Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines v. Secretary of Education

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 216930. March 5, 2019.]

COUNCIL OF TEACHERS AND STAFF OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (CoTesCUP), ET AL., petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL., respondents.

[G.R. No. 217451. March 5, 2019.]

DR. BIENVENIDO LUMBERA (PAMBANSANG ALAGAD NG SINING AT PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES/UP), ET AL., petitioners, vs. PANGULONG BENIGNO SIMEON "NOYNOY" C. AQUINO III, ET AL., respondents.

[G.R. No. 217752. March 5, 2019.]

ANTONIO "SONNY" F. TRILLANES IV, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., respondents.

[G.R. No. 218045. March 5, 2019.]

EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR. AND AURELIO P. RAMOS, JR., petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DepEd) AND THE SECRETARY OF THE DepEd, respondents.

[G.R. No. 218098. March 5, 2019.]

RICHARD TROY A. COLMENARES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SECRETARY ARMIN A. LUISTRO, ET AL., respondents.

[G.R. No. 218123. March 5, 2019.]

CONGRESSMAN ANTONIO TINIO (REPRESENTATIVE, ACT TEACHERS PARTY-LIST), ET AL., petitioners, vs. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON "NOYNOY" C. AQUINO, ET AL., respondents.

[G.R. No. 218465. March 5, 2019.]

MA. DOLORES M. BRILLANTES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedMARCH 5, 2019, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 216930 — Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (CoTesCUP), et al. versus Secretary of Education, et al.

G.R. No. 217451 — Dr. Bienvenido Lumbera (Pambansang Alagad ng Sining at Professor Emeritus, University of the Philippines/UP), et al. versus Pangulong Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III, et al.

G.R. No. 217752 — Antonio "Sonny" F. Trillanes IV, et al. versus Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al.

G.R. No. 218045 — Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. and Aurelio P. Ramos, Jr. versus Department of Education (DepEd) and The Secretary of the DepEd

G.R. No. 218098 — Richard Troy A. Colmenares, et al. versus Department of Education Secretary Armin A. Luistro, et al.

G.R. No. 218123 — Congressman Antonio Tinio (Representative, ACT Teachers Party-List), et al. versus President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino, et al.

G.R. No. 218465 — Ma. Dolores M. Brillantes, et al. versus President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al.

RESOLUTION

Before the Court are Motions for Reconsideration 1(Motions) filed by TANGGOL WIKA in G.R. No. 217451 and petitioners in G.R. No. 218465, seeking reconsideration of the Court En Banc's Decision dated October 9, 2018 raising the following grounds:

In G.R. No. 217451, TANGGOL WIKA claims that the Constitution mandates the inclusion of the study of Filipino and the Constitution in the curriculum in all levels; thus, CHED Memorandum No. 20, Series of 2013 (CMO 20) fell short of complying with this provision when it removed the study of these subjects in the general education curriculum at the tertiary level. On the other hand, in G.R. No. 218465, petitioners insist that additional two (2) years of senior high school is arbitrary and oppressive as it fails to consider the needs of students of Science High Schools, who have higher mental capabilities.

The Motions are unmeritorious. The Court reiterates the following points discussed in its Decision:

1. While the Constitution mandates the inclusion of the study of the Constitution, Filipino and Panitikan in the curriculum of educational institutions, the mandate was general and did not specify the educational level in which it must be taught. Thus, CMO 20 did not violate the Constitution when it merely transferred these subjects as part of the curriculum of primary and secondary education.

Moreover, it must be emphasized that CMO 20 only provides for the minimum standards for the general education component of all degree programs. It does not limit the academic freedom of universities and colleges to require additional courses in Filipino, Panitikan and the Constitution in their respective curricula; and

2. The K to 12 Law, as a police power measure, is intended to promote the interest of the public and not only of a particular class. It does not violate substantive due process of petitioners in G.R. No. 218465 because the means employed are commensurate with its objectives — particularly: to improve the quality of basic education and to make the country's graduates more competitive in the international arena.

It is also erroneous for petitioners to assume that the K to 12 Law does not serve the interest of the students of Science High Schools. In fact, the K to 12 Law explicitly recognized the right of schools to modify their curricula subject, of course, to the minimum standards prescribed by DepEd. The K to 12 IRR further confirmed the inclusiveness of the design of the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum by mandating the inclusion of programs for the gifted and talented and allowing acceleration of learners in public and private educational institutions.

WHEREFORE, failing to offer any substantial argument, the subject Motions for Reconsideration are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately." Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave. (adv57)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court

 

Separate Opinions

LEONEN, J., hiwalay na opinyong pagsang-ayon:

Sumasang-ayon ako sa Resolusyon ng Hukumang ito na tanggihan ang mga Motions for Reconsideration na inihain ng Alyansa ng mga Tagapagtanggol ng Wikang Filipino (TANGGOL WIKA) sa G.R. No. 217451 at ng mag-asawang Ma. Dolores M. Brillantes at Severino L. Brillantes, et al. sa G.R. No. 218465.

Bukod sa mga natalakay sa orihinal na pasya 1 ng Hukumang ito, at ng hiwalay kong opinyong pagsang-ayon, 2 nais ko muling bigyang diin ang masalimuot na kaugnayan ng wika at ng konseptong kalayaang pang-akademiko (academic freedom) sa ating Saligang Batas.

Ayon sa TANGGOL WIKA, ang CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 ay labag sa Saligang Batas. Iginigiit nito na batay sa Saligang Batas, nararapat pa ring isama ang pag-aaral ng Filipino sa kurikulum ng mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan. Katwiran nito, ang pagbibigay sa mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan ng layang magpasya kung ituturo ang Filipino ay hindi sapat, at nagpapawalang-bisa pa nga sa mga pagsisikap upang tuparin ang mandato ng Saligang Batas.

Alinsunod sa batas na nagpapatupad ng K-12, 3 nakabalangkas sa CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 ang mga pamantayan sa lahat ng kurso sa mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan. Binawasan nito ng 36 yunit ang General Education Courses: (1) 24 para sa mga core courses; (2) siyam (9) para sa elective courses; at (3) tatlo (3) para sa buhay at akda ni Jose P. Rizal.

Ang 24 yunit, na hinati pa sa walong (8) core courses, ay ang mga sumusunod: (1) Understanding the Self (Pag-unawa sa Sarili); (2) Readings in Philippine History (Mga Babasahin Hinggil sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas); (3) The Contemporary World (Ang Kasalukuyang Daigdig); (4) Mathematics in the Modern World (Matematika sa Makabagong Daigdig); (5) Purposive Communication (Malayuning Komunikasyon); (6) Art Appreciation (Pagpapahalaga sa Sining); (7) Science, Technology, and Society (Agham, Teknolohiya, at Lipunan); at (8) Ethics (Etika).

Ayon sa CHED Memorandum Order No. 20, ang mga kursong ito ay maaaring ituro sa wikang Ingles o Filipino.

Hindi sang-ayon ang TANGGOL WIKA sa CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 dahil hindi na isinama ang Filipino I (Komunikasyon sa Akademikong Filipino), Filipino II (Pagbasa at Pagsulat Tungo sa Pananaliksik), at Filipino III (Masining na Pagpapahayag) sa core subjects para sa baccalaureate degree programs sa kolehiyo. Katwiran nito, tinanggal ng CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 ang Filipino na dating siyam (9) na yunit, gayong hindi pa nga sapat ang Filipino na itinuturo sa elementarya dahil hindi nito sakop ang mga paksang dapat na itinuturo sa kolehiyo.

Sa aking palagay, hindi nilalabag ng CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 ang Saligang Batas.

Ang mga bahaging pinagtatalunan sa Saligang Batas ay ang mga sumusunod:

ARTICLE XIV

Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports Education

xxx xxx xxx

Language

SECTION 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.

Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.

SECTION 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.

The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.

Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis. (Emphasis supplied)

Itinatadhana ng Seksyon 6 na panatilihin ng pamahalaan ang paggamit ng wikang Filipino bilang "medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system (daluyan ng opisyal na komunikasyon at wika ng pagtuturo sa sistema ng edukasyon)."

Gayunpaman, hindi isinasaad sa Saligang Batas na ang wikang dapat gamitin sa pagtuturo sa kolehiyo ay Filipino. Hindi rin nabanggit kung sa aling antas ng edukasyon ito dapat ituro. Sa halip, nakahayag lamang dito na dapat panatilihin ng pamahalaan ang paggamit ng wikang Filipino sa pagtuturo sa ating sistema ng edukasyon.

Nakasaad sa CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 na maaaring ituro sa wikang Ingles o Filipino ang core subjects na nakasalin sa alinman sa dalawa (2). Ang pagsunod dito ay sapat nang pagtalima sa mandato ng Saligang Batas, na naglalayong gumawa ng "steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system (mga hakbang upang simulan at panatilihin ang wikang Filipino bilang daluyan ng opisyal na komunikasyon at wika ng pagtuturo sa sistema ng edukasyon)." 4

Dapat unawain ang bawat bahagi ng Saligang Batas sa kanyang kabuuan. Ayon sa Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary: 5

It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction that no one provision of the Constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument. Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together. 6 (Citations omitted)

Samakatuwid, ang mga nakasaad sa Saligang Batas ukol sa wika ay dapat na nagtutugma sa mga nakasaad sa Saligang Batas ukol sa edukasyon.

Ayon sa Artikulo XIV, Seksyon 4 (1) ng Saligang Batas, sumasailalim ang mga institusyong pang-edukasyon sa kapangyarihan ng Estado:

SECTION 4. (1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.

Gayunpaman, nararapat lamang na ang kapangyarihang ito ay nasa katwiran at may limitadong pamamahala. Hindi nito binabanggit ang pagkakait ng karapatan sa mga institusyong pang-edukasyon. 7

Isa (1) sa mga karapatan ng mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan ay ang kalayaang pang-akademiko. Ayon sa Artikulo XIV, Seksyon 5 (2) ng Saligang Batas:

SECTION 5. (1) The State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.

(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.

(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.

(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching academic and non-academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.

(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment. (Emphasis supplied)

Ang kalayaang pang-akademiko ay ang karapatan ng bawat mataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan na magpasya para sa sarili nito kung: (1) sino ang maaaring magturo; (2) ano ang maaaring ituro; (3) paano ito ituturo; at (4) sino ang maaaring turuan. 8 Sa madaling salita, binibigyan sila ng kapangyarihan upang tuklasin ang kanilang mga pang-akademiko at hindi pang-akademikong patakaran, layunin, at kurikulum nang may kalayaan mula sa pangingialam o panghihimasok ng ibang institusyon. 9

Ayon sa Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: 10

Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. This institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. The essential freedoms subsumed in the term "academic freedom" encompasses the freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds:

(1) Who may teach,

(2) What may be taught,

(3) How it shall be taught, and

(4) Who may be admitted to study. 11 (Citations omitted)

Ang kalayaang pang-akademiko ay nakalathala sa Saligang Batas ng 1935, 1973, at 1987. Kung titimbangin ang nakasaad sa Saligang Batas ng 1987, mahihinuhang layunin nito na palawakin ang sakop ng kalayaang pang-akademiko. Ipinauubaya sa mga hukuman kung paano ito bibigyang kahulugan. 12

Sa iba't ibang kaso, ipinaliwanag ng Hukumang ito ang prinsipyo ng kalayaang pang-akademiko.

Sa Camacho v. Coresis, Jr., 13 kinatigan ng Hukumang ito ang karapatan ng mga guro na piliin ang sarili nilang paraan ng pagtuturo, ayon sa ipinagtibay ng kanilang pamantasan:

Finally, we agree with respondents' position on the primacy of academic freedom in regard to higher institutions of learning. Dr. Daleon's, teaching style, validated by the action of the USP Board of Regents, is bolstered by the constitutional guarantee on academic freedom. Academic freedom is two-tiered — that of the academic institution and the teacher's.

Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives and the methods on how best to attain them, free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It encompasses the freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds: who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study." The right of the school to confirm and validate the teaching method of Dr. Daleon is at once apparent in the third freedom, i.e., "how it shall be taught."

Academic freedom also accords a faculty member the right to pursue his studies in his particular specialty. It is defined as a right claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as investigator, to interpret his findings and to communicate his conclusions without being subjected to any interference, molestation, or penalty because these conclusions are unacceptable to some constituted authority within or beyond the institution. As applied to the case at bar, academic freedom clothes Dr. Daleon with the widest latitude to innovate and experiment on the method of teaching which is most fitting to his students (graduate students at that), subject only to the rules and policies of the university. Considering that the Board of Regents, whose task is to lay down school rules and policies of the University of Southeastern Philippines, has validated his teaching style, we see no reason for petitioner to complain before us simply because he holds a contrary opinion on the matter. 14 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

Sa University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, 15 idiniin ng Hukumang ito na nangingibabaw ang kalayaang pang-akademiko sa patakaran ng Civil Service Commmission ukol sa patakaran ng pagliban nang walang paalam. Dito, ipinakitang may kalayaan ang mga pamantasan na piliin kung sino ang mga maaaring magturo sa kanilang institusyon:

We have held time and again that "the University has the academic freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study." Clearly, this freedom encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and, concomitant therewith, who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic personnel. This Court declared in Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong: "As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are inherently endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external controls or pressure. Similarly, Vicente G. Sinco, a former UP president and delegate to the 1973 Constitutional Convention, stressed that the Constitution "definitely grants the right of academic freedom to the University as an institution as distinguished from the academic freedom of a university professor." 16 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

Sa Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong, 17 pinagtibay ng Hukumang ito ang karapatan ng mga pamantasang magtanggal ng mga mag-aaral bilang kaparusahan, at ipinanatiling mayroon silang kalayaang pang-akademiko upang piliin kung sino ang nais nilang turuan:

No one can be so myopic as to doubt that the immediate reinstatement of respondent students who have been investigated and found by the Disciplinary Board to have violated petitioner university's disciplinary rules and standards will certainly undermine the authority of the administration of the school. This we would be most loathe to do.

More importantly, it will seriously impair petitioner university's academic freedom which has been enshrined in the 1935, 1973 and the present 1987 Constitutions.

xxx xxx xxx

Since Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, we have consistently upheld the salutary proposition that admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. While under the Education Act of 1982, students have a right "to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation," such right is subject, as all rights are, to the established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic institution.

"For private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students.

This right . . . extends as well to parents . . . as parents are under a social and moral (if not legal) obligation, individually and collectively, to assist and cooperate with the schools."

Such rules are "incident to the very object of incorporation and indispensable to the successful management of the college. The rules may include those governing student discipline." Going a step further, the establishment of rules governing university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival. 18 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

Sa Lupangco v. Court of Appeals, 19 kinatigan ng Hukumang ito ang karapatan ng review schools at centers na tiyakin ang pinakamainam na paraan upang makapasa ang mga mag-aaral nito sa accountancy licensure examinations:

Another evident objection to Resolution No. 105 is that it violates the academic freedom of the schools concerned. Respondent PRC cannot interfere with the conduct of review that review schools and centers believe would best enable their enrolees to meet the standards required before becoming a full-fledged public accountant. Unless the means or methods of instruction are clearly found to be inefficient, impractical, or riddled with corruption, review schools and centers may not be stopped from helping out their students. At this juncture, We call attention to Our pronouncement in Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, regarding academic freedom, to wit:

. . . It would follow then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right. It decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It has a wide spread of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of students. This constitutional provision is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion. 20 (Citation omitted)

Maliwanag na tinatamasa ng mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan ang kalayaang pang-akademiko. Sakop ng kalayaang ito ang kalayaan nilang lumikha ng kanilang mga kurikulum, at magpasya kung aling mga paksa ang nais nilang ituro. Maliwanag din na hindi inuutos ng Saligang Batas na ituro ang Filipino sa mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan. Batay rito, hindi paglabag sa Saligang Batas at sang-ayon sa kalayaang pang-akademiko kung payagan ang mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan na piliin kung sila man ay magturo o hindi ng Filipino bilang core subject.

Samakatuwid, hindi maituturing na labag sa Saligang Batas ang CHED Memorandum Order No. 20.

Sa aking palagay, ang pasya ng Hukumang ito tungkol sa CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 ay walang kinalaman sa pagpapahalaga sa wikang Filipino. Tulad ng nasabi ng ilang naghain ng Petisyon, hindi matatawaran ang kapangyarihan ng pag-aaral ng balarila at panitikan ng sarili nating mga wika na humubog sa ating kultura at pag-unawa sa ating kasaysayan.

Maaaring totoo na para sa mga dayuhang sumakop sa atin noon, ang paggamit ng wikang Ingles ay naging paraan upang mapaamo ang ating mga ninunong nagpumilit sa kanilang paghihimagsik. Ngunit hindi lamang ito ang kinahinatnan ng paggamit ng dayuhang wika. Sa pamamagitan ng kakayahang umunawa ng dayuhang wika, napayaman ang ating kaalaman sa agham, pilosopiya, at iba pa. Gamit ang panitikang isinulat at binigkas sa dayuhang wika ng mga Pilipinong makata, naiparating ang yaman ng kalinangan ng magkakaiba nating mga komunidad. Sa ganitong paraan, hindi napipigilan ang pagyabong ng ating kultura; bagkus, ito'y lalong pinagyayaman.

Halimbawa, ang Noli me Tangere ay sinulat ni Rizal sa wikang Español. Ang nobelang Woman with Two Navels ni Nick Joaquin, at ang Ilustrado ni Miguel Syjuco, ay parehong isinulat sa wikang Ingles. Hindi rin naman matatawaran ang pagkamakabayan ng mga tula nina Gemino Abad (Abad) at Conchitina Cruz (Cruz).

Ang alingawngaw ng kaluluwang Pilipino ay maliwanag sa tulang, "I Teach My Child," ni Abad:

I teach my childGemino Abad

I teach my child

To survive.

I begin with our words,

The simple words first

And last.

They are hardest to learn.

Words like home,

Or friend, or to forgive.

These words are relations.

They are difficult to bear;

Their fruits are unseen.

Or words that promise

Or dream.

Words like honor, or certainty,

Or cheer.

Rarest of sound,

Their roots run deep;

These are words that aspire,

They cast no shade.

These are not words

To speak.

These are the words

Of which we consist,

Indefinite,

Without other ground.

II.

My child

Is without syllables

To utter him,

Captive yet to his origin

In silence.

By every word

To rule his space,

He is released;

He is shaped by his speech.

Every act, too,

Is first without words.

There's no rehearsal

To adjust your deed

From direction from its words.

The words are given,

But there's no script.

Their play is hidden,

We are their stage.

These are the words

That offer to our care

Both sky and earth,

These same words

That may elude our acts.

If we speak them

But cannot meet their sound,

They strand us still

In our void,

Blank like the child

With the uphill silence

Of his words' climb.

And so,

I teach my child

To survive.

I begin with our words,

The simple words first

And last.

Sa bawat pagbasa ng akda ni Cruz, sumasagi sa alaala ang mga bukod-tanging karanasan ng ating mga pangkaraniwang buhay. Halimbawa, sa tula niyang "Signals:"

Signals

By Conchitina Cruz

I took the amaretto to mean there was no beer in the house.

I took the bassline to mean a particular addressee was in the crowd.

I took the clairvoyant weather to mean I could dismiss your unappealing conclusions.

I took the dry run to mean the echo was unreliable.

I took the elevated appeal of allusions to mean the fever had no fangs.

I took your fury to mean there was grass in the basement.

I took the gelatinous substance to mean a diminished generosity toward herbivorous endeavors.

I took happiness to mean I had the right syllable in mind.

I took the initials to mean just leave the front door unlocked.

I took the jellyfish scuttling by the reef to mean the kleptomania was the least of my concerns.

I took the kiss to mean a potentially inconsequential lesson.

I took the lesion barely hidden by your sleeve to mean you had no wish to mimic the tragedies of your flawed heroines.

I took the marionette on the clothesline to mean there was hope for the unsuspecting neighbor.

I took no to mean it was the only answer.

I took the oppressive serendipity to mean that panic might or might not send us straight into an emergency.

I took the paprika to mean quiz the cook, not the gardener.

I took the imperious quill to mean the repetition was intentional.

I took the sly reference to mean the substitute had surpassed the preference.

I took the song to mean you took the necessary pill.

I took the tricky decimal to mean I should unsay the speech I made over dinner.

I took the unexpected unification to mean veer away from condescending middlemen.

I took the violinist's lisp to mean it was imperative to wait in line.

I took the waiver to mean there was a xenophobe in the building.

I took the third x-ray to mean you had nothing more to lose.

I took the yapping from the room below to mean the token zorroing was a far more appropriate gesture.

I took the zero dangling from the headline to mean the aphorism was a spell in disguise.

Mahalaga ang pagpili ng wikang gagamitin. Ngunit mali ang paniniwalang kapag hindi natin ipinilit sa ating mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan ang paggamit ng Filipino, hindi tayo nagiging makabayan at nagiging kasangkapan sa pagbenta ng ating kaluluwa.

Mahalagang igalang ang kalayaang pang-akademiko ng bawat mataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaang pumili ng sariling paraan ng pagtuturo. Ipinakikita ng ganitong pag-unawa ang paggalang sa kakayanan ng mga Pilipino na isulat at bigkasin ang nilalaman ng kanilang kalooban sa alinmang wika. Ito ang hinihingi ng pagtalima sa demokrasya.

Higit sa lahat, ito ang makatwiran at mapagpalayang laman ng ating Saligang Batas.

ALINSUNOD DITO, sumasang-ayon ako sa pagtanggi sa mga Motions for Reconsideration.

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo (G.R. No. 217451), Vol. 2, pp. 1567-1591; rollo (G.R. No. 218465), Vol. 3, pp. 2034-2059.

LEONEN

1.COTESCUP v. Aquino, G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/october2018/216930.pdf> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

2. J. Leonen, Separate Concurring Opinion in COTESCUP v. Aquino, G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/october2018/216930_leonen.pdf> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

3. Rep. Act No. 10533 (2013). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.

4. CONST., art. VIII, sec. 6.

5. 272 Phil. 147 (1991) [Per CJ. Fernan, En Banc].

6.Id. at 162.

7.See Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 431 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].

8.See Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 431 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].

9.Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong, 294 Phil. 654, 673 (1993) [Per J. Romero, En Banc].

10. 401 Phil. 431 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].

11.Id. at 455-456.

12.Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong, 294 Phil. 654, 671 (1993) [Per J. Romero, En Banc].

13. 436 Phil. 449 (2002) [Per J. Quisimbing, Second Division].

14.Id. at 460-461.

15. 408 Phil. 132 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].

16.Id. at 145.

17. 294 Phil. 654 (1993) [Per J. Romero, En Banc].

18.Id. at 671-675.

19.Lupangco v. Court of Appeals, 243 Phil. 993 (1988) [Per J. Gancayco, First Division].

20.Id. at 1006.