Supreme Court reiterates Filipino, Panitikan not required

in college
The Supreme Court en banc has promulgated its decision on October 9, 2018, upholding among
others, the constitutionality of the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) Memorandum
Order No. 20, series of 2013 also known as the “General Education Curriculum Holistic
Understandings, Intellectual and Civic Competencies,” which excluded the study of Filipino,
Panitikan, and the Philippine Constitution as core subjects.

In determining the constitutionality of CMO No. 20, Series of 2013, the Supreme Court stated
three salient points. First, that under Section 13 of R.A. 7722, CHED is authorized to determine
the (a) minimum unit requirements for specific academic programs; (b) general education
distribution requirements as may be determined by the Commission; and (c) specific
professional subjects as may be stipulated by the various licensing entities. Second, that the
study of Filipino, Panitikan and the Constitution are actually found in the basic education
curriculum from Grades 1 to 10 and Senior High School pursuant to the K-12 Law. The changes
in the GE curriculum were implemented to ensure that there would be no duplication of
subjects in Grades 1 to 10, Senior High School and College. Third, that in the tertiary level,
nothing in the stated laws require that Filipino and Panitikan must be included as subjects, and
that the study of Filipino can easily be included as courses of study in the tertiary level, if Higher
Education Institutions decide to do so. Hence, CMO No. 20, Series of 2013 was found to be
constitutional and did not violate any other laws.

The K to 12 Law was enacted in 2013 to enable basic education graduates to gain mastery of
core competencies and skills. K to 12 graduates are expected to be university-ready. To be
university-ready, graduates of the basic education curriculum should have taken Filipino,
Panitikan and the Constitution. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) may enhance these
competencies by including additional subjects in Filipino, Panitikan or integrate these into
existing subjects in their curriculum.

CMO No. 20, Series of 2013 was issued on June 28, 2013. None of the current CHED
commissioners were in office at that time and therefore were not privy to the context and
discussions that were the basis for the CHED Memorandum.

News reports indicate that the groups opposed to the Supreme Court decision may be filing
their motions for reconsideration. The CHED respects this decision and will wait for the
Supreme Court to decide finally on the issue.

The Commission will continue to uphold the rule of law, study the issues raised by education
stakeholders and await the final decision of the Supreme Court.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People and the Plunder Law
Since the inception of Martial Law and the 21-year regime of the former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos, government prosecutors were faced with monumental task of filing multiple and
individual criminal cases against the former President for each and every crime committed
during his term.1 In relation to this, the Senate and the House of Representatives were
prompted to file Senate Bill No. 7332 and House Bill No. 22752,3 respectively. These bills were
eventually consolidated into Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law). 4
In the case of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People,5 the Ombudsman filed a case against former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several high-ranking public officials from the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for plundering the national treasury of almost P366 million.6 Four years later,
in July 2016, in a highly controversial and politicized decision, the Supreme Court voted 10-4 in favor of
dismissing the charges against former President Arroyo. 7

Between 2008 and 2010, Rosario C. Uriarte, then PCSO General Manager and Vice Chairman, made
several cash advances (letter-requests) from the Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF) of the PCSO,8
purportedly to address “fraudulent schemes and nefarious activities … which affect the integrity of the
PCSO’s operations.”9 These cash advances were ripe with irregularities: the CIF funds were commingled
with the charity, operating, and prize funds of the PCSO, contrary to law; 10 the cash advances were not
supported by documentation, but were still signed and approved by the PCSO Budget and Accounts
Officer Benigno B. Aguas, also contrary to law; 11 and the money was withdrawn even though PCSO was
already working on a deficit. 12 In spite of all these irregularities, the cash advances were signed and
approved by President Arroyo with an unqualified “OK.” 13

____________________
1
An Act Defining and Penalizing the Offense of Plunder, S.B. No. 733, 8 th Cong., 2nd Regular Session (1988).
2
Id.
3
An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder, House Bill No. 22752, 8 th Cong., 2nd Regular Session (1988).
4
An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder, Republic Act No. 780 (1991).
5
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, 797 SCRA 241 (2016).
6
Id. at 269.
7
More accurately, the Court granted her demurrer to evidence against the Ombudsman’s Information against her, effectively
dismissing the case with prejudice.
8
Macapagal-Arroyo, 797 SCRA at 270 & 279. Sergio O. Valencia, Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Chairman of the
Board of Directors, also made cash advances, although not nearly as much as Uriarte. Id. at 270-73.
9
Id. at 324.
10
Id. at 274.
11
Id. at 261.
12
Id. at 274-78.
13
Macapagal-Arroyo, 722 SCRA at 301.