Tanggol Wika: Opposing CHED Memo No. 20-2013

Last July, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) ordered all universities to retain six to nine units of Filipino subjects in compliance with the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) on CHED Memorandum (CMO) No. 20 Series of 2013.

The memo proposed to remove all Filipino and Literature General Education (GE) subjects from the university level curriculum and transfer them instead to Grades 11 and 12 as part of the adjustment to the K+12 system.

TRO implementation

In 2015, the Supreme Court issued a TRO a week after the implementation of CMO No. 20 in response to a petition filed by groups of professors, students, and legislators who opposed the said memo. Alyansa ng mga Tagapagtanggol ng Wika (Tanggol Wika) members, advocates of Filipino language and one of the groups that petitioned before the high tribunal, argued that the removal of Filipino subjects is an act of violation against the 1987 Constitution. They deemed unconstitutional Section 3 of the said memo, which makes the teaching of Filipino discretionary for colleges and universities. Furthermore, the petitioners asserted that the new curriculum proposed by the memo undermines the State policies which mandate the preservation of teaching literature as part of cultural heritage and the instillation of nationalism and patriotism in all levels of education.

The petitioners maintained that the removal of Filipino subjects in the new curriculum also disregards laws, namely Republic Act 7104 (Organic Act of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino/Commission on the Filipino Language), Republic Act No. 232 (Education Act of 1982), and Republic Act No. 7356 (Organic Act of the National Commission on Culture and the Arts). Moreover, the petitioners claimed that CHED failed to consult with colleges and universities in the country prior to the implementation of the memo. They also cited in the petition how the CHED memo would lead to the dismissal of an estimated 78,000 college teachers who handle these subjects.

Filipino Department Professor Dr. David San Juan shares, “We filed against CMO No. 20 and then later the SC stopped the implementation of this with regard of the abolition of Filipino and now the CHED is respecting [the TRO].”

Ever since CHED Memorandum No. 20 Series of 2013 was proposed, several schools had already implemented the new general curriculum proposed by the memorandum. The TRO would effectively compel them to retract this adjustment. “For schools that abolished their Filipino and or Literature departments, they are now compelled to revive, reconstitute, or re-establish the departments that they have abolished, and consequently, they have to rehire the teachers that have been fired because of the abolition of Filipino and Literature,” Dr. San Juan explains.

Future prospects, implications

With regard to the changes that will come with the new curriculum, Dr. San Juan sheds light on the impact of the TRO in the future. “Under the new curriculum, the old number of units for Filipino subjects in college will be retained. That means that now, we have six to nine units of Filipino subjects for incoming freshman students. So, despite the fact that all the universities in the Philippines can now implement the new GE curriculum, they are being told to retain six to nine units of Filipino subjects,” he shares.

One of the justifications given by CHED regarding the removal of Filipino subjects in the college level was to avoid redundancy with Filipino courses in the senior high level. However, Dr. San Juan clarifies that while there would be similarities among the courses, they will ultimately be distinct.

Dr. San Juan narrates, “The college subjects that we teach, at least in La Salle, are very different from those [taught in Senior High School (SHS)]. Of course, there are some common readings, but I have actually done a content analysis of this (and we have already published this years ago).” He adds that 90 percent of lessons taught in college Filipino subjects are different from those taught to senior high students.

Dr. San Juan also stresses the necessity of having Filipino and Literature subjects not only in SHS but also in the collegiate level. He states, “Despite the fact that we have SHS subjects for Filipino and Literature, we believe that these subjects are not enough to expand the knowledge and skills of students in Filipino and Literature and there is still a need for equivalent college subjects that will further expand what they have learned in high school.”

He adds that hypothetically, a new syllabus for the college courses can be designed in cases where similarities with the SHS courses are too many.

Furthermore, Dr. San Juan declares that having Filipino subjects both in the senior high and college levels would improve mastery of the language and would justify it as a medium of instruction. “[Filipino] will be in a stronger position to [be] a medium of instruction because remember, we still have Filipino subjects in SHS. So, that means that we have more opportunities for teaching Filipino as a subject and this can strengthen [it] as a medium of instruction. We can now justify Filipino as a medium of instruction because we have plenty more time to learn the language,” he posits.