Trillanes, coalition: Shelve K to 12

11

Philippine education should give no room to the government’s K to 12 program, partly because Filipinos lack extra money for it, according to Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th..

“We must work together and let our voices be heard by PNoy [President Benigno Aquino 3rd] and the Supreme Court. Our goal is to make them realize that our country doesn’t need the K to 12 Program and the people cannot afford it,” Trillanes said over the weekend as he led the launch of the Coalition for K to 12 suspension.

Malacañang, however, stood firm on the government’s decision to continue nationwide implementation of the enhanced Basic Education Program or K to 12 Law.

Presidential Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. on Sunday pointed out that the program aims at enhancing competitiveness of the Filipino in the global economy.


Still, Trillanes said on Saturday, “It is more appropriate to call this the K MINUS 12 program because of problems besetting [it].”

The senator said the program lacks resources, tools, classrooms, teachers and time to prepare for its implementation, among other concerns.

Coalition head and Professor Rene Luis Tadle, during the launch, explained that they decided to form the group after they found out that the country’s education system is ill-prepared for the program.

The coalition, composed of members of Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities in the Philippines, faculty, non-teaching staff, parents, labor unions and faculty associations, said majority of the country’s high schools do not have enough classrooms and facilities to accommodate additional number of students as a result of the program.

“Even most parents are not aware of details of this program, including the financial burden it would bring them,” Tadle added.

In a manifesto, the coalition cited alleged failure of the government to afford protection to labor as among the grounds why the program should be suspended.

It said 56,771 out of 111,351 college teachers and 22,838 non-teaching staff will be at risk of losing their jobs as a result of a huge decline in the number of college enrollees starting academic year 2016-2017.

Under the K to 12 Program, two more years, referred to as senior high school, will be added to the current education system.

The new system 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.

During senior high school, students are expected to specialize in areas or career tracks they want to pursue, which include: Academic; Technical-Vocational-Livelihood; and Sports and Arts.

The Academic track includes three strands: Business, Accountancy and Management (BAM); Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (HESS); and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

The coalition plans to file a petition for suspension of the program before the Supreme Court.

In defending the K to 12 Program, Coloma told government-run dzRB radio, “Perceived disadvantages brought about by its implementation are being addressed jointly by the Cabinet education cluster composed of DepEd [Department of Education], CHED [Commission on Higher Education], and Tesda [Technical Education Skills Development Authority].”

He said the program became national policy upon enactment of Republic Act 10533 or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, which became effective on June 8, 2013.

WITH CATHERINE S. VALENTE

Share.
.
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

11 Comments

  1. Una, Pinakamalaking dahilan na ibinibigay ng marami na sang ayon sa K-12 ay international recognition. meaning ung mga mag aaral sa ibang bansa ay having issues kasi kulang ang years of educationn nila compare sa mga ibang bansa. Ang Tanong: Ilang percentage ba ng mga Pilipino ang nagkakaroon ng chance na makapag aral sa ibang bansa? Why kailangan na ang lahat ng mag aaaral dumaan sa ganitong sistema? Kung ang problema lang ay kulang ang years of education pag nag aral sa ibang bansa pwede naman silang mag aral ng additional 2 years ( grade 11 and 12 ) before sila pumunta sa ibang bansa at mag aral. Maraming international school dito sa Pilipinas kung saan pwede sila mag aral ng grade 11 and 12. Hindi na kailangan na pahirapan pa ang lahat ng mamamayan sa buong bansa at ipapasan ang karagdagan na 2 taon sa mga mahihirap na Pilipino.

    Pangalawa: Bakit hindi muna pagtuunan ng goberno at DedEd ang pagtataas ng standard of teachings dito sa atin. Anong sense na ipagyabang natin sa ibang bansa na meron tayong 12 yrs of education and yet ang simpleng applications lang sa computer ay hindi kayang gawin ng ating mga mag aaral? Bakit ? Ilan po ba sa ating public schools ang mayroong mga computers? Sa bawat ginagawa ng mga students puro computerized na, homework, researches, reports, presentations, etc. Ang ating mag aaral hindi natututo gumamit ng computer from schools. they are learning from internet cafe , mabuti na lang matiyaga magturo ang mga internet cafe staff kung pano gagamitin ang microsoft word, kung pano mag save para maprint ung mga ginawa nila. Bentahe ung meron mga computers sa bahay , pano ung mga wala?

    Pangatlo: Bago tayo gumastos ng malaki sa pag implement nitong K-12, gastusan muna natin ang mga paaralan upang makapagdagdag ng mga classrooms. Makabili ng mas advance na mga libro. Ang mga private schools tulad ng LaSalle, Don bosco etc ay nakakayang bumili ng mga advance books at magturo ng mga advance lessons na “SIGURADONG MAKAKAPANTAY SA STANDARD OF TEACHING SA IBANG BANSA” bakit hindi ito MUNA ang gawin ng gobyerno?

    Pang-apat: Ang mga schools natin ay hindi equipped sa K-12. Kulang na nga ang mga classrooms for 1st yr to 4th yr. magdadagdag pa tayo ng grade 11 and 12. Sa K-12 may mga categories na pwede piliin ang mga bata depende sa gusto nilang kunin na kurso sa college. Halimbawa: Kung gusto nila ng Engineering, Academic category ang pipiliin nila. Kung I.T ang gusto ,category TechVoc, meron category ng Arts, meron category ng Sports.. Dahil hindi equipped ang mga schools natin , at kulang sa mga classrooms, hindi lahat ng schools ay mag ooffer ng grade 11 at 12. Ang isang school ay isang category lang ang pwede i-offer. Tulad ng school ng anak ko. dahil sa survey nila sa mga students nila, pinakamarami ang pumili ng academic category so un lang ang i-offer nila sa school nila. So kung gusto nila mag I.T dapat school na nag oofer ng TechVoc category ang puntahan nila para dun mag aral. So ang gagawin nila HAHANAP SILA NG SCHOOL NA NAG OOFER NITO, kung ang isang simpleng mahirap na pamilya na nakatira sa malapit sa isang high school pero wala nung category na kukunin nila, hahanap sila ng school kahit malayo pa sa kanila at gagastos pa sila ng pamasahe para lang makapag aral dun sa school na nag ooffer ng category na kailangan nila.

    Ang karagdagang taon ay hindia masama , pero sana ay gawin nila itong optional at hindi mandatory. Kung ang mga mag aaral sa ibang bansa lang ang mas nanganagilangan ng 12 yrs education. Pwede nila itong kunin ( grade 11 at 12 ) sa mga international school dito sa Pilipinas bago sila mag aral sa ibang bansa. Kung kailangan talaga ng mga mag stay dito sa Pilipina uoang dito mag aral, Paghandaan muna ito ng Gobyerno. At pag isipan kung ano ba ang mahalaga, ang sinasabi ba ng ibang bansa na kulang tayo ng 2 years of education or ang Higher and advance standard of teachings dito sa Pilipinas.

  2. leo jr baguio on

    yes I’m also agree with sen.trillanes.para sa akin dapat ang mga teachers lang e k to 12 kasi daming mga teachers hindi marunong mag teach.bakit yong estudyante ng private school magaling compare to public school?yong ng propose ng k 12 cguru yong budget bulsa na naman.money making

  3. the 14 education years (elementary to college) is good if we don’t have much plan outside the Philippines. Things have changed nowadays, if your children are vying to pursue further studies abroad many universities in other countries require the 16 years of education meaning Filipinos need to take another two year course before they can apply.

    Another dilemma which is common is that Filipinos who are already in college if they move to other countries they have to return to the high school level in that particular country.

    In terms of job qualification – more and more employers and giving priority to nationals who have the 16 years education, so that Filipinos end up getting the lower jobs or jobs that do not fit their education such as doctors working as nurse in the US or Nurse working as care givers and engineers as foreman.

  4. mas maganda ba ang lumang sestema? kung ang k to 12 ba ay hindi rn maganda,ano ba ang maganda? dapat may ibibigay dn kayong alternative na sa palagay nyo mas maganda na sestema..! ano yon..?!

  5. This government never listens to its people. They are bent on doing what they want no matter what it takes. It never was for the “Tuwid na Daan”, nor for the “mahirap” of the “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap”, It’s all about payback to its oligarch supportes.

  6. Troy Colmenares on

    I hope this helps everyone.

    Nature of the Case
    A novel issue questioning the extent of authority that the Bicameral Conference Committee has in the event of conflicting Upper and Lower House bills involving the same subject matter.
    Right of Action

    1. The Honorable Court is duty-bound to strike down any act of a branch or instrumentality of government or any of its officials done with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;

    2. The Honorable Court’s exercise of its judicial power to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine that R.A. 10533 has not been duly enacted and did not accordingly become law.

    3. Being members of the educational community, for itself and in behalf of all the real parties-in-interest, which is no other than the public itself similarly situated who are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Honorable Court.

    4. The right of a citizen to vindicate the publics’ right as the issues involved and presented are of transcendental importance.
    Cause of Action
    Infringement of the following constitutional provisions:
    1. The “three reading rule” and “no amendment rule” of Article VI, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

    No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal,

    by virtue of serious and substantial amendments introduced after the third reading and the Bicameral Conference Committee Report.

    2. Usurpation of Legislative Power by the Bicameral Conference Committee as provided in ART VI, SEC 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

    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.

    Remedy Sought
    1. Strike down as unconstitutional R.A. 10533, otherwise known as, based on the following serious and substantial discrepancies found therein in relation to the Bicameral Conference Committee Report contained in Senate Journal 52 (30 January 2013):

    a. Sec. 5;
    b. Sec. 6;
    c. Sec. 7;
    d. Sec. 8;
    e. Sec. 9;
    f. Sec. 12;
    g. Sec. 13;
    h. Sec. 14;
    i. Sec. 15;
    j. Sec. 18;

    2. A temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Education (DepEd) and other implementing agencies to cease from implementing R.A. 10533;
    Issues
    1. Did R.A. 10533 accordingly become a law?
    1.1. Is R.A. 10533 unduly enacted?
    1.2. Was there grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
    1.2.1. Can a Bicameral Conference Committee validly introduce amendments that were not contained in the following:
    1.2.1.1. respective bills of the Senate and the House of Representatives?
    1.2.1.2. Bicameral Conference Committee Report?
    Material Facts
    I. Before Congressional Deliberations (2010-2013)
    A. Promise #21: K-12 Program
    • July 25, 2010
    o the President of the Philippines
    • wanted
    • to add two years to our basic education.
    • at least 12 years for our public school children to give them an even chance at succeeding.
    • announced
    • ”My education team has designed a way to go from our current 10 years xxx to a K-12 system in five years starting SY 2011-12. Kindergarten (K) to Grade 12 is what the rest of the world gives their children.
    B. April 17, 2012
    • The Department of Education (DepEd) issues DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 containing the “POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013”
    • K-12 is not a law as of this time. There was only Kindergarten + Grade 6 + 4 years in highs chool.
    • Enclosure No. 1 of this Order allocated no time for Science in Grades 1 and 2.
    II. The Passage of the House Bill
    A. June 5, 2012
    In a senate committee hearing on bills regarding education, Sen. Trillanes is reportedly quoted saying

    “This K to 12 program apparently is being forced on everybody else, on the parents, the school children and teachers without an enabling law.”
    B. September 24, 2012
    • Senate’s K-12 version (SBN 3286) has been recommended for approval.
    C. October 8, 2012
    • The Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations (COCOPEA) published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) a statement urging the “xxx HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES TO HASTEN THE PASSAGE INTO LAW OF THE ‘ENHANCED BASIC EDUCATION ACT OF 2012’ OR THE K-12 BILL”
    • Senate transferred SBN 3286 from the Ordinary Calendar for Business to the Calendar for Special Order
    D. October 15, 2012
    • one week after the COCOPEA statement in PDI, the Lower House filed and read HBN 6643 (Lower House’s K-12 version)
    E. Date of approval of the bills
    2nd Reading 3rd Reading
    HBN 6643 October 17, 2012 November 19, 2012
    SBN 3286 December 18, 2012 January 21, 2013

    • “…Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed…” (Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution). Thus, no amendment after:

    F. January 23, 2013
    • Senate requested a bicameral conference committee (BICAM) to the House of Representatives [to deliberate on the disagreeing provisions of SBN 3286 and HBN 6643]
    • This is allowed under
    o Rule XII, Section 35 of the Rules of the Senate
    • “…Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in, or amendments to the subject measure…”
    o Sections 88 and 89, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House of Representatives
    • “…In resolving the differences with the Senate, the House panel shall, as much as possible, adhere to and support the [Lower] House Bill…”
    • “….Each report shall contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject measure…”
    G. January 30, 2013
    • Senate approved the BICAM Conference Committee Report submitted to it containing the reconciled version of HBN 6643 and SBN 3286.
    • Senate Journal No. 52 (dated 30 January 2013) contains the “JOINT EXPLANATION OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON THE DISAGREEING PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL NO. 3286 AND HOUSE BILL NO. 6643”
    H. February 5, 2013
    • House of Representatives approved the Conference Committee Report, although the effective date was 30 January 2014.
    I. April 15, 2013
    • enrolled copies of the consolidated version of SBN 3286 and HBN 6643 were finally approved by both houses
    J. April 16, 2013
    • the consolidated version was sent to the President of the Philippines for signature and approval
    K. May 15, 2013
    • enrolled bill was approved and signed into law
    III. BICAM Report and observations
    1) Section 5 of the House version was adopted as Section 5 of the reconciled bill;
    o Sec 5 of R.A. 10533 excludes Sec 5(b), 5(c) and 5(f) of HBN 6643
    o Sec 5(f) of HBN 6643 that “xxx Mathematics and Science shall be introduced as early as Grade 1 xxx”
    o DepEd, even prior to the passage of R.A. 10533, or indeed SBN 3286 and HBN 6643, issued DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, which explicitly did not to allocate a time for Science in Grades 1 and 2. In fact, the DepEd Secretary is quoted in the Manila Bulletin on 24 January 2012 for saying:

    “For instance, there will be no Science subject in Grade 1 but when the students do the readings, there will be Science concepts introduced but Science is not the subject.”

    2) Section 6, paragraph 1 of the House version was adopted as Section 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.

    o The legislature specified which members of the educational community shall form part of the envisioned Curriculum Consultative Committee – namely, 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 and elders of the indigenous peoples communities. It also added in the bicameral conference committee the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCCA).
    o These enumerations were deleted.
    3) Section 7 of the House version was adopted as Section 7 of the reconciled version;
    o During the bicameral conference committee, both Senate and Congress agreed to use SBN 3286 as a working draft. SEC 7 of SBN 3286 should have been adopted as SEC 8 of the reconciled version, and SEC 7 of HBN 6643 should have been adopted as SEC 7 of the reconciled version. This was not the case. The passage of R.A. 10533 lost SEC. 7 of HBN 6643.

    4) Section 7 of the Senate version was adopted as Section 8 of the reconciled version;
    o The legislators intended SEC 7 of SBN 3286 to be SEC 8 of the reconciled version. Instead, it appeared as SEC 7 of R.A. 10533 which replaced SEC 7 of HBN 6643, which should have been SEC 7 of the enrolled bill.
    5) Section 8 of the Senate version was adopted as Section 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.”;

    o The legislators intended SEC 8 of SBN 3286 to be SEC 9 of the reconciled version. Instead, it appeared as SEC 8 of R.A. 10533.
    o The word “exam” does not appear on paragraph [a] of SEC 8 of SBN 3286.

    6) Section 10 of the Senate version was adopted as Section 10 of the reconciled version with amendment to insert the words “or accredited” between the words “developed” and “by”;
    o The legislators intended for SEC 10 of SBN 3286 to be SEC 10 of the reconciled version. Instead, it appeared as SEC 9 of R.A. 10533.
    o SEC 10 of SBN 3286 does not contain the words “developed” and “by”.
    o SEC 9 of R.A. 10533 contains the statement “Provided, That they undergo a training program to be developed or accredited by the DepED.”
    7) Sections 11 and 13 of the Senate version were adopted as Sections 11 and 12 o f the reconciled version;
    o The legislature intended for SEC 11 and SEC 13 of SBN 3286 to be SEC 11 and 12 of the reconciled version, respectively. Instead, they appeared as SEC 10 and SEC 11 in R.A. 10533.
    8) Sections 14,15, and 17 of the Senate version were adopted as Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the reconciled version;
    o The legislative intended for SEC 14, SEC 15, and SEC 17 of SBN 3286 to be SEC 13, 14, and 15 of the reconciled version, respectively. Instead, SEC 14 of SBN 3286 appeared as SEC 12 of R.A. 10533, SEC 15 appeared as SEC 17 of R.A. 10533, and SEC 17 appeared as SEC 19 of R.A. 10533.
    o The provision on the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on the Enhanced Basic Educational Program (K to 12 Program) appears in SEC 13 of R.A. 10533, but the same never appeared in the third readings of SBN 3286 and HBN 6643, respectively. The same is true for SEC 14 and SEC 15 of R.A. 10533.
    9) Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Senate version were adopted as Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the reconciled version;
    o Line 41 of SBN 3286 ends with SEC 17. Effectivity Clause. The last word seen in SBN 3286 is “Approved,”. There are no sections 18, 19 and 20 in SBN 3286.
    o SEC 17 and SEC 19 of R.A. 10533 appears as SEC 15 and SEC 17 of SBN 3286.
    o The provision in SEC 16 of SBN 3286, “Republic Act 1425 or the inclusion in the College Curricula, The Life, Works and Writings of Jose Rizal” have been deleted.

  7. Troy Colmenares on

    Hi Ms. Valente! Good article! I would to support this movement. I am from the Visayas Region and would like to be in touch with the coalition. Could you kindly facilitate contact? Thanks! Troy Colmenares

  8. Eddie de Leon on

    Alam ba ni Trillanes et al na habang walang Kto12 ang school records ng mga Filipino ang college transcript of records nila, maski PhD. na ang natapos, ay bali wala kasi may Bologna covention at iba pang international covenants na hindi bibigyan ng halaga ang college at postgraduate degrees na mga taong hindi nagkaron ng K1o12 elementary and high school education?

    Mga tangigot!!!!

  9. Josephine Abueg on

    well written!
    I agree with Sen. Trillanes and Mr. Tadle. It’s about time that we stand together as a Nation and be counted. The K-12 decision was made without really consulting all stakeholders as they claimed they did. The global competitiveness they mean is so Filipinos can work abroad more cheaply. Filipinos has claimed job successes in other countries just by having the old curriculum. The so-called Senior High School is just stretching the number of years without any development in the academic as they claimed to be. The extra two years is to bring in the ‘Vocational/Technical’ skill which we use to have (and still have) for free.
    The public school cannot afford to apply the senior high school due to reasons mentioned by Sen. Trillanes. The DepEd holds a carrot stick to entice the poor families who because of their situation cannot think twice. DepEd’s desire to manipulate us should be stopped now.
    More power to your paper!

  10. Muriel Magtanggol on

    Trillanes, you are really a nitwit! Why don’t you consider the youth’s competitiveness to the world. Open your eyes. Phil. Education is not valued abroad! Do not be miopic. As a Senator with lots of pork, you should be thinking of how you can make education affordable to all!