic education as defined under Sec. 2, Art. XIV of the 1987 Constitution.

26 Senate Journal No. 52, s. 2013, 1717; approved February 5, 2013. 27 15th Congress, Senate of the Philippines, Legislative History, Senate Bill No. 3286, Enhanced

Basic Education Act of 2012; accessed from http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=15&q=SBN-3286.

28 Id. 29 Id.

c. Under the doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, Congress may not pass an act repugnant to the Constitution.

II. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013.

a. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, is a usurpation of legislative authority as it creates a law without delegation of power.

b. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, violates the constitutional right of parents to participate in planning programs that affect them, the right to information. c. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, offends the right to due process for having been unpublished and for changing the rules of the game at midstream without the consent of the players.

III. THE SENATE PRESIDENT AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THEY SIGNED INTO LAW AN ENROLLED BILL DISCREPANT FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BILL DESCRIBED IN THE JOURNAL.

a. In case of conflict, the Journal takes precedence over the enrolled bill as established in Philippine jurisprudence.

b. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate President do not make up another law-making body authorized to change congressional output.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

-I-

-------------------------------------------------

The K to 12 Program, in making kindergarten and high school education compulsory, expands the constitutional definition of basic education which is consistent with international law standards. to the Constitution.

43. Par. 2, Sec. 2 of Art. XIV of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall (e)stablish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age.

44. Clearly from the above provision of the Philippine Constitution, basic education refers to elementary and high school education. However, only elementary education is compulsory. This provision is consistent with the commitments of the Philippine government under treaty obligations and international law.

45. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the Philippines adopted, provides: Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.30

46. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which the Philippines ratified and is now part of our domestic law, recognizes education as a human right for everyone31 and provides: Primary education shall be compulsory and available free for all.32

47. The Convention on the Rights of the Child which the Philippines

ratified and is now part of our domestic law, also obligates States parties to (m)ake primary education compulsory and available free for all.33

48. When the 1987 Constitution was framed, kindergarten and senior

high school were not compulsory and the latter was, in fact, non-existent and beyond the consciousness of the Filipino nation. It could not have been the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the Filipino people to make these compulsory.

49. Yet, Congress violated the sacrosanct doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy by making kindergarten compulsory in at least two Republic Acts it passed and in making secondary education compulsory in one.

30 Art. 26 (1). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 Dec. 1948), U.N.G.A. Res. 217 A (III) (1948). 31 Art 13 (1), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 16 Dec. 1966) 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force 3 Jan. 1976. 32 Art 13 (2a), id. 33 Art. 28 (1a), Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, 20 Nov. 1989) 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, 28 I.L.M. 1448 (1989), entered into force 2 Sept. 1990.

50. Rep. Act 10157, otherwise known as the Kindergarten Education Act and entitled AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, approved by Congress on January 20, 2012, provides:

Sec. 4. Institutionalization of Kindergarten Education. Kindergarten education is hereby institutionalized as part of basic education and for school year 2011-2012 shall be implemented partially, and thereafter, it shall be made mandatory and compulsory for entrance to Grade 1.(Emphasis supplied)

51. Similarly, Rep. Act 10533 makes kindergarten and secondary

education compulsory or mandatory. Its pertinent provisions are as follows:

Sec. 3. Basic Education. Basic education is intended to meet basic learning needs which provides the foundation on which subsequent learning can be based. It encompasses kindergarten, elementary and secondary education as well as alternative learning systems for out-of-school learners and those with special needs.

Sec. 4. Enhanced Basic Education Program. The enhanced basic education program encompasses at least one (1) year of kindergarten education, six (6) years of elementary education, and six (6) years of secondary education, in that sequence. Secondary education includes four (4) years of junior high school and two (2) years of senior high school education. Kindergarten education shall mean one (1) year of preparatory education for children at least five (5) years old as prerequisite for Grade I. Elementary education refers to the second stage of compulsory basic education which is composed of six (6) years. The entrant age to this level is typically six (6) years old. Secondary education refers to the third stage of compulsory basic education. It consists of four (4) years of junior high school education and two (2) years of senior high school education. The entrant age to the junior and senior high school levels are typically twelve (12) and sixteen (16) years old, respectively. (Emphasis supplied)

52. The above unduly expand the constitutional definition of basic

education which is limited to elementary and high school education. Moreover, by making kindergarten and secondary education compulsory, Congress amended the constitutional provision that only elementary education is compulsory and encumbered the exercise of the right as will be discussed below.

Under the doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, Congress may not pass an act repugnant to the Constitution. Rep. Act 10533 and Rep. Act 10157 are violations of the doctrine.

53. By making kindergarten and secondary education compulsory, the K to 12 Program militates against what is textually expressed in the Constitution and its spirit.

54. From a human rights-based perspective, the assailed legislative acts that are part of the K to 12 Program package are additionally unconstitutional for violating the right to education which is guaranteed by the Constitution. If a human being must exercise a right only upon compliance with a burden or obligation, then it metamorphoses into a privilege. The requirement of kindergarten education prior to availment of elementary education is an undue burden on the exercise of a constitutionally enshrined right to education.

55. Rep. Act 10533, by making secondary education compulsory, obligates parents in a way incompatible with the Constitution.

56. It is a matter of judicial notice that in many far-flung areas in this country, schools are lacking. Making secondary education compulsory is akin to ordering people to swim in an area that has no body of water or swimming pool. It is an imposition of parental obligation, the fulfillment of which is dependent on the availability of opportunities or services which the State itself must generate. How can parents be obliged to send children to secondary schools where such are not accessible?

57. Thus, Rep. Act 10533 reconfigures parental obligation beyond what the Constitution imposes. Likewise, Rep. Act 10533 limits the childs access to the constitutional right to elementary education by requiring him/her to acquire kindergarten education.

58. The logical consequence of the superiority of the Constitution is that all acts of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution will be void. Therefore, these acts will not bind either the courts or the citizens. The constitutionality of every law and every act of the Government is one of the most important political principles of democracies and universally accepted rule of law norms.

59. While there is no supremacy clause in the 1987 Constitution, it is a

firmly established doctrine. Thus, in Tawang Multi-purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District,,34 it was re-emphasized:

It (the 1987 Constitution) is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. xxx(T)he Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform. Xxx The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do not conform to the Constitution shall be stricken down for being unconstitutional.xxx (T)hat (u)nder the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.(Citations omitted)

-II-

--------------------------------------------- 60. In Conte v. Commission on Audit,35 the Supreme Court, citing

Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Garcia,36 reiterated that (i)t is doctrinal that

34 Tawang Multi-purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District, G.R. No. 166471, March 22, 2011.

35 Conte v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 116422, November 4, 1996. 36 Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia, Jr., 239 SCRA 386 (1994).

DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 is a usurpation of legislative authority as it creates a law without delegation of power.

in case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail.37 It also reminded that (a) rule or regulation must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid.38

61. What is the status of an administrative order which has no statutory

basis? To be sure, DepEd No. 31, s. 2012, entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013, was issued by respondent DepEd Sec. Luistro on April 17, 2012 and was implemented on the opening of academic year 2012-2013. Rep. Act 10533 which statutorily institutionalized the K to 12 Program became a law on May 15, 2013 or much later. In other words, the assailed Order was devoid of statutory basis.

62. We submit that if an administrative order, rule or regulation must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid, it should be a complete nullity if it has no statutory leg to stand on. The assailed Order was an undue exercise of legislative power in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

63. The Conte Court further instructs us:

The rule-making power of a public administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by the Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by such a body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by it. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.39

64. It is very rudimentary that the power to enact laws is lodged primarily with the legislature. The doctrine of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its

37 Id. 38 Lina, Jr. vs. Carilo, 221 SCRA 515, April 23, 1993. 39 HECTOR DE LEON AND HECTOR DE LEON, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: TEXT AND CASES 65 (2005) (citing 73 C.J.S. 413-414, 416-417).

own constitutionally allocated sphere.40 However, a non-legislative body may exercise quasi-legislative power defined as the authority delegated by the law-making body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of the law and implement legislative policy.41 Congress can only delegate rule-making power or law execution.

65. To be valid, an administrative issuance, such as a Department of

Education Order, must comply with the following requisites: (1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; (2) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; (3) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; and (4) It must be reasonable.42 The assailed Order fails all the requisites as it is nothing but a usurpation of legislative authority. Before the passage of Rep. Act 10533, the K to 12 Program had no statutory foundation and remained an agenda of the Aquino administration.

66. If the K to 12 Program must be held as valid, it must refer to the one

authorized by Rep. Act 10533, not the one envisioned by the assailed Order which is now on its third year of implementation. The K to 12 Program must therefore apply to those who entered Kindergarten in the school year 2013-2014 or subsequent to the passage of Rep. Act 10533.

67. To the mind of Petitioners, DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 should have

been mooted by the passage of Rep. Act 10533. The trouble is that the subsequent statute does not make any reference to the Order. There is now a preposterous situation where a Department Order and a statute overlap and the government is implementing both despite the inconsistencies.

68. Additionally, the Constitution and internal rules of Congress

mandate for the passage of bills a first reading, committee hearings to consult stakeholders, a second reading, debates, and a third reading in both Houses. The process is rigorous. It is preposterous therefore to say that the Department of Education, which may exercise only delegated legislative powers, may merely implement a major curriculum shift that amends legislative policies on basic education without the requisite delegation.

40 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936). 41 ISAGANI CRUZ, PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 24 (2003). 42 Lokin vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010; Executive Secretary,

et. al. v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 164171, 20 February 2006, 482 SCRA 673.

69. Likewise, before a law becomes effective, it must first be published in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.43 This is a due process requirement. Ignorantia legis non excusat. Ignorance is not an excuse so the State must temper the harshness of this customary principle of law by constructively notifying those to whom the law applies.

70. Assuming that Sec. Luistro was acting intra vires, his Order must still have been published before it could validly enforce an obligation on parents and impose further burdens on the educational rights of children.

71. But as it is, the Order is an unknown creature in the realm of law and this Honorable Court must eradicate it.

---------------------------------------------

72. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 provides that:

(e)ffective School Year (SY) 2012-2013, the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) shall be implemented starting with the roll-out of Grades 1 and 7 in all public elementary and secondary schools. Private schools are enjoined to do the same. They may further enhance the curriculum to suit their school vision/mission.

73. When it was issued on April 17, 2012, it was addressed to the following:

Undersecretaries Assistant Secretaries

Bureau Directors Directors of Services, Centers and Heads of Units Regional Secretary, ARMM Regional Directors

43 Sec. 1, Executive Order No. 200 June 18, 1987, Providing For The Publication Of Laws Either In The Official Gazette Or In A Newspaper Of General Circulation In The Philippines As A Requirement For Their Effectivity

DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 violates the constitutional right of parents to participate in planning programs that affect them and the right to information.

Schools Division/City Superintendents Heads, Public and Private Elementary and Secondary Schools

74. Petitioning parents and parents' organizations to which they belong

were not consulted prior to the issuance of the Order despite the fact that it adversely affected and continues to adversely affect parents significantly as they are primarily responsible in educating their children.

75. On its face, the Order shows that parents were not advised on the

major change in the basic education of their children. It was addressed only to Department of Education officials and school administrators.

76. It was also a monumental disregard of the constitutional fiat to involve families which include parents in the planning of programs that affect them.

77. Sec. 3(4), Article XV of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall defend [t]he right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.

78. Moreover, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the Philippines adopted and which has acquired the status of customary law to which all States must adhere, (p)arents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.44

79. Definitely, the education of children is a family and parental concern.

Parents fill the classrooms with children. The role parents play in the education of children cannot be overemphasized. DepEd Order No. 31 should never have been issued without prior consultation with them in deference to the above-cited constitutional provision.

80. Aside from the absence of prior consultation, the Order was not addressed to parents and parents' organizations which means that even after the fact, they were not notified. This violates the constitutional right of people to information on matters of public

44 Art. 26(3), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 Dec. 1948), U.N.G.A. Res. 217 A (III) (1948).

concern45 which is self-executing as held in Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission.46

81. Art. II of the Constitution also provides:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)

82. The education of children is integral to the rearing of the youth for

civic efficiency and the development of moral character which the Constitution pronounces as not only a duty but a right. The issuance of the assailed Order was therefore a violation of parental rights as it subverted the parents' participation in conceiving the K to 12 Program which it heralded and rolled out in 2012.

83. The Constitution, in recognizing the right of parents and the family,

is not being merely hortatory. The rights are self-executing or need not be activated or enabled by a statute. Petitioning parents now invoke this right to strike down DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, which disenfranchised them from their constitutional right to participate in the democratic process.

84. Clearly, this Honorable Court should assume the role of protector of those in positions of parents when the political processes that should insulate them from disadvantage if not abuse neglect to do so.

DepEd Order No. 31 is a violation of

the right to due process by changing

educational rules at midstream without

the consent of the affected parents.

85. The assailed Order also adopted a K to 12 Program which rolled out

Grade 1 and Grade 7 during the academic year 2012-2103, in effect subjecting children who may not have had kindergarten education to a K to 12 Program where K stands for kindergarten.

45 Sec. 7, Art. III, 1987 Constitution. 46 Legaspi v Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987.

86. The petitioning minors, with the exception of infant Eleannie Jerece

Cawis, and members of their class were already enrolled in elementary schools when the Order was made to take effect. The sudden and unceremonious innovation of the curriculum and the addition of two more years to secondary school was an arbitrary change of rules in the middle of the game which is certainly offensive to due process.

87. This is even more glaring in the case of children who entered private secondary schools. The Order merely enjoined private schools to roll out Grade 7 of the K to 12 Program. But there were elementary graduates of private schools which did not roll out the Program and stuck to the old set-up who will be graduating from secondary school next year. What assurance do they have that there are accessible tertiary schools they will go to for their higher education considering that many universities will no longer accept first year college students as they will instead accept Grade 11 senior high school students?

88. Under the assailed Order, the K to 12 Program started during the

school year 2012-2013 with the roll-out of Grades 1 and 7. In effect therefore, the K to 12 Program, as first applied in 2012-2013, covered students who did not necessarily obtain kindergarten education. Thus, the first graduates of the program under the assailed Order are high school students graduating from Grade 12 or senior high school by 2018 who are not necessarily the graduates envisioned under the subsequent Rep. Act 10533. Not having necessarily undergone kindergarten education, the 2018 graduates will thus not have been prepared under the K to 12 Program under Rep. Act 10533.

89. Even respondent Sec. Luistro confirmed this. In his K to 12 Basic

Education Program Midterm Report to the Senate on May 5 2015, he stated:

March 2024: 1st batch of learners who went through the full K to 12 Program will graduate.

March 2018: 1st batch of Gr 6 and Gr 12 under K to 12 will graduate.47

47 Sec. Armin Luistro, K to 12 Basic Education Program Midterm Report, May 5 2015; Powerpoint Presentation made before the Senate, Republic of the Philippines, Slide 12 (on file with the Senate).

90. Sec. Luistro then makes a distinction between K to 12 Program graduates: a) those covered by Rep. Act 10533 who went through the full K to 12 Program who will graduate from Grade 12 in 2024 having gone to mandatory kindergarten school in 2013 when the law took effect; and b) those who had to go to Grade 1 and Grade 7 in 2012 under Dep Ed Order No. 31 before Rep. Act 10533 took effect, who will graduate from Grade 6 and Grade 12, respectively, in 2018. The situation of the latter has no statutory basis.

91. The assailed Order directed Department of Education officials and school officials whether public or private to effect a substantive deviation from the basic education curriculum and to add two more years to high school education. This subjected and subjects parents of children to undue financial burden for the additional two years of secondary education under a K to 12 Program without a legal basis and without any assurance of improvement in terms of the quality of basic education.

92. On this basis alone the K to 12 Program must be nullified for having been conceived by Respondents with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

-III-

---------------------------------------------------

93. On January 30, 2013, both Houses agreed on the Conference Committee Report as contained in Senate Journal No. 52, s. of 2013. This committee report contained the Joint Explanation48 of the bicameral committee on how it settled the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643, the text of which is reproduced on pages 14-17 of this Petition.

94. The Secretary-General of the House of Representatives and the Acting Senate Secretary also confirmed in the enrolled bill that the consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 was

48 Senate Journal No. 52, s. 2013, 1716-1711; approved February 5, 2013.

The consolidated bill entered into the Journal of Congress is not the same as the enrolled bill that eventually became Republic Act No. 10533.

passed by the two Chambers of Congress on January 30, 2013. The actual certification is reproduced hereunder:

95. However, the reconciled or consolidated version was not the same

version signed into law by the President. The enrolled bill which was signed into law varies from the consolidated version as reported in the Senate Journal (Senate Journal No. 52) on January 30, 2013.

96. The following table compares the consolidated or reconciled version with Rep. Act 10533, where the deletions, insertions and inconsistencies (in form or substance), are highlighted in yellow, green and blue, respectively:

Joint Explanation (Senate Journal No. 52, s. 2013)

House Bill or Senate Bill version Rep. Act 10533

4. Sec. 5 of the House version was adopted as Sec. 5 of the reconciled bill;

HB No. 6643 Sec. 5. Curriculum Development. The DepED shall formulate the design and details of the enhanced basic education curriculum. It shall work with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to craft harmonized basic and tertiary curricula for the global competitiveness of Filipino graduates. To ensure college readiness and to avoid remedial and duplication of basic education subjects, the DepED shall coordinate with the CHED and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).

Sec. 5. Curriculum Development. The DepED shall formulate the design and details of the enhanced basic education curriculum. It shall work with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to craft harmonized basic and tertiary curricula for the global competitiveness of Filipino graduates. To ensure college readiness and to avoid remedial and duplication of basic education subjects, the DepED shall coordinate with the CHED and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).

To achieve an effective enhanced basic education curriculum, the DepED shall undertake consultations with other national government agencies and other stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), the private and public schools associations, the national student organizations, the national teacher organizations, the parents-teachers associations and the chambers of commerce on matters affecting the concerned stakeholders. The DepED shall adhere to the following standards and principles in developing the enhanced basic education curriculum: (a) The curriculum shall be learner-

centered, inclusive and developmentally appropriate;

(b) The curriculum shall be enhanced, decongested and seamless; (c) The curriculum shall be standard and competency-based; (d) The curriculum shall be relevant, responsive and research-based. The basic curriculum shall be adapted locally to the languages, cultures and values of Filipino learners in order to aid teachers in planning lessons which build what the learners already knew; (e) The curriculum shall be value-driven, culture-responsive and culture-sensitive; (f) The curriculum shall be information, communications and technology (ICT)-based. It shall equip graduates with the necessary 21st century skills which include information, media and technology skills; learning and innovation skills; effective communications skills; and life and career skills. Mathematics and Science subjects shall be introduced as early as

To achieve an effective enhanced basic education curriculum, the DepED shall undertake consultations with other national government agencies and other stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), the private and public schools associations, the national student organizations, the national teacher organizations, the parents-teachers associations and the chambers of commerce on matters affecting the concerned stakeholders. The DepED shall adhere to the following standards and principles in developing the enhanced basic education curriculum: (a) The curriculum shall be learner-

centered, inclusive and developmentally appropriate;

(b) The curriculum shall be relevant, responsive and research-based; (c) The curriculum shall be culture-sensitive; (d) The curriculum shall be contextualized and global; (e) The curriculum shall use pedagogical approaches that are constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative and integrative; (f) The curriculum shall adhere to the principles and framework of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) which starts from where the learners are and from what they already knew proceeding from the known to the unknown; instructional materials and capable teachers to implement the MTB-MLE curriculum shall be available;

Grade 1. Science may be integrated with other subjects such as Mother Tongue, Mathematics, Health and Araling Panlipunan; (g) The curriculum shall be integrative, contextualized, broad-based and global; (h) The curriculum shall use pedagogical approaches that are constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative and integrative; (i) The curriculum shall have a balanced assessment program that uses classroom-based traditional and authentic assessment tools which include implementation of self-assessment (assessment as learning); formative assessment (assessment for learning); and summative assessment (assessment of learning). National assessment tools shall be developed and administered at the end of grades 3, 6, 10 and 12 to determine the level of learning achievement for every learner; (j) The curriculum shall adhere to the principles and framework of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) which starts from where the learners are and from what they already knew proceeding from the known to the unknown. There shall be available instructional materials and capable teachers to implement the MTB-MLE curriculum; (k) The curriculum shall use the spiral progressive approach to ensure mastery of knowledge and skills after each level; (l) The curriculum shall include co-curricular and community involvement programs; and (m) The curriculum shall be flexible enough to enable and allow schools to localize, indigenize and enhance the same based on their respective educational and social contexts. The production and development of locally produced teaching materials shall be

(g) The curriculum shall use the spiral progression approach to ensure mastery of knowledge and skills after each level; and (h) The curriculum shall be flexible enough to enable and allow schools to localize, indigenize and enhance the same based on their respective educational and social contexts. The production and development of locally produced teaching materials shall be encouraged and approval of these materials shall devolve to the regional and division education units.

encouraged and approval of these materials shall devolve to the regional and division education units.

5. Sec. 6, paragraph 1 of the House version was adopted as Sec. 6 of the reconciled version with the following amendments:

a) Include the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) in the membership of the Consultative Committee; and

b) Require the Consultative Committee to submit a report every two (2) years.

HB No. 6643 Sec. 6. Curriculum Consultative Committee. There shall be created a curriculum consultative committee chaired by the DepED Secretary or his/her duly authorized representative and with members composed of, but not limited to, a representative each from the CHED, the TESDA, the DOLE, the PRC, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), association of private and public schools, teachers organization, parent-teachers association, elders of the indigenous peoples communities and the chambers of commerce. The consultative committee shall oversee the review and evaluation on the implementation of the basic education curriculum and may recommend to the DepED the formulation of necessary refinements in the curriculum. The members of the curriculum consultative committee shall be knowledgeable and committed community leaders and education experts who shall provide strategic policy advice on kindergarten, elementary and secondary school curriculum. At the request of the Secretary of Education, the committee may be supported by a working group of experts on selected topics. The chairperson and members of the consultative committee shall not be entitled to additional compensation in the performance of their functions.

Sec. 6. Curriculum Consultative Committee. There shall be created a curriculum consultative committee chaired by the DepED Secretary or his/her duly authorized representative and with members composed of, but not limited to, a representative each from the CHED, the TESDA, the DOLE, the PRC, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and a representative from the business chambers such as the Information Technology Business Process Outsourcing (IT- BPO) industry association. The consultative committee shall oversee the review and evaluation on the implementation of the basic education curriculum and may recommend to the DepED the formulation of necessary refinements in the curriculum.

6. Sec. 7 of the House version was adopted as Sec. 7 of the reconciled version;

HB No. 6643 Sec. 7. Integration of General Education Curriculum (GEC) Subjects. In addition to the general education curriculum (GEC) subjects that may hereafter be determined by the DepED as part of the

Sec. 7. Teacher Education and Training. xxx

new curriculum, subjects mandated by existing laws and currently being offered in tertiary programs shall be incorporated in the secondary education curriculum. The DepED and the CHED shall coordinate in these instances to ensure that any duplication between basic education and tertiary curricula is minimized or avoided.

7. Sec. 7 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 8 of the reconciled version;

SB No. 3286 Sec. 7. Teacher Education and Training. To ensure that the enhanced basic education program meets the demand for quality teachers and school leaders, the DepEd and CHED, in collaboration with relevant partners in government, academe, industry, and non-governmental organizations, shall conduct teacher education and training programs, as specified: xxx

Sec. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering and Other Specialists in Subjects With a Shortage of Qualified Applicants, Technical-Vocational Courses and Higher Education Institution Faculty. Notwithstanding the provisions of Secs. 26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994, the DepED and private education institutions shall hire, as may be relevant to the particular subject: xxx

8. Sec. 8 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 9 of the reconciled version with the following amendments:

(a) On the first paragraph between the words institutions and hire, delete the word may and in lieu thereof, insert the word shall

(b) On paragraph [a], after the word Licensure, delete the word Exam, and in

SB No. 3286 Sec. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering and Other Specialists in Subjects With a Shortage of Qualified Applicants, Technical-Vocational Courses and Higher Education Institution Faculty. Notwithstanding the provisions of Secs. 26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994, the DepED and private education institutions shall hire, as may be relevant to the particular subject:

(a) Graduates of science, mathematics, statistics, engineering, music and other degree courses with shortages in qualified Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) applicants to teach in their specialized subjects in the elementary and secondary education. Qualified LET applicants shall also include graduates admitted by foundations duly recognized for their expertise in the education sector and who satisfactorily complete the

Sec. 9. Career Guidance and Counseling Advocacy. xxx

[actual Sec. 8]

Sec. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering and Other Specialists in Subjects With a Shortage of Qualified Applicants, Technical-Vocational Courses and Higher Education Institution Faculty. Notwithstanding the provisions of Secs. 26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994, the DepED and private education institutions shall hire, as may be relevant to the particular subject: (a) Graduates of science, mathematics, statistics, engineering, music and other degree courses with shortages in qualified Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) applicants to teach in their specialized subjects in the elementary and secondary education. Qualified LET

lieu thereof, insert the word Examinations; and

(c) On paragraph [c], after the word relevant, delete the phrase Masters degree, or Masters degree with relevant professional license, and in lieu thereof, insert the words Bachelors degree.;

requirements set by these organizations: Provided, that they pass the LET within five (5) years after their date of hiring: Provided, further, That if such graduates are willing to teach on part-time basis, the provisions of LET shall no longer be required; (b) Graduates of technical-vocational courses to teach in their specialized subjects in the secondary education: Provided, That these graduates possess the necessary certification issued by the TESDA: Provided, further, That they undergo appropriate in-service training to be administered by the DepED or higher education institutions (HEIs) at the expense of the DepED; (c) Faculty of HEIs be allowed to teach in their general education or subject specialties in the secondary education: Provided, That the faculty must be a holder of a relevant Bachelors degree, and must have satisfactorily served as a full-time HEI faculty; (d) The DepED and private education institutions may hire practitioners, with expertise in the specialized learning areas offered by the Basic Education Curriculum, to teach in the secondary level; Provided, That they teach on part-time basis only. For this purpose, the DepED, in coordination with the appropriate government agencies, shall determine the necessary qualification standards in hiring these experts.

applicants shall also include graduates admitted by foundations duly recognized for their expertise in the education sector and who satisfactorily complete the requirements set by these organizations: Provided, That they pass the LET within five (5) years after their date of hiring: Provided, further, That if such graduates are willing to teach on part-time basis, the provisions of LET shall no longer be required; (b) Graduates of technical-vocational courses to teach in their specialized subjects in the secondary education: Provided, That these graduates possess the necessary certification issued by the TESDA: Provided, further, That they undergo appropriate in-service training to be administered by the DepED or higher education institutions (HEIs) at the expense of the DepED; (c) Faculty of HEIs be allowed to teach in their general education or subject specialties in the secondary education: Provided,That the faculty must be a holder of a relevant Bachelors degree, and must have satisfactorily served as a full-time HEI faculty; (d) The DepED and private education institutions may hire practitioners, with expertise in the specialized learning areas offered by the Basic Education Curriculum, to teach in the secondary level; Provided, That they teach on part-time basis only. For this purpose, the DepED, in coordination with the appropriate government agencies, shall determine the necessary qualification standards in hiring these experts.

9. Sec. 10 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 10 of the reconciled version with

SB No. 3286 Sec. 10. Career Guidance and Counselling Advocacy. To properly guide the students in choosing (he

Sec. 10. Expansion of E-GASTPE Beneficiaries. xxx [Sec. 10 was in fact copied as Sec. 9]

amendment to insert the words or accredited between the words developed and by;

career tracks that they intend to pursue, the DepEd, in coordination with DOLE, TESDA and CHED, shall regularly conduct career advocacy activities for secondary level students. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 27 of Republic Act No. 9258, otherwise known as the Guidance and Counselling Act of 2004, career and employment guidance 36ounselors, who are not registered and licensed guidance 36ounselors, shall be allowed to conduct career advocacy activities to secondary level students of the school where they are currently employed.

Sec. 9. Career Guidance and Counselling Advocacy. To properly guide the students in choosing the career tracks that they intend to pursue, the DepED, in coordination with the DOLE, the TESDA and the CHED, shall regularly conduct career advocacy activities for secondary level students. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 27 of Republic Act No. 9258, otherwise known as the Guidance and Counselling Act of 2004, career and employment guidance counsellors, who are not registered and licensed guidance counsellors, shall be allowed to conduct career advocacy activities to secondary level students of the school where they are currently employed; Provided, That they undergo a training program to be developed or accredited by the DepED.

10. Secs. 11 and 13 of the Senate version were adopted as Secs. 11 and 12 of the reconciled version, ;

SB No. 3286 Sec. 11. Expansion of E-GASTPE Beneficiaries. The benefits accorded by Republic Act No. 8545, or the Expanded Government Assistance for Students and Teachers in the Private Education Act, shall be extended to qualified students enrolled under the enhanced basic education. The DepEd shall engage the services of private education institutions and non- DepEd schools offering senior high school through the programs under RA. 8545, and other financial arrangements formulated by DepEd and DBM based on the principles of public-private partnership.

SB No. 3286 Sec. 13. Appropriations. The Secretary of Education shall include in the Departments program the operationalization of the enhanced basic education program. The initial funding of which shall be charged against the current appropriations of the DepEd. Thereafter, the amount

Sec. 11. Appropriations xxx Sec. 12. Transitory Provisions xxx

necessary for the continued implementation of the enhanced basic education program shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

11. Secs. 14, 15, and 17 of the Senate version were adopted as Secs. 13, 14, and 15 of the reconciled version;

SB No. 3286

Sec. 14. Transitory Provisions. xxx Sec. 15. Separability Clause. xxx Sec. 17. Effectivity Clause. xxx

Sec. 13. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on the Enhanced Basic Educational Program (K to 12 Program). There is hereby created a Joint Oversight Committee to oversee, monitor and evaluate the implementation of this Act. The Oversight Committee shall be composed of five (5) members each from the Senate and from the House of Representatives, including Chairs of the Committees on Education, Arts and Culture, and Finance of both Houses. The membership of the Committee for every House shall have at least two (2) opposition or minority members. Sec. 14. Mandatory Evaluation and Review. By the end of School Year 2014-2015, the DepED shall conduct a mandatory review and submit a midterm report to Congress as to the status of implementation of the K to 12 Program in terms of closing the following current shortages: (a) teachers; (b) classrooms; (c) textbooks; (d) seats; (e) toilets; and (f) other shortages that should be addressed. The DepED shall include among others, in this midterm report, the following key metrics of access to and quality of basic education: (a) participation rate; (b) retention rate; (c) National Achievement Test results; (d) completion rate; (e) teachers welfare and training profiles; (f) adequacy of funding requirements; and (g) other learning facilities including, but not limited to, computer and science laboratories, libraries and library hubs, and sports, music and arts.

97. The foregoing table underscores the discrepancies, as highlighted, between the consolidated bill as recorded in the Journal and enrolled bill which became Rep. Act 10533. As can be seen, some provisions in the consolidated version were omitted from Rep. Act 10533. Examples, among others, are the following highlighted in bold letters:

Sec. 5. Curriculum Development. The DepED shall formulate the design and details of the enhanced basic education curriculum. It shall work with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to craft harmonized basic and tertiary curricula for the global competitiveness of Filipino graduates. To ensure college readiness and to avoid remedial and duplication of basic education subjects, the DepEd shall coordinate with the CHED and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).To achieve an effective enhanced basic education curriculum, the DepED shall undertake consultations

Sec. 15. Commitment to International Benchmarks. The DepED shall endeavor to increase the per capita spending on education towards the immediate attainment of international benchmarks.

13. Secs. 18, 19 and 20 of the Senate version were adopted as Secs. 17, 18 and 19 of the reconciled version;

SB 3286 has no Sec 18, 19 and 20. Sec. 17. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity and effectivity of the other provisions hereof. Sec. 18. Repealing Clause. Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 or the Education Act of 1982, Republic Act No. 9155 or the Governance of Basic Education. Act of 2001, Republic Act No. 9258, Republic Act No. 7836, and all other laws, decrees, executive orders and rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Sec. 19. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

with other national government agencies and other stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), the private and public schools associations, the national student organizations, the national teacher organizations, the parents-teachers associations and the chambers of commerce on matters affecting the concerned stakeholders. The DepED shall adhere to the following standards and principles in developing the enhanced basic education curriculum:(a)xxx;(b) The curriculum shall be enhanced, decongested and seamless;(c) The curriculum shall be standard and competency-based;(d) xxx;(e)xxx; (f) The curriculum shall be information, communications and technology (ICT)-based. It shall equip graduates with the necessary 21st century skills which include information, media and technology skills; learning and innovation skills; effective communications skills; and life and career skills. Mathematics and Science subjects shall be introduced as early as Grade 1. Science may be integrated with other subjects such as Mother Tongue, Mathematics, Health and Araling Panlipunan; xxx

98. On the other hand, some provisions of Rep. Act 10533 could not be

found in the consolidated version. An example is the following:

Sec. 14. Mandatory Evaluation and Review. By the end of School Year 2014-2015, the DepED shall conduct a mandatory review and submit a midterm report to Congress as to the status of implementation of the K to 12 Program in terms of closing the following current shortages: (a) teachers; (b) classrooms; (c) textbooks; (d) seats; (e) toilets; and (f) other shortages that should be addressed. The DepED shall include among others, in this midterm report, the following key metrics of access to and quality of basic education: (a) participation rate; (b) retention rate; (c) National Achievement Test results; (d) completion rate; (e) teachers welfare and training profiles; (f) adequacy of funding requirements; and (g) other learning facilities including, but not limited to, computer and science laboratories, libraries and library hubs, and sports, music and arts.

99. Still furthermore, the following are among other substantive discrepancies:

a. Sec. 5 of the reconciled version provides in part that Mathematics and Science shall be introduced as early as Grade 1. This was excluded in Rep. Act 10533.

b. The Bicameral Conference Committee agreed to adopt the House proposal to include a provision creating a Curriculum Consultative Committee with the following members: the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the National Economic and Develo

Date post:	17-Sep-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cheryl-l-daytec-yangot
View:	390 times
Download:	4 times

Petition to the Supreme Court for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus to Declare the K-to-12...

Documents