G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018
COUNCIL OF TEACHERS AND STAFF OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (CoTeSCUP), ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [CONSOLIDATED WITH G.R. NO. 217451]

FACTS

The consolidated petitions challenged the constitutionality of Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 20, Series of 2013, which prescribed the removal of Filipino, Panitikan, and Philippine Constitution as core courses in college curricula. Petitioners, comprising various labor federations, faculty associations, and individual academics, argued that the order violated constitutional mandates on education, labor, and national language. They contended the removal would lead to the displacement of thousands of Filipino and social science instructors, undermine the right to quality education, and impede the development of the Filipino language.
Respondents, including the CHED Chairperson, defended the order as an exercise of academic freedom and the agency’s mandate to enhance global competitiveness. They argued the policy shift to outcomes-based education allowed for flexibility and did not prohibit the teaching of these subjects as institutional courses. The case was consolidated with a related petition from a separate group of academics, artists, and lawmakers, which raised similar constitutional issues regarding the preservation of national identity and language.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether CMO No. 20, Series of 2013, which removed Filipino, Panitikan, and Philippine Constitution as mandatory core subjects, was unconstitutional for violating provisions on education, labor, and the national language.

RULING

The Court, through the ponencia of Justice Caguioa, declared CMO No. 20 unconstitutional. The legal logic centered on the State’s positive constitutional duties under Article XIV. The Court held that the removal of these specific subjects contravened the mandate to provide a “complete, adequate, and integrated system of education.” Filipino and Panitikan are indispensable to the development of national identity and the Filipino language, a duty expressly mandated by Section 6 of Article XIV. Similarly, the Philippine Constitution course is essential for civic education and fostering patriotism, which are integral to a complete educational system.
The Court rejected the argument that the policy was a valid exercise of academic freedom, ruling that such freedom cannot override specific constitutional commands to the State. The CHED’s discretion is not absolute and must be exercised within the framework of these constitutional priorities. The decision emphasized that while the State promotes global competitiveness, it must first ensure the foundational goals of education rooted in national culture and citizenship are fulfilled. The dispositive portion permanently prohibited the implementation of the assailed CMO. Justice Leonen, in a separate concurring opinion, reinforced this view, highlighting the interconnectedness of the constitutional provisions on education, language, and labor rights, and stressing that the policy failed to consider its detrimental impact on the security of tenure of affected educators.