INCLUSION OF CONSTITUTION IN THE CURRICULA / AUXILIARY OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (CoTeSCUP), et.al., v. Secretary
of Education, et.al.
G.R. No. 216930, October 09, 2018

DOCTRINE: CMO No. 20 only provides for the minimum standards for the GE component of all degree programs.
Therefore, HEIs are given the freedom to require additional Filipino or Panitikan courses to these minimum
requirements if they wish to.
It is evident that Congress has the power to enact a law that designates Filipino as the primary medium of instruction
even in the regions but, in the absence of such law, the regional languages may be used as primary media of
instruction.
FACTS: The petition assails the constitutionality of RA 10533 or the K to 12 Law, RA 10157 (Kindergarten
Education Act) and related issuances such as the CHED Memorandum No. 20.
Under CMO No. 20, the GE curriculum requires the completion of 36 units as compared to the previous 63/51 units
requirement. These 36 units are distributed as follows: 24 units of core courses; 9 units of elective courses; and 3 units
on the life and works of Rizal. It did not include the study of Filipino, Panitikan and Philippine Constitution as core
subjects.
Meanwhile, the K to 12 Law adopts the following key changes in the Basic Education Curriculum (BEC): (1) Mother
Tongue (MT) will be used as a primary medium of instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3 and an additional
learning area in Grades 1 to 3.
Among others, petitioners assert that CMO No. 20 is violative of the Constitution because the study of Filipino,
Panitikan and the Philippine Constitution are not included as core subjects.
Also, petitioners argue that the use of the MT or the regional or native language as primary medium of instruction for
kindergarten and the first three (3) years of elementary education contravenes Section 7, Article XIV of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, which expressly limits and constrains regional languages simply as auxiliary media of
instruction.
ISSUE: Whether the CMO No. 20 is violative of Constitution for non-inclusion of Filipino, Panitikan and the
Constitution as core subjects.
Whether or not the use of mother tongue or the regional or native language as primary medium of instruction for first
three (3) years is violative of Constitution.
RULING: No.
INCLUSION OF CONSTITUTION IN THE CURRICULA
CMO No. 20 only provides for the minimum standards for the GE component of all degree programs. Under Section
13 of RA No. 7722 or the Higher Education Act of 1994, the 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.
The provision further provides that this authority shall not be construed as limiting the academic freedom of
universities and colleges. Therefore, HEIs are given the freedom to require additional Filipino or Panitikan courses to
these minimum requirements if they wish to.
AUXILIARY OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
Based from the deliberations of the framers of the Constitution, the Court held that it was never their intent to use only
Filipino and English as the exclusive media of instruction.
It is evident that Congress has the power to enact a law that designates Filipino as the primary medium of instruction
even in the regions but, in the absence of such law, the regional languages may be used as primary media of
instruction.
The Congress, however, opted not to enact such law. On the contrary, the Congress, in the exercise of its wisdom,
provided that the regional languages shall be the primary media of instruction in the early stages of schooling.