Legal History of Philippine Education: Laws and Jurisprudence

I.       Introduction

It is said that the welfare of the people is the highest law, salus populi est suprema lex. (Sutton, 2012)

In connection with the above, Chaves (2006) pointed out that service to the people does not only come in the form of health care programs or security systems but also in the form of education. This is probably the reason why framers of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines saw to it to emphasize that “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” (Section 1, Article XIV)

This term paper aims to investigate and elaborate on the importance of Philippine laws and jurisprudence in the development of the system of education that Filipinos currently enjoy. This has to be done since, as it is not uncommon knowledge to all, a discussion on how education started would be incomplete and hollow without making mention of the legal backdrop that scaffolded the institutionalization of the teaching and learning process.

First, a glimpse of the first laws ever passed in the Philippines will be given focus. Next, the subsequent developments made by the Congress and the Supreme Court in order to keep inviolate the sacred right of the people to education at all levels, as enshrined in the Constitution, will be discussed. Finally, a short discussion on the current trends and developments in the Philippine legal system as regards education will mark the end of this investigation.

II.    PRIOR TO THE LEGAL WORLD

Before the time the Philippines suffered subjugation under the powers of different sovereigns and during the time when societies were not governed by laws yet but by men still, children were provided practical and vocational training by their parents, relatives, tribal tutors and leaders. There were no schools or academic activities. Everything was basically and purely see-and-do, try-and-fail. (Goh, 2007)

Probably, the closest thing to theoretical learning that time was the passing through oral traditions and ceremonies of stories, songs, poetry, and dances. These pieces of information were passed from one generation to another. This system of education was not restrained by any statute or code but fueled by instinct and curiosity.

III. SPANISH TIMES

It is said that even before the Spanish colonizers set foot on Philippine soil, the Philippines already had a high rate of literacy compared to Madrid despite the lack of ordinances governing the regularity or uniformity of education of the young. (Woods, 2006) After settling in and after starting to take control of the country, however, the Spaniards did not enforce laws or ordinances to regulate education in the Philippines. Instead, teaching and learning were highly dependent on religious orders of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, headed by the Pope. (Amoroso, 2005)

Instead of legislative bodies enacting laws for the opening and inauguration of schools, universities and colleges, it were the friars who did so. It was not memorandum circulars and district orders which observed attendance of teachers and students, they were church mandates. (West and Woessmann, 2010)

IV. AMERICAN ERA

As early as high school, students in the Philippines are taught that when the Americans came and occupied the country, one of the best things that happened was the improvement of the country’s system of education. This is true.

The Schurman Commission, a group of five people composed for the purpose of surveying the Philippine islands, made the first and most important move in the history of our nation’s system of education. It made a report and recommendation to the Federal Government of the United States of America to establish a regularized and more uniform system of education in the country. Because of said report and recommendation, another commission was formed – the Taft Commission, which enforced free primary instruction and training for the people. This was the start of English being taught and used as a language on Filipino soil.

IV. A. Act No. 74 BY THE PHILIPPINE COMMISSION

Act. No. 74 is one that has to be remembered by all Filipino teachers.

This act established and legalized the first highly centralized system of public schools in the country. It was installed in 1901 by the Philippine Commission, the then operating legislative body of the Philippine Islands. The only problem faced by this system was the serious lack of qualified teachers, understandably so since it was the first attempt to do such a feat.

This is why the term Thomasiteshas become well-known in our textbooks and classroom lectures and discussions. The Thomasites are a group of more than one thousand (1000) teachers from the United States who were sent for the purpose of patching the gaping hole of qualified teachers in the country.

Finally, it is worth noting that Act. No. 74 is the same law which fathered the now Philippine Normal University (then Philippine Normal School), tasked with the great responsibility of training new Filipino teachers. (Kamow, 2010)

IV. B. Act No. 1870

Another Act by the Philippine Commission that is worth remembers is Act No. 1870. This is that Act which catapulted into existence the University of the Philippines.
Although this is not the first university in the Philippines, the same being University of Santo Tomas, it has nevertheless been the face of the quality of Philippine higher education.

IV. C. REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1916

This here provided for the Filipinization of all department secretaries in the Philippine Executive Branch, with the exception of the Secretary of Public Instruction.

V.    THIRD REPUBLIC

During the Third Republic, Executive Order No. 94 was passed. This Order changed the name of the department responsible for the regulation of education across the islands of the Philippines. From Department of Instruction, it became Department of Education.

VI.    FOURTH REPUBLIC

It was in the year 1972 when the name Department of Education was once more changed to Department of Education and Culture. This was done by virtue of Proclamation 1081 by President Ferdinand Marcos.

After the ratification of the 1973 Constitution, three fundamental aims were zeroed in on by the Philippine system of education: foster love of country; teach the duties of citizenship, and; develop moral character, self-discipline, technological and vocational efficiency. (Tulio, 2008)

VI. A. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1

PD No. 1 delegated the decision-making powers of the Department of Education and Culture to thirteen (13) new regional offices.

VI. B. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1397

The name Department of Education and Culture was once again changed to the Ministry of Education and Culture.

VI. C. EDUCATION ACT OF 1982

This Act of 1982 provided for an integrated system of education covering both formal and non-formal education at all levels. Section 29 of the act sought to upgrade education institutions' standards to achieve "quality education", through voluntary accreditation for schools, colleges, and universities. Section 16 and Section 17 upgraded the obligations and qualifications required for teachers and administrators. Section 41 provided for government financial assistance to private schools. (Tulio, 2008)

For another time, the name of the Ministry was changed to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.

VII.    FIFTH REPUBLIC

A new constitution – the 1987 Constitution – was born out of a revolution.

This new constitution expanded the fundamental aims of the State in the promotion of education. Moreover, it is under this Constitution that only primary or elementary school is mandatory.

VII. A. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 117

This Order made the name Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). Nothing changed in the structure of the then Ministry until 1994. Practically, only the name was changed.

VII. B. Republic Act 6655

This Act made public secondary education free from 1988.

VIII. C. REPUBLIC ACT 7323

This Act provided that students aged 15 to 25 may be employed during Christmas and summer vacation with a salary not lower than the minimum wage—with 60% of the wage paid by the employer and 40% by the government.

VIII. D. REPUBLIC ACT 7722

Because of the Congressional Commission on Education report of 1991, Republic Act 7722 was passed by Congress in order to divide DECS into three (3) parts: the Commission on Higher Education (CHED); the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and; the DECS, which retained its jurisdiction over elementary and high schools. (Galvez &Panti, 2009)

VIII.    THE DAWN OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Year 2000 came and much more happened in the legal history of the system of education in the Philippines.

In August 2001, Republic Act 9155, otherwise called the Governance of Basic Education Act, was passed. This act changed the name of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) to the Department of Education and redefined the role of field offices (regional offices, division offices, district offices and schools). The act provided the overall framework for school empowerment by strengthening the leadership roles of headmasters and fostering transparency and local accountability for school administrations. The goal of basic education was to provide the school age population and young adults with skills, knowledge, and values to become caring, self-reliant, productive, and patriotic citizens.

In 2005, the Philippines spent about US$138 per pupil compared to US$3,728 in Japan, US$1,582 in Singapore and US$852 in Thailand.

In January 2009, the Department of Education signed a memorandum of agreement with the United States Agency for International Development to seal $86 million assistance to Philippine education, particularly the access to quality education in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), and the Western and Central Mindanao regions. (Galvez &Panti, 2009)

VIII. A. THE K-12 PROGRAM

A major improvement in the system of education in the Philippines emerged at the start of the twenty-first (21^st) century.

The implementation of the K-12 education system was implemented in 2011 by the Department of Education. Attached with this is a new curriculum for elementary and high schools all throughout the Philippine archipelago. Said implementation of this system in 2011 is a phased one. This means that it stagers into completeness until 2016.

VIII. B. (REPUBLIC ACT No. 10533)

RA 10533 aims at enhancing the Philippine basic education system by strengthening its curriculum and increasing the number of years for basic education. This law also sets the niche for fund appropriation for the K-12 system.

There are four "phases" during the implementation of the new system. These are:

1.      Phase I: Laying the Foundations. Its goal is to finally implement the universal kindergarten, and the "development of the (entire) program".

2.      Phase II: Modeling and Migration. Its goal is to promote the enactment of the basic education law, to finally start of the phased implementation of the new curriculum for Grades 1 to 4 and 7 to 10, and for the modeling of the senior high school.

3.      Phase III: Complete Migration. Its goal is to finally implement the Grades 11 and 12 or the senior high school, and to signal the end of migration to the new educational system.

4.      Phase IV: Completion of the Reform. Its goal is to complete the implementation of the K-12 education system. (DepEd, 2011)

In kindergarten, the pupils are mandated to learn the alphabet, numbers, shapes, and colors through games, songs, and dances, but in their mother tongue; thus after Grade 1, every student can read on his/her mother tongue. The 12 original mother tongue languages that have been introduced for the 2012-2013 school year are Bahasa Sug, Bikolano, Cebuano, Chabacano, Hiligaynon, Iloko, Kapampangan, Maguindanaoan, Meranao, Pangasinense, Tagalog, and Waray. 7 more mother tongue languages have been introduced for the 2013-2014 school year. These are Ibanag, Ivatan, Sambal, Akeanon, Kinaray-a, Yakan and Surigaonon.

In Grade 1, the subject areas of English and Filipino are taught, with a focus on "oral fluency".

In Grade 4, the subject areas of English and Filipino are gradually introduced, but now, as "languages of instruction".

The Science and Mathematics subjects are now modified to use the spiral progression approach starting as early as Grade 1 which means that every lesson will be taught in every grade level starting with the basic concepts to the more complex concepts of that same lesson until Grade 10.

The high school from the former system will now be called junior high school, while senior high school will be the 11th and 12th year of the new educational system. It will serve as a specialized upper secondary education. In the senior high school, students may choose a specialization based on aptitude, interests, and school capacity. The choice of career track will define the content of the subjects a student will take in Grades 11 and 12. Senior high school subjects fall under either the core curriculum or specific tracks. Core curriculum learning areas include languages, literature, communication, mathematics, philosophy, natural sciences, and social sciences. There are three choices that are available to be chosen by the students — or the so-called "specific tracks". These are: academics, technical-vocational-livelihood or sports and arts.

Under academics, three strands are included: business, accountancy, and management; humanities, education, and social sciences, or; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. On the other hand, technical-vocational-livelihood is for those who specialize in vocational learning. A student can obtain a National Certificate Level II (NC II), provided he/she passes the competency-based assessment of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. This certificate improves employability of graduates in fields like agriculture, electronics, and trade. Finally, sports and arts is responsible for educating senior high school students in the fields of sports and arts. (DepEd, 2011)

IX. OTHER LAWS AND COURT DECISIONS

IX. A. THE MAGNA CARTA FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS

The policy of this Act is to promote and improve the social and economic status of public school teachers, their living and working conditions, their terms of employment and career prospects in order that they may compare favorably with existing opportunities in other walks of life, attract and retain in the teaching profession more people with the proper qualifications, it being recognized that advance in education depends on the qualifications and ability of the teaching staff and that education is an essential factor in the economic growth of the nation as a productive investment of vital importance.

What is a teacher?

The term "teacher" shall mean all persons engaged in classroom teaching, in any level of instruction, on full-time basis, including guidance counselors, school librarians, industrial arts or vocational instructors, and all other persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions in all schools, colleges and universities operated by the Government or its political subdivisions; but shall not include school nurses, school physicians, school dentists, and other school employees.

Can a teacher be transferred?

Except for cause and as herein otherwise provided, no teacher shall be transferred without his consent from one station to another. Where the exigencies of the service require the transfer of a teacher from one station to another, such transfer may be effected by the school superintendent who shall previously notify the teacher concerned of the transfer and the reason or reasons therefor. If the teacher believes there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the Director of Public Schools or the Director of Vocational Education, as the case may be. Pending his appeal and the decision thereon, his transfer shall be held in abeyance: Provided, however, that no transfers whatever shall be made three months before any local or national election.

IX. B. Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994

Unauthorized Teaching

No person shall practice or offer to practice the teaching profession in the Philippines or be appointed as teacher to any position calling for a teaching position without having previously obtained a valid certificate of registration and a valid professional license from the Commission.

Other Crimes Related to Teaching

The following shall be punishable by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or imprisonment of nor less than six (6) months nor more than five (5) years, or both, at the discretion of the court:

1.      Any person who practices the teaching profession in the Philippines without being certified in accordance with the provisions of this Act;

2.      Any person who represents or attempts to use as his own certificate of registration that of another;

3.      Any person who gives any false, or fraudulent evidence of any kind to the Board or any member thereof in obtaining a certificate of registration as teacher;

4.      Any person who impersonates any registrant of the same or different name;

5.      Any person who uses a revoked or suspended certificate of registration;

6.      Any person who, in connection with his name, otherwise assumes, uses or advertises any title or description tending to convey or conveys the impression that he is a teacher without holding a valid certificate; and

7.      Any person who violates or who abets the violation of any of the provisions of this Act.

The penalty of fine or imprisonment or both, as provided in this section, shall also apply to any school official who shall cause or be responsible for the commission of any of the above-enumerated acts.

IX. C. CHUA-QUA VS. CLAVE

This would have been just another illegal dismissal case were it not for the controversial and unique situation that the marriage of herein petitioner, then a classroom teacher, to her student who was fourteen (14) years her junior, was considered by the school authorities as sufficient basis for terminating her services.

With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of the Code of Ethics by Chua-Qua governing school teachers would have no basis. Clave utterly failed to show that Chua-Qua took advantage of her position to court her student. If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.

It would seem quite obvious that the avowed policy of the school in rearing and educating children is being unnecessarily bannered to justify the dismissal of petitioner. This policy, however, is not at odds with and should not be capitalized on to defeat the security of tenure granted by the Constitution to labor. In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer and his failure to do so would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified. (Chua-Qua vs. Clave, 1990)

IX. D. ANDRADE VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Entrenched is the rule that bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. In this case, the Court found that there was no "dishonest purpose," or "some moral obliquity," or "conscious doing of a wrong," or "breach of a known duty," or "some motive or interest or ill will" that can be attributed to the private respondent. It appeared that efforts to accommodate petitioner were made as she was offered to handle two (2) non-teaching jobs, that is, to handle Developmental Reading lessons and be an assistant Librarian, pending her re-assignment or transfer to another work station, but she refused. The same would not have been proposed if the intention of private respondent were to cause undue hardship on the petitioner. Good faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced. It is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove such allegation. Absent enough proof thereof, the presumption of good faith prevails. Here, the burden of proving alleged bad faith therefore was with Andrade, the teacher, but she failed to discharge such onus probandi. Without a clear and persuasive evidence of bad faith, the presumption of good faith in favor of private respondent stands.

Deletion of Teacher’s Salary from the Payroll

With regards to the deletion of Andrade’s name from the regular monthly payroll of teachers, the Supreme Court found the same to be merely the result of a school policy being implemented by the school personnel. The school principal has nothing to do with the preparation of the payroll, as it is the school payroll clerk who prepares the same. In this case, as explained by payroll clerk Aida Soliman, Andrade’s name was not deleted from the regular monthly payroll but merely transferred to the last page of the roll since she failed to submit her Form 48 or Daily Time Record (DTR) sheet on time. The move was made so that the other teachers would not be unduly prejudiced by the delayed release of petitioner's salary, which as a policy was the consequence for late submission of DTRs.

IX. E. ORCINO VS. CSC

There can be no question that a decreased enrollment in a school can lead to a reduction of classes. Faced with an excess of teachers, schools principals are justified in recommending a solution to the problem. However, should reassignment be chosen as the way to solve said problem, reassignment should not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary.

A reassignment from Grade VI to Grade IV involves no reduction in rank, status, or salary. There is no showing in the records that there is less honor in teaching Grades I to IV than in teaching Grades V to VI. It is erroneous for the CSC to even intimate that an intermediate teacher is demoted when asked to teach a lower grade. The best teachers should welcome assignments to teach Grade One as this is where young minds need the best guidance and inspiration from talented and dedicated mentors. In this case, the reassignment was not only justified but also necessary.

An appointment as "Elementary Grades Teacher" in Manila means that the teacher can be assigned to any school in Manila. The choice of grade, subject area, primary or intermediate level, school, and district is pure policy and the determination as to the capabilities of the teacher and the assignment where she would be most useful are, in the absence of arbitrariness or whimsicality, best left to the administrators concerned. In Brillantes v. Guevarra (27 SCRA 138 [1969]) this Court held that an excellent principal in a model and centrally located school may be transferred to a struggling school in a less attractive community to improve standards and to "spur the improvement of small schools" (at p. 149). In other words, the interest of the service may dictate that the worst school should get the best principal. The same principle applies to classroom teachers. No one has the vested right to balk at difficult assignments ordered for the best interests of the service. There would be nothing disciplinary in this and other transfers.

It is not the welfare of the parties alone which is considered when disciplinary action involving classroom teachers or school principals is taken. The school children, their parents, other teachers, the community and nation are all affected by what goes on in a school. Their interlocking interests dictate that prudence and caution should be exercised when nullifying remedial transfers and other corrective actions. Except when there is strong showing of willful and arbitrary conduct, the school administrators deserve all the assistance they can get in maintaining discipline in their schools and solving the problems of education. (Orcino vs. CSC, 1990)

X.    CONCLUSION

Education is generally described as the process of providing or receiving systematic teaching. It is a basic human right because it is considered one of the fundamental guarantees that enable an individual to live his full potential as a human being.

Various international agreements entered into by the Philippines, including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, state that the state has a responsibility to guarantee the people’s right to education.

Our 1987 Constitution itself explicitly provides for government to “protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels” and “take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” The constitution also states that “the highest budgetary priority” shall be assigned to education.

Education is given a high value in the country because it is perceived by the masses as a stepping stone out of poverty, it is imagined by the middle classes as a way to climb to a higher social status, and is used by the ruling classes to reinforce their influence over the populace.

Education, more importantly, is of great importance for nation-building because it can mold the consciousness of the youth and the people and direct them towards particular purposes. Education, in this sense, can be either reactionary or liberatory.

It is reactionary if it functions to defend an exploitative and oppressive social order by “preventing the people from gaining critical awareness, from ‘reading’ critically their reality.” Education can be liberating if it seeks the opposite and works for social transformation.

The Philippine educational system has been plagued by a severe and chronic crisis that leaves it incapable of pushing for national progress. It has instead been molded “according to the interests of those who have power” and has reinforced worsening social inequality.

Rather than being treated as an investment with a crucial role in nation-building, education has become perpetually hostage to grave shortages, wrong priorities, and the demands of foreign powers. Instead of being conferred to the people as a basic right, it has become a privilege for a few.

The sorry state of affairs of Philippine education can be traced back to the country’s colonial period when the educational system was designed to mold loyal colonial subjects who valued the interests of their foreign masters above their own needs and aspirations. This was clearly the case under 300 years of Spanish colonial rule when all the schools were under the control and the direction of the Catholic Church. After all, “the most effective means of subjugating a people is to capture their minds.”

The arrival of the Americans did little to change this. Having waged a genocidal war that murdered over a million Filipinos in order to subdue the Filipino revolutionaries, the new colonizers realized the need for establishing a public school system in order to make the new regime acceptable. Filipinos were forced to speak in the colonizers’ tongue. They sang the “Star Spangled Banner.” They were told that the colonizers came to liberate them and teach them democracy. They were inculcated with the new rulers’ consumerist values. They were transformed into “little brown Americans.” Schools like the University of the Philippines and the Philippine Normal University were established to produce a new generation of Filipino clerks, businessmen, bureaucrats, teachers, and other professionals who are trained in the ways of the colonizers and beholden to foreign interests. Ultimately, education was fashioned to suit the colonial project of making the country dependent on the U.S. economically, politically, and culturally even after it was “granted” freedom.

REFERENCES

Andrade vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 127932. December 7, 2001. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Manila.

Chua-Qua vs. Clave. G.R. No. 49549. August 30, 1990. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Manila.

Damon L. Woods (2006), The Philippines: a global studies handbook, ABC-CLIO, p. 140, ISBN 978-1-85109-675-6

Daniel Chavez (2006). Beyond the Market: The Future of Public Services. TNI Public Services Yearbook 2005/6. Transnational Institute / Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU).

Department of Education. K to 12 Basic Education Program Frequently Asked Questions. 25 November 2011. Archived from the original on 2012-06-11. Retrieved 24 April 2015.

Doris D Tulio, Foundations of Education 2, 2nd Ed, National Book Store, Mandaluyong City, 2008, ISBN 971-08-6866-7 p120

Goh, D. P. (2007). States of ethnography: Colonialism, resistance, and cultural transcription in Malaya and the Philippines, 1890s–1930s. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 49(01), 109-142.

James Konstantin Galvez; Llanesca T. Panti (January 15, 2009), US provides $86-M aid for quality education, The Manila Times, archived from the original on 2009-01-30, retrieved 2009-01-15

Karnow, S. (2010). In our image: America's empire in the Philippines. Ballantine books.

Orcino vs. CSC. G.R. No. 92869. October 18, 1990. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Manila.

P. N. Abinales; Donna J. Amoroso (2005), State and society in the Philippines, Rowman& Littlefield, pp. 92–93, ISBN 978-0-7425-1024-1

Sagmit, R. S., &Sagmit-Mendosa, L. (2007). The Filipino Moving Onward 5 (2007 ed.), Rex Bookstore. Inc., ISBN, 1481873956.

Sutton, V. (2012). Asking the Right Questions: Body Scanners, Is SalusPopuli Supreme Lex the Answer. Health Matrix, 22, 443.

West, M. R., &Woessmann, L. (2010). ‘Every Catholic Child in a Catholic School’: Historical Resistance to State Schooling, Contemporary Private Competition and Student Achievement across Countries*. The Economic Journal, 120(546), F229-F255.