Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
RICHARD TROY A. COLMENARES, RENE LUIS
M. TADLE, ERLINDA C. PALAGANAS, RUTH
THELMA P. TINGDA, RONALD TAGGAOA,
JOSEPH PORFIRIO ANDAYA, FLORANTE
DULACA, FROILAN A. ALIPAO; KATHLEA
FRANCYNN GAWANI D. YAGOT,
MIEL
ALEXANDRE A. TAGGAOA, AGATHA ZITA
DISTOR, ISABELLE C. UMINGA, ALDWIN
GABRIEL M. PINAS, ATREENA MARIE DULAY,
ZION GABRIEL SANTOS, SIBLINGS BRENNAN
KEANE, BREN KIMI, AND BASLEY KICH, ALL
SURNAMED DELA CRUZ, JASSEL ANGELO
ENRIQUEZ, SIBLINGS GYRO MATTHEW AND
MARGA
RAUXIELLE
AGLAIA,
BOTH
SURNAMED GUEVARRA, SIBLINGS ALTHEA,
ALEXA, AND AMANDA, ALL SURNAMED SC-G.R. SP No. _____
ABEJO, AND ELEANNIE JERECE S. CAWIS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR PARENTS LEANDRO for: CERTIORARI,
B. YAGOT, JR, JENNIFER A. TAGGAOA, MILO
PROHIBITION, AND
DISTOR, JOSE MARI UMINGA, GABRIEL PAUL
MANDAMUS under
PINAS, SOFRONIO DULAY, LUZ A. SANTOS,
Rule 65 with PRAYER
BARBY M. DELA CRUZ, RUBY G. ENRIQUEZ,
FOR Temporary
ROWENA C. GUEVARRA, MARISEL P. ABEJO,
Restraining Order
AND
VITTORIO
JERICO
L.
CAWIS,
and/or Writ of
RESPECTIVELY, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE
Preliminary
CLASS THEY REPRESENT; REVENENDO R.
Injunction
VARGAS, ANNIELA R. YU-SOLIVEN, VILMA C.
BENIGNO, MARIA CRISTINA F. DUNGCA, LIZA
DAOANIS, ROMMEL M. FRANCISCO, FELIZA
G. AGUSTIN, EMELITA C. VIDAL, ROMMEL D.
RAMISCAL, JOCELYN ELEAZAR DE GUZMAN,
ANDREA P. VILLALON, AND JOYCE FE T.
ALMENARIO, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE
CLASS THEY REPRESENT,
Petitioners,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SECRETARY
ARMIN A.
LUISTRO, COMMISSION ON
HIGHER EDUCATION CHAIRPERSON PATRICIA

B. LICUANAN, TECHNICAL SKILLS

AND
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DIRECTORGENERAL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECRETARY
ROSALINDA D. BALDOZ, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE SECRETARY CESAR V. PURISIMA,
SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON,
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER
FELICIANO R. BELMONTE,
Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,

PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS
COME NOW, Petitioners, through the undersigned counsels, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully state:

PROLEGOMENA
In 1987, the present Constitution was overwhelmingly adopted.
Regarded as the only direct legislation of the Filipino people, it is supreme.
No law or act of any branch or instrumentality is valid when it contravenes
any of the provisions of the Constitution. Any incompatible law or act is null
and void1 and produces no force and effect. Vox populi, vox Dei.
Vox populi decided that the Philippines should have only one Congress
comprised by the Senate and the House of Representatives. There is no third
chamber. The Constitution is categorical :
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.2
This is unambiguous: Except to the extent reserved to the people by
the provision on initiative and referendum, only Congress can enact
statutes. However, this power may be delegated by statute to administrative

1
2

Sabio v. Gordon (G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 704).
Sec. 1, Art. 7, 1987 Constitution.

bodies3 and to local government units.4 What happens then when the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate President siphon
legislative powers and supplant the judgment of the elected people's
representatives by surreptitiously enrolling a bill different in substance and
form from the product of their legislative work, which is subsequently
signed into law by the President of the Philippines? What happens when an
agency under the Executive Branch issues an order that creates new
obligations for parents and unduly burdens the human right to education of
every child without any statutory, much less constitutional, underpinning?
What happens when provisions of the Constitution are infringed by statute
or an administrative order? Then the judicial branch must step in when
summoned to protect vox populi that the Philippines has only one Congress.
The judicial branch is duty bound to enforce the supremacy of the people's
voice. The judicial branch must fix what can only be a legal bedlam.
Courts act as guardians of the political processes when the political
branches abuse them and rob the people of their voice in the democratic setup. In a representative democracy like the Philippines,5 powers of the elected
representatives are restricted by the Constitution. Its principal features
include a system of checks and balances and entrenched individual rights
protected by an independent judiciary.6
According to John Hart Ely, the judiciary is the most insulated branch
of government7 owing to the fact that judges enjoy security of tenure, and,
to a limited degree, the mode of their selection. This relative insulation
from the democratic process, Ely argued, situates them well to police
malfunctions in the process especially in cases of conspiracy between the
legislature and the executive supplanting the majoritys will.8 He said that
the courts can strike down the decisions of the elected officials if they are
self-serving, are adverse to the political process, or affect discrete or insular
minorities.9 Courts should construe the Constitution to fortify and
strengthen democratic processes and reinforce popular representation and
public participation.
Petitioners come before this Honorable Court asking that it exercise
its power of judicial review to uphold processes indispensable to a working
democracy protected by the Constitution. Essentially, they come to the
3
4
5

6
7
8
9

Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 696.
Please see Secs 3 and 20, Art. X, 1987 Constitution.
Sec. 1. Art. II of the Philippine Constitution provides: The Philippines is a democratic and
republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all governmental authority emanates
from them.
Roberto Gargarella, A Majoritarian Reading of the Rule of Law in ADAM PRZEWROSKI, ET AL.
(EDS) DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW 147 (2003).
JOHN HART ELY, WAR AND RESPONSIBILITY: CONSTITUTIONAL LESSONS OF VIET NAM AND
ITS AFTERMATH 54 (1993).
Id.
JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST: A THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 87 (1980).

Page 3

succor of the Constitution this herculean document which, while on the

side of the powerful at times, also guards the rights of the weak and the
unheard. By defending the Constitution, they are also defending themselves
from the undemocratic, capricious exercise of governmental power.
Petitioners appeal to this Honorable Court to strike down the K to 12
Program of the government for having been adopted in violation of the
provisions of the Constitution on legislation, the principles of separation of
powers and constitutional supremacy which are deemed written in every
republican basic law, and entrenched human rights which the Republic of
the Philippines committed to respect, protect, and fulfill under international
treaty obligations.
The K to 12 Program is no ordinary government program. It is set to
massively displace thousands of workers. It is set to redefine access to
education especially for the poor who must spend for additional three years
of education. It unduly burdens the exercise of the human right to
education. If damage of this monumental magnitude must befall this nation,
it must have constitutional grounds. Then we can say to those who must
suffer that they have to make a sacrifice to honor the wishes of the Filipino
nation articulated in their fundamental law.
On the premise that the Philippine educational system is already
outdated and not globally competitive, the administration of Pres. Benigno
S. Aquino III pursued and continues to pursue what it termed the
'enhancement' of basic education. One culprit identified by the present
administration for the countrys supposedly poor and non-competitive
educational system is its pre-university or basic education. Extending the
number of years of basic education from 10 years to 13 years under what is
now called the K to 12 Program is seen as the cure for what ails the country's
educational system, often criticized for being irrelevant and unresponsive to
the country's actual needs as it has a labor-export policy orientation and for
being the driving force for brain drain.
On January 20, 2012, Republic Act No. 1015710 entitled AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC
EDUCATION SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR entered the
statute books. The law made kindergarten education compulsory, virtually
amending the Constitution which textually expresses that only elementary
education is compulsory.
In 2012, even devoid of statutory bases, the Department of Education
(DepEd) precipitately issued DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 entitled POLICY

10

Also known as the Kindergarten Education Act.

Page 4

GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO

12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013.
Parents and parents' organizations were not consulted on and informed of
this major shift in the curriculum and the additional years added to their
children's educational life cycle, spelling more monetary burdens for them.
It was made to take effect in the academic year 2012-2013 with the roll-out
of Grades 1 and Grade 7. The government, by walling off parents and
excluding them from the discourse, reduced them into passive objects and
not active subjects of educational plans affecting their own children. This not
only denied them their right to participate in the planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect their families
recognized by the Constitution and international law. It is downright
disempowering as it invisibilizes them from the processes in which,
constitutionally, they play vital roles.
In May 2013, Rep. Act 10533 or AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE
BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, was
approved by Pres. Aquino.
The bill signed into law by President Aquino was not the final output
of Congress. It is not the presumed will of the Filipino people who belong
to what is supposed to be a republic. The enrolled bill is substantively and
formally different from the Congress bill as reported in the Senate Journal.
What he signed was the work of another Congress not recognized by the
fundamental law of the land, the 1987 Constitution which is an articulation
of the voice of the sovereign polity.
The K to 12 Program has no legal and constitutional basis.
Petitioners beg this Honorable Court to strike it down.

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is an original petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court of the Rules of Court with a
prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction, and permanent injunction.
2. The petition seeks to:
a. Strike down and declare as unconstitutional the K to 12 Program and
the following which form its legal bases:

Page 5

a. Republic Act No. 10533 entitled AN ACT ENHANCING

THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY
STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING
THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES also known as The Enhanced Basic Education
Act of 2013,and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations;
b. Republic Act
No. 10157 entitled AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION
INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR also known as The
Kindergarten Education Act; and
c. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 201211 entitled POLICY
GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1
TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013.
b. Enjoin all the respondents from implementing the above
unconstitutional laws and administrative order or rule and
regulation, and to restrain them from any and all acts relative
thereto; and
c. Enjoin the release of public funds from the public treasury relative
to the assailed K to 12 Program of the government.
3. Petitioners invoke the power of this Honorable Court as the last
bastion of democracy and as the vanguard of the peoples right
against unbridled grave abuse in the exercise of power by any branch
or instrumentality of the government. They are ready to prove that
the Republic Acts in question were unduly enacted and did not
accordingly become law, and that DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 was
illegally issued being in the nature of usurpation of legislative powers
and is therefore null and void.
4. Petitioners have properly verified this petition and duly certified the
same against forum shopping. They have also served copies of the
Petition upon the respondents by registered mail, as attested to by
the attached affidavit of service. The corresponding docket fees were
also paid upon the filing of the petition.

11

Issued on April 7, 2012.

Page 6

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

5. The administration of President Benigno Aquino III (President
Aquino) introduced the K to 12 Program or the Kindergarten to
Grade 12 Program in 2012. The K to 12 Program 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). It
was covertly inaugurated on January 20, 2012 with the passage of
Republic Act No. 10157 entitled AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING THE
KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. It became an official
government policy on April 17, 2012 with the issuance by
Department of Education (DepEd) Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro of
DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE
IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC
EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013. At
that time, there was no K to 12 Law to be implemented, much less,
to speak of.
6. All minor petitioners, with the exception of 7-month old Eleannie
Jerece Cawis, are forcibly under the K to 12 Program as rolled out in
the school year 2012-2013 before the passage of Rep. Act 10533.
They will have to undergo two more years of basic education under
DepEd Order No. 31.
7. On May 15, 2013, Pres. Aquino signed Republic Act No. 10533 or
the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 into law. Petitioning
parents are forced and will continually be forced to subject their
children to the unconstitutional K to 12 Program unless it is sooner
withdrawn from the statute books by judicial fiat. Along with the
petitioning minors, they possess a personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends
for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.12
8. This Petition, which presents the constitutionality of the assailed
laws and administrative acts as the lis mota or crux of the
controversy as the resolution of the question is unavoidably
necessary to the decision of the case itself,13 is mature and timely
for adjudication since it satisfies the prerequisite that something

12

13

IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000) citing Joya v. PCGG, 225 SCRA 568 (1993); House
International Building Tenants Association, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 151 SCRA
703 (1987).
Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 86889, 192 SCRA 51 (1990).

Page 7

had by then been accomplished or performed by either branch

before a court may come into the picture14 ensuring that the
outcome will not be an abstraction, or a merely hypothetical
exercise.15
THE PARTIES
A. The Petitioners
9. Petitioner Richard Troy A. Colmenares is a private citizen who is filing
this action by way of actio popularis considering that the issue of
constitutionality of the K to 12 Program is a matter of strong public
interest and of transcendental importance and has an overarching
significance to society. Petitioner, a law student, has assiduously
studied the K to 12 Program-related laws and is disturbed by the
blatant disregard of constitutional precepts on the manner of
passage of laws.
10.Petitioners Kathlea Francynn Gawani D. Yagot of Eagle Crest
Subdivision, Bakakeng Norte, Baguio City; Miel Alexandre Taggaoa
of San Carlos Heights, Irisan, Baguio City; Agatha Distor of Igorot
Jewel Building, Km 4, La Trinidad, Benguet; Isabelle C. Uminga of
Lower Irisan, Baguio City; Aldwin Gabriel M. Pinas of FB 101 Balili,
La Trinidad, Benguet; Atreena Marie Dulay of 15 Isabelo Mendoza
St., San Roque, Marikina City; Zion Gabriel Santos; siblings Brennan
Keane, Bren Kimi, and Basley Kich, all surnamed dela Cruz; Jassel
Angelo Enriquez; siblings Gyro Matthew and Marga Rauxielle Aglaia,
both surnamed Guevarra; and siblings Althea, Alexa, and Amanda,
all surnamed Abejo, are minors represented by their parents
Leandro B. Yagot, Jr; Jennifer A. Taggaoa, Milo Distor, Jose Mari
Uminga, Gabriel Paul Pinas, Sofronio Dulay, Luz A. Santos, Barby
M. Dela Cruz, Ruby G. Enriquez, Rowena C. Guevarra, and Marisel
P. Abejo, respectively. Because of the precipitate implementation
of the K to 12 Program under Dep Ed Order No. 31 in 2012 when
there was still no legislative measure institutionalizing the program,
they will have to undergo two more years of high school education
as a matter of compulsion. They are filing this suit on their behalves
and on behalf of all other students of the Philippines who are
similarly situated but are too numerous to file this action. They and
their class stand to suffer direct injury in terms of two more years
of high school education under a program which has no valid legal
basis.

14
15

Tan v. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677 (1972)

De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010.

Page 8

11.Petitioner Eleannie Jerece Cawis of Camp 7, Zigzag Road, Baguio City,

is 7 months old and is represented in this suit by her father Vittorio
Jerico L. Cawis. Under Rep. Act 10157 and Rep. Act 10533, she will
have to compulsorily obtain kindergarten education before she may
enter elementary school. She stands to be denied admission into
elementary school should she be unable to complete kindergarten
education.
12.Petitioners Revenendo R. Vargas of 2246 Amatista Street, San
Andres Bukid; Anniela R. Yu-Soliven of 2002 Visayan Avenue,
Sampaloc, Manila; Vilma C. Benigno of 1806 A. Francisco St., San
Andres Bukid, Manila; Maria Cristina F. Dungca of 1731 Donada St.,
Pasay City; Liza Daoan is of Block 1 Lot 5 Pinagpala Village, Acacia
Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City; Rommel M. Francisco of 1227 Casaas St.,
Sampaloc, Manila; Feliza G. Agustin of Unit 2817 Manila Executive
Regency, 1200 J. Bocobo St., Ermita, Manila; Emelita C. Vidal of B6 L6
Ph2 Sta. Catalina Avida, Salawag, Dasmarias, Cavite; Rommel D.
Ramiscal of 17 Ngabangab, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte; Jocelyn Eleazar
de Guzman of 146-B Ilang-ilang St., Gregoria Heights, San Isidro,
Taytay, Rizal; Andrea P. Villalon of 45 S. Francisco, San Bartolome,
Novaliches, Quezon City; and Joyce Fe T. Almenario of 1175 L.
Guerrero St,. Ermita, Manila are parents of children who are subject
to the K to 12 Program. They are filing this suit on their behalves
and on behalf of all other students of the Philippines who are
similarly situated but are too numerous to file this action. They and
their class stand to suffer direct injury in terms of additional cost for
at most three more years (representing kindergarten and two years
of senior high school) for the education of their children under
unconstitutional laws and/or administrative order.
13.Petitioners Rene Luis Tadle of the University of Sto. Tomas, Manila;
Erlinda Castro-Palaganas of the University of the Philippines, Baguio
City; Ruth Thelma P. Tingda of the Cordillera Career Development
College, Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benguet; Florante Dulaca of Saint
Louis University, Bonifacio Road, Baguio City; Froilan A. Alipao of 1
Mahabagin St., Teachers Village, Diliman, Quezon City; Ronald
Taggaoa of Saint Louis University, Baguio City; and Joseph Porfirio
Andaya of Saint Louis University, Bonifacio Road, Baguio City, are
taxpaying citizens who are concerned that public funds are being
illegally and improperly disbursed resulting in wastage of public
funds through the enforcement of the invalid or unconstitutional
Rep. Act 10533, Rep. Act 10157 and Dep. Ed Order No. 31. Public
funds to which they contribute as taxpayers are being extracted and
spent in violation of specific constitutional protection against
abuses of legislative power, or there is a misapplication of such

Page 9

funds, or public money is being deflected to any improper

purpose16 thus qualifying them to sue herein as taxpayers.
B. The Respondents
14.Respondent Secretary of Education Armin Luistro holds office at the
Department of Education (DepEd) Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig
City, Metro Manila.
15.Respondent Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson
Patricia Licuanan holds office on C.P. Garcia Avenue, UP Campus,
Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila.
16.Respondent Secretary of Labor Remedios Baldoz holds office at the
Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) Building, Muralla
corner Gen. Luna Streets, Intramuros, Manila, Metro Manila.
17.Respondent Technical Skills and Development Authority (TESDA)
Director-General Joel Villanueva holds office on East Service Road,
Taguig, Metro Manila.
18.Respondent Department of Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima holds
office at the Department of Finance, Roxas Boulevard, Manila, 1004
Metro Manila
19.Senate President Franklin Drilon holds office at the Senate Building,
Roxas Boulevard, Pasay, 1300 Metro Manila.
20. House of Representatives Speaker Feliciano Belmonte holds office
at the House of Representatives Complex, Constitution Hills 1126,
Quezon City, Metro Manila.
21.These public respondents may be served notices, orders, writs,
processes, resolutions, decisions, and papers issued by this
Honorable Court at the stated addresses.

ANNEXES TO THE PETITION

22.The following are appended to this Petition and are hereby
incorporated as an integral part hereof:

16

Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)

Page 10

a. Annex A- Department Order No. 31, series of 2012 issued by the

Department of Education, entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE
IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC
EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 20122013;
b. Annex B- Republic Act
No. 10157 entitled AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO
THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR also known as the KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION ACT;
c. Annex C- Senate Bill No. 3286, also known as AN ACT
ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY
STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE
NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;17
d. Annex D- House Bill No. 6643 also known as AN ACT
ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY
STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE
NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;18
e. Annex E- Senate Journal No. 52, s. of 2013;
f. Annex F- Enrolled Bill of Rep. Act 10533; and
g. ANNEX G- Rep. Act 10533 entitled AN ACT ENHANCING THE
PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS
CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR
BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, otherwise known as the ENHANCED
BASIC EDUCATION ACT OF 2013.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
23.The K to 12 Programs genesis is traceable to President Benigno
Aquino IIIs presidential campaign in 2010. Foremost in his 10-Point
Education Agenda19 was his goal of expanding basic education in the
Philippines from a 10-year cycle to a globally comparable 12-year
cycle. It was his plan to implement the same, should he win, starting
school year 2011-12.

17
18
19

Available online at http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1417511918!.pdf.

Available online at http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/billtext_15/hbt6643.pdf.
Noynoys Education Agenda, http://www.philstar.com/education-andhome/554429/noynoys-education-agenda, (Last accessed May 2, 2015, 3:48 A.M. PST).

Page 11

24.Included in President Aquinos 10-Point Education Agenda was the

plan to make kindergarten education universal and mandatory. This
would make basic education a 13-year program.
25.Thus this proposed reform came to be known as the K to 12 Program.
26. Aquino was elected President and assumed office on June 30, 2010.
But the K to 12 Program did not come to actual fruition in 2011 as
President Aquino hoped during his campaign.
27.However, on July 25, 2011, Congress initiated the passage of
Republic Act No. 10157 entitled AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING THE
KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. This became a law on
January 20, 2012.
28.On April 17, 2012, even before there was a law creating the K to 12
Program, the Department of Education (DepEd) already issued
DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE
IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC
EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013. It
is worth emphasizing that at the time of the issuance of DepEd
Order No. 31, Congress had yet to enact a statute establishing a K
to 12 Program.
29.The Order was addressed only to the following: Undersecretaries,
Assistant Secretaries, Bureau Directors, Directors of Services,
Centers and Heads of Units, Regional Secretary of the ARMM,
Regional Directors, Schools Division/City Superintendents, and
Heads of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary Schools.
30.Even if the public and parents were not notified of this revolutionary
change in the country's educational set-up and without a law
authorizing it, the K to 12 Program was implemented for the first
time in the school year 2012-2013, and this is evident from the
language of DepEd Order No. 31: Effective School Year (SY) 20122013, the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) shall be
implemented starting with the roll-out of Grades 1 and 7 in all public
elementary and secondary schools. Private schools are enjoined to
do the same. They may further enhance the curriculum to suit their
school vision/mission.

Page 12

31.All of the petitioning minors, with the exception of Eleannie Jerece

Cawis who is less than a year old, were subjected to the Program
ordered by the Department of Education.
32.In no time, Congress was urged to hasten the passage of a K to 12
Bill.
33.On September 24, 2012, Senate Bill No. 3286, also known as AN ACT
ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY
STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER
OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, was recommended for
approval.20
34.Meanwhile, on October 15, 2012, House Bill No. 6643 with similar
title as Senate Bill No. 3286 was also introduced in the House of
Representatives and was eventually approved on 3rd Reading on
November 19, 2012.21 Three days later or on November 22, 2012, the
approved version of House Bill No. 6643 was transmitted to and was
received by the Senate.22
35.On January 21, 2013, Senate Bill No. 3286 was finally approved on
3rd Reading.
36.Due to disagreeing provisions between House Bill No. 6643 and
Senate Bill No. 3286, a Bicameral Conference Committee was
formed to settle the conflict. It was agreed that the Senate version
would be used as the working draft.23
37.On January 30, 2013, both Houses agreed on the Conference
Committee Report as contained in Senate Journal No. 52, s. of 2013.
This committee report contained the Joint Explanation24 of the
bicameral committee on how it settled the disagreeing provisions of
Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643, the text of which is
reproduced below:

20

21

22
23
24

15th Congress, Senate of the Philippines, Legislative History, Senate Bill No. 3286, Enhanced
Basic Education Act of 2012; accessed from
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=15&q=SBN-3286.
House of Representatives, Legislative Information System, House Bill/Resolution
No. HB06643,
Republic Act No. RA10533; accessed from
http://www.congress.gov.ph/legis/search/hist_show.php?save=1&journal=&switch=0&bill_no=
HB06643&congress=15.
Id.
Senate Journal No. 52, s. 2013, 1715-1717; approved February 5, 2013.
Id.

Page 13

JOINT EXPLANATION OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

THE DISAGREEING PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL NO. 3286 AND
HOUSE BILL NO. 6643
The Conference Committee on the disagreeing provisions of
Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643, after having met
and fully discussed the subject matter in a conference, hereby
report to their respective Houses the following, that:
1. The conferees25 agreed to use the Senate version as the
working draft;
2. Sec. 1 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 1 of the
reconciled version with amendment to replace the year
"2012" with 2013;
3. Secs. 2 and 3 of the Senate version were adopted as Secs.
2 and 3 of the reconciled version;
4. Sec. 4 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 4 of the
reconciled version with amendment to include the
following provisions:
"Basic education shall be delivered in languages
understood by the learners as language plays a strategic
role in shaping the formative years of learners.
"For kindergarten and the first three years of
elementary education, instruction, teaching materials,
and assessment shall be in the regional or native language
of the learners. The DepEd shall formulate a mother
language transition program from Grade 4 to Grade 6 so
that Filipino and English shall be gradually introduced as
languages of instruction until such time when these two
(2) languages can become the primary languages on
instruction at the secondary level.
"For purposes of this Act, mother language or first
Language (L1) refers to language or languages first
25

These were Senators Angara, Drilon, Villar, Revilla, and Recto designated for the Senate, and
Representatives Ocampo, Gunigundo I, Piamonte Jr., Sarmiento, and Dimaporo designated for
the House of Representatives. Please see, 15th Congress, Senate of the Philippines, Legislative
History, Senate Bill No. 3286, Enhanced
Basic Education Act of 2012; accessed from
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=15&q=SBN-3286.

Page 14

learned by a child, which he/she identifies with, is

identified as a native language user of by others, which
he/she knows best, or uses most. This includes Filipino sign
language used by individuals with pertinent disabilities.
Regional or native language refers to the traditional
speech variety or variety of Filipino sign language existing
in a region, area or place."
4. Sec. 5 of the House version was adopted as Sec. 5 of the
reconciled bill;
5. Sec. 6, paragraph I of the House version was adopted as
Sec. 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.
6. Sec. 7 of the House version was adopted as Sec. 7 of the
reconciled version;
7. Sec. 7 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 8 of the
reconciled version;
8. Sec. 8 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 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.";

Page 15

9. Sec. 10 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 10 of

the reconciled version with amendment to insert the
words "or accredited" between the words "developed"
and "by";
10.Secs. 11 and 13 of the Senate version were adopted as
Secs. 11 and 12 of the reconciled version,;
11.Secs. 14,15, and 17 of the Senate version were adopted as
Secs. 13, 14 and 15 of the reconciled version;
12.Sec. 15 of the House version was adopted as Secs. 16 of
the reconciled version;
13.Secs. I8,19 and 20 of the Senate version were adopted as
Secs. 17, 18 and 19 of the reconciled version;
14.The conferees adopted without amendment the title of
the Senate version as the title of the reconciled version,
which reads as follows:
AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC
EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGHTHENING ITS
CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
In case of a conflict between the statements/
amendments stated in this Joint Explanation and that of
the provisions of the consolidated bill in the
accompanying Conference Committee Report, the
provisions of the latter shall prevail.
APPROVAL OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, the
Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing provisions of
Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 was approved by
the Body.
xxx
EDWIN B. BELLEN (sgd.)
Acting Secretary of the Senate

Page 16

Approved on February 5, 2013.26

38.On April 4, 2013, enrolled copies of the consolidated version of
Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 were sent to the
House of Representatives for the signature of the Speaker and the
Secretary General.27
39.On April 15, 2013,enrolled copies of the consolidated version of
Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 were received by the
Senate already signed by the Speaker and the Secretary General of
the House of Representatives.28
40.On April 16, 2013, the consolidated version of Senate Bill No. 3286
and House Bill No. 6643 was transmitted to the Office of the
President. 29
41.On May 15, 2013, Pres. Aquino signed Rep. Act 10533 known as the
ENHANCED BASIC EDUCATION ACT OF 2013.
42.However, there are discrepancies between the consolidated or
reconciled version of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 as
reflected in Senate Journal Session No. 52 dated 30 January 2013
of the 15th Congresss Third Regular Session and Rep. Act 10533.

GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

I. CONGRESS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT MADE KINDERGARTEN
COMPULSORY UNDER REP. ACT 10157 AND Rep. Act 10533.
a. The K to 12 Program, in making kindergarten compulsory
under Republic Act 10157 and both kindergarten and high
school education mandatory under Rep. Act 10533, is a
violation of the Constitution.
b. Republic Act 10157 and Rep. Act 10533 unduly expand basic
education as defined under Sec. 2, Art. XIV of the 1987
Constitution.

26
27

28
29

Senate Journal No. 52, s. 2013, 1717; approved February 5, 2013.

15th Congress, Senate of the Philippines, Legislative History, Senate Bill No. 3286, Enhanced
Basic Education Act of 2012; accessed from
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=15&q=SBN-3286.
Id.
Id.

Page 17

c. Under the doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, Congress

may not pass an act repugnant to the Constitution.
II. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
ISSUED DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 entitled POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE
IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION
CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013.
a. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, is a usurpation of legislative
authority as it creates a law without delegation of power.
b. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, violates the constitutional right of
parents to participate in planning programs that affect them, the
right to information.
c. DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, offends the right to due process for
having been unpublished and for changing the rules of the game at
midstream without the consent of the players.
III. THE SENATE PRESIDENT AND THE SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THEY SIGNED
INTO LAW AN ENROLLED BILL DISCREPANT FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BILL
DESCRIBED IN THE JOURNAL.
a. In case of conflict, the Journal takes precedence over
the enrolled bill as established in Philippine
jurisprudence.
b. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
Senate President do not make up another law-making
body authorized to change congressional output.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
-IThe K to 12 Program, in making
kindergarten and high school
education compulsory, expands
the constitutional definition of
basic
education
which
is
consistent with international law
standards.
------------------------------------------------to the Constitution.

Page 18

43.Par. 2, Sec. 2 of Art. XIV of the 1987 Constitution provides that the
State shall (e)stablish and maintain a system of free public
education in the elementary and high school levels. Without limiting
the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary
education is compulsory for all children of school age.
44.Clearly from the above provision of the Philippine Constitution,
basic education refers to elementary and high school education.
However, only elementary education is compulsory. This provision
is consistent with the commitments of the Philippine government
under treaty obligations and international law.
45.The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the
Philippines adopted, provides: Education shall be free, at least in
the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education
shall be compulsory.30
46. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights which the Philippines ratified and is now part of our
domestic law, recognizes education as a human right for
everyone31 and provides: Primary education shall be compulsory
and available free for all.32
47. The Convention on the Rights of the Child which the Philippines
ratified and is now part of our domestic law, also obligates States
parties to (m)ake primary education compulsory and available
free for all.33
48. When the 1987 Constitution was framed, kindergarten and senior
high school were not compulsory and the latter was, in fact, nonexistent and beyond the consciousness of the Filipino nation. It could
not have been the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the
Filipino people to make these compulsory.
49. Yet, Congress violated the sacrosanct doctrine of Constitutional
Supremacy by making kindergarten compulsory in at least two
Republic Acts it passed and in making secondary education
compulsory in one.

30

Art. 26 (1). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 Dec. 1948), U.N.G.A. Res. 217 A (III) (1948).
Art 13 (1), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 16 Dec. 1966) 993
U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force 3 Jan. 1976.
32
Art 13 (2a), id.
33
Art. 28 (1a), Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, 20 Nov. 1989) 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, 28 I.L.M.
1448 (1989), entered into force 2 Sept. 1990.
31

Page 19

50.Rep. Act 10157, otherwise known as the Kindergarten Education Act

and entitled AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING THE KINDERGARTEN
EDUCATION INTO THE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, approved by Congress on
January 20, 2012, provides:
Sec. 4. Institutionalization of Kindergarten Education.
Kindergarten education is hereby institutionalized as part
of basic education and for school year 2011-2012 shall be
implemented partially, and thereafter, it shall be made
mandatory and compulsory for entrance to Grade
1.(Emphasis supplied)
51.Similarly, Rep. Act 10533 makes kindergarten and secondary
education compulsory or mandatory. Its pertinent provisions are as
follows:
Sec. 3. Basic Education. Basic education is intended to meet
basic learning needs which provides the foundation on which
subsequent learning can be based. It encompasses kindergarten,
elementary and secondary education as well as alternative
learning systems for out-of-school learners and those
with
special needs.
Sec. 4. Enhanced Basic Education Program. The enhanced
basic education program encompasses at least one (1) year of
kindergarten education, six (6) years of elementary education,
and six (6) years of secondary education, in that sequence.
Secondary education includes four (4) years of junior high
school and two (2) years of senior high school education.
Kindergarten education shall mean one (1) year of preparatory
education for children at least five (5) years old as prerequisite
for Grade I.
Elementary education refers to the second stage of compulsory
basic education which is composed of six (6) years. The entrant
age to this level is typically six (6) years old.
Secondary education refers to the third stage of compulsory
basic education. It consists of four (4) years of junior high school
education and two (2) years of senior high school education. The
entrant age to the junior and senior high school levels are
typically
twelve (12) and sixteen (16) years old, respectively.
(Emphasis supplied)

Page 20

52.The above unduly expand the constitutional definition of basic

education which is limited to elementary and high school
education. Moreover, by making kindergarten and secondary
education compulsory, Congress amended the constitutional
provision that only elementary education is compulsory and
encumbered the exercise of the right as will be discussed below.
Under the doctrine of Constitutional
Supremacy, Congress may not pass
an act repugnant to the Constitution.
Rep. Act 10533 and Rep. Act 10157
are violations of the doctrine.
53.By making kindergarten and secondary education compulsory, the
K to 12 Program militates against what is textually expressed in the
Constitution and its spirit.
54.From a human rights-based perspective, the assailed legislative
acts that are part of the K to 12 Program package are additionally
unconstitutional for violating the right to education which is
guaranteed by the Constitution. If a human being must exercise a
right only upon compliance with a burden or obligation, then it
metamorphoses into a privilege. The requirement of kindergarten
education prior to availment of elementary education is an undue
burden on the exercise of a constitutionally enshrined right to
education.
55.Rep. Act 10533, by making secondary education compulsory,
obligates parents in a way incompatible with the Constitution.
56.It is a matter of judicial notice that in many far-flung areas in this
country, schools are lacking. Making secondary education
compulsory is akin to ordering people to swim in an area that has no
body of water or swimming pool. It is an imposition of parental
obligation, the fulfillment of which is dependent on the availability
of opportunities or services which the State itself must generate.
How can parents be obliged to send children to secondary schools
where such are not accessible?
57.Thus, Rep. Act 10533 reconfigures parental obligation beyond what
the Constitution imposes. Likewise, Rep. Act 10533 limits the childs
access to the constitutional right to elementary education by
requiring him/her to acquire kindergarten education.

Page 21

58.The logical consequence of the superiority of the Constitution is that

all acts of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution will be void.
Therefore, these acts will not bind either the courts or the citizens.
The constitutionality of every law and every act of the Government
is one of the most important political principles of democracies and
universally accepted rule of law norms.
59.While there is no supremacy clause in the 1987 Constitution, it is a
firmly established doctrine. Thus, in Tawang Multi-purpose
Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District,,34 it was re-emphasized:
It (the 1987 Constitution) is basic that if a law or an administrative
rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null
and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to
which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts
with the Constitution. xxx(T)he Constitution is the highest law of
the land. It is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws
must conform. Xxx The Constitution is the fundamental and
paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must
conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be
determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do
not conform to the Constitution shall be stricken down for being
unconstitutional.xxx (T)hat (u)nder the doctrine of constitutional
supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the
legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private
persons for private purposes is null and void and without any
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written
in every statute and contract.(Citations omitted)
-IIDepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 is a
usurpation of legislative authority
as it creates a law without
delegation of power.
--------------------------------------------60.In Conte v. Commission on Audit,35 the Supreme Court, citing
Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Garcia,36 reiterated that (i)t is doctrinal that

34
35
36

Tawang Multi-purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District, G.R. No. 166471,
March 22, 2011.
Conte v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 116422, November 4, 1996.
Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia, Jr., 239 SCRA 386 (1994).

Page 22

in case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the

former must prevail.37 It also reminded that (a) rule or regulation
must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the
enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid.38
61. What is the status of an administrative order which has no statutory
basis? To be sure, DepEd No. 31, s. 2012, entitled POLICY
GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF GRADES 1 TO 10 OF THE
K TO 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM EFFECTIVE SCHOOL YEAR
2012-2013, was issued by respondent DepEd Sec. Luistro on April
17, 2012 and was implemented on the opening of academic year
2012-2013. Rep. Act 10533 which statutorily institutionalized the K
to 12 Program became a law on May 15, 2013 or much later. In other
words, the assailed Order was devoid of statutory basis.
62.We submit that if an administrative order, rule or regulation must
conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling
statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid, it should be
a complete nullity if it has no statutory leg to stand on. The assailed
Order was an undue exercise of legislative power in violation of the
separation of powers doctrine.
63.The Conte Court further instructs us:
The rule-making power of a public administrative body is a
delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to
abridge the authority given it by the Congress or the Constitution
or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended.
Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to
what rules and regulations may be promulgated by such a body,
as well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by
it. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly
the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are
in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.39
64.It is very rudimentary that the power to enact laws is lodged
primarily with the legislature. The doctrine of separation of powers
ordains that each of the three great branches of government has
exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its

37
38
39

Id.
Lina, Jr. vs. Carilo, 221 SCRA 515, April 23, 1993.
HECTOR DE LEON AND HECTOR DE LEON, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: TEXT AND CASES 65
(2005) (citing 73 C.J.S. 413-414, 416-417).

Page 23

own constitutionally allocated sphere.40 However, a non-legislative

body may exercise quasi-legislative power defined as the authority
delegated by the law-making body to the administrative body to
adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of
the law and implement legislative policy.41 Congress can only
delegate rule-making power or law execution.
65.To be valid, an administrative issuance, such as a Department of
Education Order, must comply with the following requisites: (1) Its
promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; (2) It must be
promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; (3) It
must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;
and (4) It must be reasonable.42 The assailed Order fails all the
requisites as it is nothing but a usurpation of legislative authority.
Before the passage of Rep. Act 10533, the K to 12 Program had no
statutory foundation and remained an agenda of the Aquino
administration.
66.If the K to 12 Program must be held as valid, it must refer to the one
authorized by Rep. Act 10533, not the one envisioned by the assailed
Order which is now on its third year of implementation. The K to 12
Program must therefore apply to those who entered Kindergarten in
the school year 2013-2014 or subsequent to the passage of Rep. Act
10533.
67.To the mind of Petitioners, DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 should have
been mooted by the passage of Rep. Act 10533. The trouble is that
the subsequent statute does not make any reference to the Order.
There is now a preposterous situation where a Department Order
and a statute overlap and the government is implementing both
despite the inconsistencies.
68.Additionally, the Constitution and internal rules of Congress
mandate for the passage of bills a first reading, committee hearings
to consult stakeholders, a second reading, debates, and a third
reading in both Houses. The process is rigorous. It is preposterous
therefore to say that the Department of Education, which may
exercise only delegated legislative powers, may merely implement
a major curriculum shift that amends legislative policies on basic
education without the requisite delegation.

40
41
42

Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936).

ISAGANI CRUZ, PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 24 (2003).
Lokin vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010; Executive Secretary,
et. al. v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 164171, 20 February 2006, 482 SCRA 673.

Page 24

69.Likewise, before a law becomes effective, it must first be published

in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.43 This
is a due process requirement. Ignorantia legis non excusat.
Ignorance is not an excuse so the State must temper the harshness
of this customary principle of law by constructively notifying those
to whom the law applies.
70.Assuming that Sec. Luistro was acting intra vires, his Order must still
have been published before it could validly enforce an obligation on
parents and impose further burdens on the educational rights of
children.
71.But as it is, the Order is an unknown creature in the realm of law and
this Honorable Court must eradicate it.
DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012
violates the constitutional
right of parents to participate
in planning programs that
affect them and the right to
information.
--------------------------------------------72.DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 provides that:
(e)ffective School Year (SY) 2012-2013, the K to 12 Basic
Education Curriculum (BEC) shall be implemented starting with
the roll-out of Grades 1 and 7 in all public elementary and
secondary schools. Private schools are enjoined to do the same.
They may further enhance the curriculum to suit their school
vision/mission.
73.When it was issued on April 17, 2012, it was addressed to the
following:
Undersecretaries
Assistant Secretaries
Bureau Directors
Directors of Services, Centers and Heads of Units
Regional Secretary, ARMM
Regional Directors

43

Sec. 1, Executive Order No. 200 June 18, 1987, Providing For The Publication Of Laws Either In
The Official Gazette Or In A Newspaper Of General Circulation In The Philippines As A
Requirement For Their Effectivity

Page 25

Schools Division/City Superintendents

Heads, Public and Private Elementary and
Secondary
Schools
74.Petitioning parents and parents' organizations to which they belong
were not consulted prior to the issuance of the Order despite the
fact that it adversely affected and continues to adversely affect
parents significantly as they are primarily responsible in educating
their children.
75. On its face, the Order shows that parents were not advised on the
major change in the basic education of their children. It was
addressed only to Department of Education officials and school
administrators.
76.It was also a monumental disregard of the constitutional fiat to
involve families which include parents in the planning of programs
that affect them.
77.Sec. 3(4), Article XV of the 1987 Constitution provides that the
State shall defend [t]he right of families or family associations to
participate in the planning and implementation of policies and
programs that affect them.
78.Moreover, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
the Philippines adopted and which has acquired the status of
customary law to which all States must adhere, (p)arents have a
prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to
their children.44
79.Definitely, the education of children is a family and parental concern.
Parents fill the classrooms with children. The role parents play in the
education of children cannot be overemphasized. DepEd Order No.
31 should never have been issued without prior consultation with
them in deference to the above-cited constitutional provision.
80.Aside from the absence of prior consultation, the Order was not
addressed to parents and parents' organizations which means that
even after the fact, they were not notified. This violates the
constitutional right of people to information on matters of public

44

Art. 26(3), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 Dec. 1948), U.N.G.A. Res. 217 A (III) (1948).

Page 26

concern45 which is self-executing

vs. Civil Service Commission.46

as

held

in

Legaspi

81.Art. II of the Constitution also provides:

Section 12.
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life
and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the
life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)
82.The education of children is integral to the rearing of the youth for
civic efficiency and the development of moral character which the
Constitution pronounces as not only a duty but a right. The issuance
of the assailed Order was therefore a violation of parental rights as
it subverted the parents' participation in conceiving the K to 12
Program which it heralded and rolled out in 2012.
83.The Constitution, in recognizing the right of parents and the family,
is not being merely hortatory. The rights are self-executing or need
not be activated or enabled by a statute. Petitioning parents now
invoke this right to strike down DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012, which
disenfranchised them from their constitutional right to participate in
the democratic process.
84.Clearly, this Honorable Court should assume the role of protector of
those in positions of parents when the political processes that should
insulate them from disadvantage if not abuse neglect to do so.
DepEd Order No. 31 is a violation of
the right to due process by changing
educational rules at midstream without
the consent of the affected parents.
85.The assailed Order also adopted a K to 12 Program which rolled out
Grade 1 and Grade 7 during the academic year 2012-2103, in effect
subjecting children who may not have had kindergarten education
to a K to 12 Program where K stands for kindergarten.
45
46

Sec. 7, Art. III, 1987 Constitution.

Legaspi v Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987.

Page 27

86.The petitioning minors, with the exception of infant Eleannie Jerece

Cawis, and members of their class were already enrolled in
elementary schools when the Order was made to take effect. The
sudden and unceremonious innovation of the curriculum and the
addition of two more years to secondary school was an arbitrary
change of rules in the middle of the game which is certainly
offensive to due process.
87.This is even more glaring in the case of children who entered
private secondary schools. The Order merely enjoined private
schools to roll out Grade 7 of the K to 12 Program. But there were
elementary graduates of private schools which did not roll out the
Program and stuck to the old set-up who will be graduating from
secondary school next year. What assurance do they have that
there are accessible tertiary schools they will go to for their higher
education considering that many universities will no longer accept
first year college students as they will instead accept Grade 11
senior high school students?
88.Under the assailed Order, the K to 12 Program started during the
school year 2012-2013 with the roll-out of Grades 1 and 7. In effect
therefore, the K to 12 Program, as first applied in 2012-2013,
covered students who did not necessarily obtain kindergarten
education. Thus, the first graduates of the program under the
assailed Order are high school students graduating from Grade 12
or senior high school by 2018 who are not necessarily the graduates
envisioned under the subsequent Rep. Act 10533. Not having
necessarily undergone kindergarten education, the 2018 graduates
will thus not have been prepared under the K to 12 Program under
Rep. Act 10533.
89.Even respondent Sec. Luistro confirmed this. In his K to 12 Basic
Education Program Midterm Report to the Senate on May 5 2015,
he stated:
March 2024: 1st batch of learners who went through the
full K to 12 Program will graduate.
March 2018: 1st batch of Gr 6 and Gr 12 under K to 12
will graduate.47

47

Sec. Armin Luistro, K to 12 Basic Education Program Midterm Report, May 5 2015; Powerpoint
Presentation made before the Senate, Republic of the Philippines, Slide 12 (on file with the
Senate).

Page 28

90.Sec. Luistro then makes a distinction between K to 12 Program

graduates: a) those covered by Rep. Act 10533 who went through
the full K to 12 Program who will graduate from Grade 12 in 2024
having gone to mandatory kindergarten school in 2013 when the law
took effect; and b) those who had to go to Grade 1 and Grade 7 in
2012 under Dep Ed Order No. 31 before Rep. Act 10533 took effect,
who will graduate from Grade 6 and Grade 12, respectively, in 2018.
The situation of the latter has no statutory basis.
91.The assailed Order directed Department of Education officials and
school officials whether public or private to effect a substantive
deviation from the basic education curriculum and to add two more
years to high school education. This subjected and subjects parents
of children to undue financial burden for the additional two years
of secondary education under a K to 12 Program without a legal
basis and without any assurance of improvement in terms of the
quality of basic education.
92.On this basis alone the K to 12 Program must be nullified for having
been conceived by Respondents with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
-IIIThe consolidated bill entered into
the Journal of Congress is not the
same as the enrolled bill that
eventually became Republic Act No.
10533.
--------------------------------------------------93.On January 30, 2013, both Houses agreed on the Conference
Committee Report as contained in Senate Journal No. 52, s. of 2013.
This committee report contained the Joint Explanation48 of the
bicameral committee on how it settled the disagreeing provisions of
Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643, the text of which is
reproduced on pages 14-17 of this Petition.
94.The Secretary-General of the House of Representatives and the
Acting Senate Secretary also confirmed in the enrolled bill that the
consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 was

48

Senate Journal No. 52, s. 2013, 1716-1711; approved February 5, 2013.

Page 29

passed by the two Chambers of Congress on January 30, 2013. The

actual certification is reproduced hereunder:

95.However, the reconciled or consolidated version was not the same

version signed into law by the President. The enrolled bill which
was signed into law varies from the consolidated version as
reported in the Senate Journal (Senate Journal No. 52) on January
30, 2013.
96.The following table compares the consolidated or reconciled version
with Rep. Act 10533, where the deletions, insertions and
inconsistencies (in form or substance), are highlighted in yellow,
green and blue, respectively:

Joint Explanation
(Senate Journal
No. 52, s. 2013)
4. Sec. 5 of the
House version was
adopted as Sec. 5 of
the reconciled bill;

House Bill or Senate Bill version

Rep. Act 10533

HB No. 6643

Sec. 5. Curriculum Development.

The DepED shall formulate the design
and details of the enhanced basic
education curriculum. It shall work
with the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) to craft harmonized
basic and tertiary curricula for the
global competitiveness of Filipino
graduates. To
ensure
college
readiness and to avoid remedial and
duplication of basic education
subjects, the DepED shall coordinate
with the CHED and the Technical
Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA).

Sec. 5. Curriculum Development. The

DepED shall formulate the design and
details of the enhanced basic education
curriculum. It shall work with the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
to craft harmonized basic and tertiary
curricula for the global competitiveness
of Filipino graduates. To ensure college
readiness and to avoid remedial and
duplication of basic education subjects,
the DepED shall coordinate with the
CHED and the Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority (TESDA).

Page 30

To achieve an effective enhanced basic

education curriculum, the DepED shall
undertake consultations with other
national government agencies and other
stakeholders including, but not limited
to, the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), the Professional
Regulation Commission (PRC), the
private and public schools associations,
the national student organizations, the
national teacher organizations, the
parents-teachers associations and the
chambers of commerce on matters
affecting the concerned stakeholders.
The DepED shall adhere to the following
standards and principles in developing
the
enhanced
basic
education
curriculum:
(a) The curriculum shall be learnercentered,
inclusive
and
developmentally appropriate;
(b) The curriculum shall be enhanced,
decongested and seamless;
(c) The curriculum shall be standard and
competency-based;
(d) The curriculum shall be relevant,
responsive and research-based. The
basic curriculum shall be adapted locally
to the languages, cultures and values of
Filipino learners in order to aid teachers
in planning lessons which build what the
learners already knew;
(e) The curriculum shall be value-driven,
culture-responsive
and
culturesensitive;
(f) The curriculum shall be information,
communications and technology (ICT)based. It shall equip graduates with the
necessary 21st century skills which
include information, media and
technology
skills;
learning
and
innovation
skills;
effective
communications skills; and life and
career skills. Mathematics and Science
subjects shall be introduced as early as

To achieve an effective enhanced

basic education curriculum, the
DepED shall undertake consultations
with other national government
agencies and other stakeholders
including, but not limited to, the
Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC), the private and
public schools associations, the
national student organizations, the
national teacher organizations, the
parents-teachers associations and the
chambers of commerce on matters
affecting the concerned stakeholders.
The DepED shall adhere to the
following standards and principles in
developing the enhanced basic
education curriculum:
(a) The curriculum shall be learnercentered,
inclusive
and
developmentally appropriate;
(b) The curriculum shall be relevant,
responsive and research-based;
(c) The curriculum shall be culturesensitive;
(d) The curriculum shall
contextualized and global;

be

(e) The curriculum shall use

pedagogical approaches that are
constructivist,
inquiry-based,
reflective,
collaborative
and
integrative;
(f) The curriculum shall adhere to the
principles and framework of Mother
Tongue-Based Multilingual Education
(MTB-MLE) which starts from where
the learners are and from what they
already knew proceeding from the
known to the unknown; instructional
materials and capable teachers to
implement the MTB-MLE curriculum
shall be available;

Page 31

Grade 1. Science may be integrated

with other subjects such as Mother
Tongue, Mathematics, Health and
Araling Panlipunan;

(g) The curriculum shall use the spiral

progression approach to ensure
mastery of knowledge and skills after
each level; and

(g) The curriculum shall be integrative,

contextualized, broad-based and global;

(h) The curriculum shall be flexible

enough to enable and allow schools to
localize, indigenize and enhance the
same based on their respective
educational and social contexts.

(h) The curriculum shall use pedagogical

approaches that are constructivist,
inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative
and integrative;
(i)
The curriculum shall have a
balanced assessment program that uses
classroom-based
traditional
and
authentic assessment tools which
include implementation of selfassessment (assessment as learning);
formative assessment (assessment for
learning); and summative assessment
(assessment of learning). National
assessment tools shall be developed and
administered at the end of grades 3, 6,
10 and 12 to determine the level of
learning achievement for every learner;

The production and development of

locally produced teaching materials
shall be encouraged and approval of
these materials shall devolve to the
regional and division education units.

(j) The curriculum shall adhere to the

principles and framework of Mother
Tongue-Based Multilingual Education
(MTB-MLE) which starts from where the
learners are and from what they already
knew proceeding from the known to the
unknown. There shall be available
instructional materials and capable
teachers to implement the MTB-MLE
curriculum;
(k) The curriculum shall use the spiral
progressive approach to ensure mastery
of knowledge and skills after each level;
(l) The curriculum shall include cocurricular and community involvement
programs; and
(m) The curriculum shall be flexible
enough to enable and allow schools to
localize, indigenize and enhance the
same based on their respective
educational and social contexts. The
production and development of locally
produced teaching materials shall be

Page 32

5.
Sec.
6,
paragraph 1 of the
House version was
adopted as Sec. 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.

6. Sec. 7 of the
House version was
adopted as Sec. 7 of
the
reconciled
version;

encouraged and approval of these

materials shall devolve to the regional
and division education units.
HB No. 6643
Sec.
6.
Curriculum
Consultative
Committee. There shall be created a
curriculum consultative committee
chaired by the DepED Secretary or
his/her duly authorized representative
and with members composed of, but not
limited to, a representative each from
the CHED, the TESDA, the DOLE, the PRC,
the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST), 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, elders of
the indigenous peoples communities
and the chambers of commerce. The
consultative committee shall oversee
the review and evaluation on the
implementation of the basic education
curriculum and may recommend to the
DepED the formulation of necessary
refinements
in
the
curriculum.

Sec. 6. Curriculum Consultative

Committee. There shall be created
a curriculum consultative committee
chaired by the DepED Secretary or
his/her
duly
authorized
representative and with members
composed of, but not limited to, a
representative each from the CHED,
the TESDA, the DOLE, the PRC, the
Department
of
Science
and
Technology
(DOST),
and
a
representative from the business
chambers such as the Information
Technology Business Process
Outsourcing (IT- BPO) industry
association.
The
consultative
committee shall oversee the review
and evaluation on the implementation
of the basic education curriculum and
may recommend to the DepED the
formulation of necessary refinements
in the curriculum.

The members of the curriculum

consultative committee shall be
knowledgeable
and
committed
community leaders and education
experts who shall provide strategic
policy
advice
on
kindergarten,
elementary and secondary school
curriculum. At the request of the
Secretary of Education, the committee
may be supported by a working group
of experts on selected topics.
The chairperson and members of the
consultative committee shall not be
entitled to additional compensation in
the performance of their functions.
HB No. 6643

Sec. 7. Teacher
Training. xxx

Sec. 7. Integration of General Education

Curriculum (GEC) Subjects. In addition
to the general education curriculum
(GEC) subjects that may hereafter be
determined by the DepED as part of the

Page 33

Education

and

7. Sec. 7 of the
Senate version was
adopted as Sec. 8 of
the
reconciled
version;

8. Sec. 8 of the
Senate version was
adopted as Sec. 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

new curriculum, subjects mandated by

existing laws and currently being offered
in tertiary programs shall be
incorporated in the secondary education
curriculum. The DepED and the CHED
shall coordinate in these instances to
ensure that any duplication between
basic education and tertiary curricula is
minimized or avoided.
SB No. 3286
Sec. 7. Teacher Education and Training.
To ensure that the enhanced basic
education program meets the demand
for quality teachers and school leaders,
the DepEd and CHED, in collaboration
with relevant partners in government,
academe,
industry,
and
nongovernmental
organizations,
shall
conduct teacher education and training
programs, as specified: xxx

SB No. 3286
Sec. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science,
Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering
and Other Specialists in Subjects With a
Shortage of Qualified Applicants,
Technical-Vocational
Courses
and
Higher Education Institution Faculty.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Secs.
26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No. 7836,
otherwise known as the Philippine
Teachers Professionalization Act of
1994, the DepED and private education
institutions shall hire, as may be relevant
to the particular subject:
(a) Graduates of science, mathematics,
statistics, engineering, music and other
degree courses with shortages in
qualified Licensure Examination for
Teachers (LET) applicants to teach in
their specialized subjects in the
elementary and secondary education.
Qualified LET applicants shall also
include
graduates
admitted
by
foundations duly recognized for their
expertise in the education sector and
who satisfactorily complete the

Sec. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science,

Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering
and Other Specialists in Subjects With
a Shortage of Qualified Applicants,
Technical-Vocational Courses and
Higher Education Institution Faculty.
Notwithstanding the provisions of
Secs. 26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No.
7836, otherwise known as the
Philippine
Teachers
Professionalization Act of 1994, the
DepED and private education
institutions shall hire, as may be
relevant to the particular subject: xxx
Sec. 9. Career Guidance
Counseling Advocacy. xxx

and

[actual Sec. 8]
Sec. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science,
Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering
and Other Specialists in Subjects With
a Shortage of Qualified Applicants,
Technical-Vocational Courses and
Higher Education Institution Faculty.
Notwithstanding the provisions of
Secs. 26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No.
7836, otherwise known as the
Philippine
Teachers
Professionalization Act of 1994, the
DepED and private education
institutions shall hire, as may be
relevant to the particular subject:
(a)
Graduates
of
science,
mathematics, statistics, engineering,
music and other degree courses with
shortages in qualified Licensure
Examination for Teachers (LET)
applicants to teach in their specialized
subjects in the elementary and
secondary education. Qualified LET

Page 34

lieu
thereof,
insert the word
Examinations;
and
(c)
On
paragraph [c],
after the word
relevant,
delete
the
phrase
Masters
degree,
or
Masters
degree
with
relevant
professional
license, and in
lieu
thereof,
insert the words
Bachelors
degree.;

requirements
set
by
these
organizations: Provided, that they pass
the LET within five (5) years after their
date of hiring: Provided, further, That if
such graduates are willing to teach on
part-time basis, the provisions of LET
shall no longer be required;
(b) Graduates of technical-vocational
courses to teach in their specialized
subjects in the secondary education:
Provided, That these graduates possess
the necessary certification issued by the
TESDA: Provided, further, That they
undergo appropriate in-service training
to be administered by the DepED or
higher education institutions (HEIs) at
the expense of the DepED;
(c) Faculty of HEIs be allowed to teach in
their general education or subject
specialties in the secondary education:
Provided, That the faculty must be a
holder of a relevant Bachelors degree,
and must have satisfactorily served as a
full-time HEI faculty;
(d) The DepED and private education
institutions may hire practitioners, with
expertise in the specialized learning
areas offered by the Basic Education
Curriculum, to teach in the secondary
level; Provided, That they teach on parttime basis only. For this purpose, the
DepED, in coordination with the
appropriate government agencies, shall
determine the necessary qualification
standards in hiring these experts.

9. Sec. 10 of the
Senate version was
adopted as Sec. 10
of the reconciled
version
with

SB No. 3286
Sec. 10. Career Guidance and
Counselling Advocacy. To properly
guide the students in choosing (he

applicants shall also include graduates

admitted by foundations duly
recognized for their expertise in the
education
sector
and
who
satisfactorily
complete
the
requirements
set
by
these
organizations: Provided, That they
pass the LET within five (5) years after
their date of hiring: Provided, further,
That if such graduates are willing to
teach on part-time basis, the
provisions of LET shall no longer be
required;
(b) Graduates of technical-vocational
courses to teach in their specialized
subjects in the secondary education:
Provided, That these graduates
possess the necessary certification
issued by the TESDA: Provided,
further,
That
they
undergo
appropriate in-service training to be
administered by the DepED or higher
education institutions (HEIs) at the
expense of the DepED;
(c) Faculty of HEIs be allowed to teach
in their general education or subject
specialties
in
the
secondary
education: Provided,That the faculty
must be a holder of a relevant
Bachelors degree, and must have
satisfactorily served as a full-time HEI
faculty;
(d) The DepED and private education
institutions may hire practitioners,
with expertise in the specialized
learning areas offered by the Basic
Education Curriculum, to teach in the
secondary level; Provided, That they
teach on part-time basis only. For this
purpose, the DepED, in coordination
with the appropriate government
agencies, shall determine the
necessary qualification standards in
hiring these experts.
Sec. 10. Expansion of E-GASTPE
Beneficiaries. xxx
[Sec. 10 was in fact copied as Sec. 9]

Page 35

amendment
to
insert the words or
accredited
between the words
developed and
by;

career tracks that they intend to pursue,

the DepEd, in coordination with DOLE,
TESDA and CHED, shall regularly conduct
career advocacy activities for secondary
level students. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Sec. 27 of Republic Act No.
9258, otherwise known as the Guidance
and Counselling Act of 2004, career and
employment guidance 36ounselors,
who are not registered and licensed
guidance 36ounselors, shall be allowed
to conduct career advocacy activities to
secondary level students of the school
where they are currently employed.

10. Secs. 11 and 13

of
the
Senate
version
were
adopted as Secs. 11
and 12 of the
reconciled version,
;

SB No. 3286

Sec. 9. Career Guidance and

Counselling Advocacy. To properly
guide the students in choosing the
career tracks that they intend to
pursue, the DepED, in coordination
with the DOLE, the TESDA and the
CHED, shall regularly conduct career
advocacy activities for secondary level
students.
Notwithstanding
the
provisions of Sec. 27 of Republic Act
No. 9258, otherwise known as the
Guidance and Counselling Act of
2004, career and employment
guidance counsellors, who are not
registered and licensed guidance
counsellors, shall be allowed to
conduct career advocacy activities to
secondary level students of the school
where they are currently employed;
Provided, That they undergo a training
program to be developed or
accredited by the DepED.
Sec. 11. Appropriations xxx

Sec. 11. Expansion of E-GASTPE

Beneficiaries. The benefits accorded by
Republic Act No. 8545, or the Expanded
Government Assistance for Students
and Teachers in the Private Education
Act, shall be extended to qualified
students enrolled under the enhanced
basic
education.

Sec. 12. Transitory Provisions xxx

The DepEd shall engage the services of

private education institutions and nonDepEd schools offering senior high
school through the programs under RA.
8545, and other financial arrangements
formulated by DepEd and DBM based on
the
principles
of
public-private
partnership.
SB No. 3286
Sec. 13. Appropriations. The Secretary
of Education shall include in the
Departments
program
the
operationalization of the enhanced
basic education program. The initial
funding of which shall be charged
against the current appropriations of the
DepEd. Thereafter, the amount

Page 36

necessary
for
the
continued
implementation of the enhanced basic
education program shall be included in
the annual General Appropriations Act.
11. Secs. 14, 15, and
17 of the Senate
version
were
adopted as Secs.
13, 14, and 15 of
the
reconciled
version;

SB No. 3286
Sec. 14. Transitory Provisions. xxx
Sec. 15. Separability Clause. xxx

Sec. 13. Joint Congressional Oversight

Committee on the Enhanced Basic
Educational Program (K to 12
Program). There is hereby created
a Joint Oversight Committee to
oversee, monitor and evaluate the
implementation
of
this
Act.

Sec. 17. Effectivity Clause. xxx

The Oversight Committee shall be
composed of five (5) members each
from the Senate and from the House
of Representatives, including Chairs of
the Committees on Education, Arts
and Culture, and Finance of both
Houses. The membership of the
Committee for every House shall have
at least two (2) opposition or minority
members.
Sec. 14. Mandatory Evaluation and
Review. By the end of School Year
2014-2015, the DepED shall conduct a
mandatory review and submit a
midterm report to Congress as to the
status of implementation of the K to
12 Program in terms of closing the
following current shortages: (a)
teachers;
(b)
classrooms;
(c)
textbooks; (d) seats; (e) toilets; and (f)
other shortages that should be
addressed.
The DepED shall include among
others, in this midterm report, the
following key metrics of access to and
quality of basic education: (a)
participation rate; (b) retention rate;
(c) National Achievement Test results;
(d) completion rate; (e) teachers
welfare and training profiles; (f)
adequacy of funding requirements;
and (g) other learning facilities
including, but not limited to,
computer and science laboratories,
libraries and library hubs, and sports,
music and arts.

Page 37

Sec. 15. Commitment to International

Benchmarks. The DepED shall
endeavor to increase the per capita
spending on education towards the
immediate
attainment
of
international benchmarks.
13. Secs. 18, 19 and
20 of the Senate
version
were
adopted as Secs.
17, 18 and 19 of the
reconciled version;

SB 3286 has no Sec 18, 19 and 20.

Sec. 17. Separability Clause. If any

provision of this Act is held invalid or
unconstitutional, the same shall not
affect the validity and effectivity of the
other provisions hereof.
Sec. 18. Repealing Clause. Pertinent
provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232
or the Education Act of 1982,
Republic Act No. 9155 or the
Governance of Basic Education.
Act of 2001, Republic Act No. 9258,
Republic Act No. 7836, and all other
laws, decrees, executive orders and
rules and regulations contrary to or
inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
Sec. 19. Effectivity Clause. This Act
shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
its publication in the Official Gazette
or in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.

97.The foregoing table underscores the discrepancies, as highlighted,

between the consolidated bill as recorded in the Journal and
enrolled bill which became Rep. Act 10533. As can be seen, some
provisions in the consolidated version were omitted from Rep. Act
10533. Examples, among others, are the following highlighted in
bold letters:
Sec. 5. Curriculum Development. The DepED shall
formulate the design and details of the enhanced basic
education curriculum. It shall work with the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) to craft harmonized basic and tertiary
curricula for the global competitiveness of Filipino graduates. To
ensure college readiness and to avoid remedial and duplication
of basic education subjects, the DepEd shall coordinate with the
CHED and the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA).To achieve an effective enhanced basic
education curriculum, the DepED shall undertake consultations

Page 38

with other national government agencies and other

stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC), the private and public schools associations,
the national student organizations, the national teacher
organizations, the parents-teachers associations and the
chambers of commerce on matters affecting the concerned
stakeholders. The DepED shall adhere to the following
standards and principles in developing the enhanced basic
education curriculum:(a)xxx;(b) The curriculum shall be
enhanced, decongested and seamless;(c) The curriculum shall
be standard and competency-based;(d) xxx;(e)xxx; (f) The
curriculum shall be information, communications and
technology (ICT)-based. It shall equip graduates with the
necessary 21st century skills which include information, media
and technology skills; learning and innovation skills; effective
communications skills; and life and career skills. Mathematics
and Science subjects shall be introduced as early as Grade 1.
Science may be integrated with other subjects such as Mother
Tongue, Mathematics, Health and Araling Panlipunan; xxx
98.On the other hand, some provisions of Rep. Act 10533 could not be
found in the consolidated version. An example is the following:
Sec. 14. Mandatory Evaluation and Review. By the end of
School Year 2014-2015, the DepED shall conduct a mandatory
review and submit a midterm report to Congress as to the status
of implementation of the K to 12 Program in terms of closing the
following current shortages: (a) teachers; (b) classrooms; (c)
textbooks; (d) seats; (e) toilets; and (f) other shortages that
should be addressed. The DepED shall include among others, in
this midterm report, the following key metrics of access to and
quality of basic education: (a) participation rate; (b) retention
rate; (c) National Achievement Test results; (d) completion rate;
(e) teachers welfare and training profiles; (f) adequacy of
funding requirements; and (g) other learning facilities including,
but not limited to, computer and science laboratories, libraries
and library hubs, and sports, music and arts.
99.Still furthermore, the following are among other substantive
discrepancies:
a. Sec. 5 of the reconciled version provides in part that
Mathematics and Science shall be introduced as early as Grade
1. This was excluded in Rep. Act 10533.

Page 39

b. The Bicameral Conference Committee agreed to adopt the

House proposal to include a provision creating a Curriculum
Consultative Committee with the following members: 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.
The Bicameral Conference Committee included the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA). This Committee
was to be required to submit a report every two (2) years.49 This
was not incorporated in Rep. Act 10533.
c. The Bicameral Conference Committee adopted Sec. 16 of
Senate Bill No. 3286 which provided:
Sec. 16. Repealing Clause. - Pertinent provisions of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 232 or the Education Act of 1982, Republic Act
No. 9155 or the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2011,
Republic Act No. 9258, Republic Act No. 7836, Republic Act No.
1425 or the inclusion in the College Curricula, The Life, Works
and Writings of Jose Rizal, and all other laws, decrees, executive
orders and rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.(Emphasis supplied)
However, Rep. Act 10533 omitted Republic Act No. 1425 or the
inclusion in the College Curricula of The Life, Works and Writings
of Jose Rizal from the laws to be repealed.
100. The following are among the formal and/or substantive
discrepancies:
a. Sec. 7 of the House version was adopted as Sec. 7 of the
reconciled version but Sec. 7 of Rep. Act 10533 omitted Sec. 7
of House Bill No. 6643.
b. Sec. 7 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 8 of the
reconciled version. The legislators intended Sec. 7 of Senate Bill
No. 3286 to be Sec. 8 of the reconciled version. Instead, it
appeared as Sec. 7 of Rep. Act 10533 which replaced Sec. 7 of

49

This was supposed to be Section 6 of the reconciled bill which was based on paragraph 1 of
the House version.

Page 40

House Bill No. 6643, which should have been Sec. 7 of the
enrolled bill.
c. Sec. 8 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 9 of the
reconciled version with the following amendments:
i. On the first paragraph between the words
institutions and hire, delete the word may and
in lieu thereof, insert the word shall;
ii. On paragraph [a], after the word Licensure,
delete the word Exam, and in lieu thereof, insert
the
word
Examinations;
and
iii. On paragraph [c], after the word relevant,
delete the phrase Masters degree, or Masters
degree with relevant professional license, and in
lieu thereof, insert the words Bachelors degree.
The legislators intended Sec. 8 of Senate Bill No. 3286 to be
Sec. 9 of the reconciled version. Instead, it appeared as Sec.
8 of Rep. Act 10533. The word exam does not appear on
paragraph [a] of Sec. 8 of Senate Bill No. 3286.
d. Sec. 10 of the Senate version was adopted as Sec. 10 of the
reconciled version with amendment to insert the words or
accredited between the words developed and by.
Instead, it appeared as Sec. 9 of Rep. Act 10533.
e. Sec. 10 of Senate Bill No. 3286 does not contain the words
developed and by. But Sec. 9 of Rep. Act 10533 contains the
statement Provided, That they undergo a training program to
be developed or accredited by the DepED.
f. Secs. 11 and 13 of the Senate version were adopted as Secs. 11
and 12 of the reconciled version. Instead, they appeared as Sec.
10 and Sec. 11 in Rep. Act 10533.
g. Secs. 14,15, and 17 of the Senate version were adopted as Secs.
13, 14 and 15 of the reconciled version. Instead, Sec. 14 of
Senate Bill No. 3286 appeared as Sec. 12 of Rep. Act 10533, Sec.
15 appeared as Sec. 17 of Rep. Act 10533, and Sec. 17 appeared
as Sec. 19 of Rep. Act 10533.

Page 41

h. The provision on the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee

on the Enhanced Basic Educational Program (K to 12 Program)
appears in Sec. 13 of Rep. Act 10533, but the same never
appeared in the third readings of Senate Bill No. 3286 and
House Bill No. 6643, respectively. The same is true for Sec. 14
and Sec. 15 of Rep. Act 10533.
101. The discrepancies are a telling indication that Rep. Act 10533
was not duly enacted. It is unquestionably different from what
Congress intended it to be because of unilateral intercalations and
deletions subsequent to congressional passage. These are
unconstitutional acts which militate against the spirit and intent of
Sec. 26, Art. VI of the Constitution, which mandates exhaustive
congressional deliberative scrutiny in passing a statute. The
consolidated bill, as described in the Senate Journal, is significantly
different from what became Rep. Act 10533 which, in its final form,
is in fact merely a relative of what was fashioned by both Houses
of Congress after three readings.
If there is conflict between the
Journal and the Enrolled Bill, the
Journal prevails.
--------------------------------------------------102. In the earlier case of Astorga vs Villegas,50 this Honorable Court
was faced with a similar dilemma. House Bill No. 9266 became Rep.
Act 4065 entitled "An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of
the Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila, Further Amending for the
Purpose Secs. Ten and Eleven of Republic Act Numbered Four
Hundred Nine, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila. But the enrolled copy of House Bill No.
9266 signed into law by the President of the Philippines was not
identical to the bill actually passed by the Senate. It was argued that
the entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself
should be decisive in the resolution of the issue. At its core, the
enrolled bill doctrine states that the signing of a bill by the Speaker
of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the
Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed, are
conclusive of its due enactment.51
103.
This Honorable Court, finding that the journal discloses that
substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor
and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed
50
51

Astorga vs Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974.

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005 (469
SCRA 1). See also Farinas v. Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA 508 (2003).

Page 42

text sent to the President and signed by him concluded that Rep.
Act No. 4065 was unduly enacted and therefore did not become
law.
104. Rejecting the argument that the enrolled bill is conclusive of its
enactment and that in case of conflict between the enrolled bill and
the journal entry, the former prevails, the Astorga Court said:
It may be noted that the enrolled bill theory is based mainly on
the respect due to (sic) coequal and independent departments,
which requires the judicial department to accept, as having
passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated.
Thus it has also been stated in other cases that if the attestation
is absent and the same is not required for the validity of a
statute, the courts may resort to the journals and other records
of Congress for proof of its due enactment. This was the logical
conclusion reached in a number of decisions.52(Citations omitted.)
105.
Astorga also decisively declared that the (t)he journal of the
proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record since
no less than the Constitution requires it. Sec. 16, par. 4 of Art. VI of
the 1987 Constitution provides:

Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and

from time to time publish the same, excepting such
parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and
the yeas and nays on any
question shall, at the
request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in
the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its
proceedings.
106. Acknowledging that while the journal is not authenticated and
is subject to the risks of misprinting and other errors, this Honorable
Court said that it may nonetheless look into whether the text of the
enrolled bill was the same one passed by both Houses of Congress.53
107. On the other hand, the Constitution does not require the
enrollment of a bill. It is merely a mode of authentication54 to
signify to the Chief Executive that the bill being presented to him has

52

Astorga vs Villegas, supra n. 50, citing Gray vs. Taylor, 113 P 588, 591, affirmed in 227 U. S.
51, 57, 57 L. ed. 413, 416; Pelt vs. Payne, 30 SW 426, 427.

53

Id.

54

Id.

Page 43

been duly approved by Congress and is ready for his approval or

rejection.55 A bill is approved by both Houses at the moment of
passage, not when enrolled. Nowhere in our Constitution is it
required that before a bill becomes a law, it must be signed by the
House Speaker and the Senate President. Thus, enrollment is merely
for authentication purposes, not approval or validity. A bill is still
passed by Congress without the signatures of the House Speaker and
the Senate President. To say that such signatures are mandatory is
to give the highest officials of the two chambers the power to veto
which in itself is a strong argument to the contrary.56
108. The enrolled bill in this case must not be held sacrosanct and
should not be given more weight than the Journal.
The Speaker of the House and
Senate President acted as a
another Congress not
contemplated under the
1987 Constitution.
------------------------------109. Verily, the 1987 Constitution 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.57
110. To hold that Rep. Act 10533 has become law is to frustrate
democracy as intended by the Filipino people who ratified a
Constitution that provides that there is only one Congress made up
of the Senate and House of Representatives. There is no other
Congress consisting of the Senate President and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
111.

Par. 2, Sec. 26, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution 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

55
56
57

Taylor vs. Wilson, 22 NW 119, 120, cited in Astorga, supra n. 50.

Brown vs. Morris, 290 SW 2d 160, 164, cited in Astorga, supra n. 50.
Sec. 1, Art. 7, 1987 Constitution.

Page 44

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. (Emphasis supplied)
112. This is indubitable: The Constitution does not allow Congress,
the law-making body, to introduce amendments after the third
reading.
113. What Congress may not do, neither may the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the Senate President. What the
Offices of the Senate President and the House Speaker didintercalating provisions not passed by Congress and omitting words
or phrases- seriously transgressed the Constitution as they leapt
out of the parameters of their power. They trampled upon the
concept of representative or republican democracy which is
entrenched in the Constitution as a core State principle and policy.58
By disregarding the consolidated bill, they disenfranchised the
Filipino people's presumed will expressed through their
representatives.
114. If the House Speaker and the Senate President leap over their
powers or act ultra vires by inserting or deleting provisions in a bill
after the third reading or after the version of the Bicameral
Conference Committee reconciling conflicts in the two Houses
versions is approved, they act with grave abuse of discretion which
raises a justiciable controversy.
115. Such unconstitutional act of supplanting the presumed will of
the sovereign Filipino people articulated through the elected
representatives in Congress with the judgment of the Speaker and
the Senate President must therefore be struck down by this
Honorable Court as the final protector of democracy and guardian
of constitutional supremacy which proscribes the introduction of
amendments after the last reading of a bill.
The issue of whether or not
the bill signed into law by
President Aquino is not a political
question but a justiciable one.
-----------------------------------------------116. Traditionally, the scope of judicial review in the Philippines
includes questions on the validity of legislative or executive acts that
58

See Sec. 1, Art II of the Constitution.

Page 45

are political in nature, whenever the tribunal finds constitutionally

imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political
bodies.59 A political question pertains to those questions which,
under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government.60 It is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not the legality, of a particular measure.61
117. But in exercising the power of judicial review, the function of
the Court is merely to check -- not to supplant --- the Executive, or to
ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional
limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or
to determine the wisdom of his act.62 The Supreme Court would
later admit that prior to the 1987 Constitutionwithout consistency and seemingly without any rhyme or
reason, this Court vacillated on its stance of taking cognizance
of cases which involved political questions. In some cases, the
Court hid behind the cover of the political question doctrine
and refused to exercise its power of judicial review.63
118. Abuses of power under the 1973 Constitution were shielded
from judicial scrutiny by the misuse of the political question.64
119. Yet, under the same Constitution, the Court ruled in Astorga
that it may go beyond the enrolled bill (i)n the face of the manifest
error committed and subsequently rectified by the President of the
Senate and by the Chief Executive who review their signatures from
the Charter of Manila upon a finding of discrepancy between the
Senate Journal and the enrolled bill. It sternly said:
For this Court to perpetuate that error by disregarding such
rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become
law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about

59

60
61
62
63
64

Avelino v. Cuenco, GR L-2821, 4 March 1949, reiterated in Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, 298

SCRA 756, 1998. In Avelino, the Court dodged resolving the issue of who was the rightful
Senate President, the same having been considered a political controversy falling exclusively
within the domain of the Senate. But on motion, the Court assumed jurisdiction in the light of
subsequent events which justify its intervention because the resolution of the issue hinged
on the interpretation of the constitutional provision on the presence of a quorum to hold a
session and therein elect a Senate President.
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659 (1987).
Taada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil 1051 (1957
Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1978)
Francisco v. House of Representatives, GR. No. 160261 (2003)
citing Montenegro v.
Castaneda, 91 Phil 882 (152); De la Llana v COMELEC, 80 SCRA 525 (1977).
Lambino v COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153 (2006).

Page 46

mischievous consequences not intended by the law-making

body.
120. When the Marcos dictatorship was dismantled and the Filipino
people started the process of drafting a new Constitution, the
lessons of the nations recent history gave them the light to expand
the scope of judicial power in a manner that the Supreme Court
would later claim to be distinctly Filipino.65
121. Hence, the 1987 Constitution, which was overwhelmingly
ratified by the Filipino people, provides:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. 66(Emphasis supplied)
122. It is clear that the power of judicial review has been expanded
such that it is exercised even if the question is political in nature,
as long as the legality not the wisdom of the assailed act is
involved67and there is grave abuse of discretion.
123. Thus, in Santiago v. Guingona,68 this Honorable Court
pronounced that (it) is well within the power and jurisdiction of the
Court to inquire whether the Senate or its officials committed a
violation of the Constitution or gravely abused their discretion in the
exercise of their functions and prerogatives.

65
66
67

68

Francisco v. House of Representative, supra n. 63.

See Sec. 1, Art. VIII.
For instance, in Guingona Jr. v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 106971, March 1, 1993), the Supreme Court
assumed jurisdiction over a case involving the manner of filling the congressional
Commission on Appointments, the body that confirms presidential appointments, to
determine grave abuse of discretion as alleged in the petition. In Santiago v. Guingona, Jr. (298
SCRA 756; 1998), it Court ruled that it is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court
to inquire whether the Senate or its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or grave
abuse of discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives. In Tanada v. Angara
(292 SCRA 18; 1997), a petition seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate of ratifying
the World Trade Organization on the ground that it contravened the Constitution, it held that
the petition raises a justiciable controversy and that when an action of the legislative branch
is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact
the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. In Bondoc v. Pineda (201 SCRA 792; 1991), the
Court voided a resolution of the House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination, and
rescinding the election, of a congressman as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal for
being violative of Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution. In Coseteng v. Mitra (187 SCRA
377; 1990), it held that the resolution of whether the House representation in the Commission
on Appointments (which confirms presidential appointments) was based on proportional
representation of the political parties as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution
is subject to judicial review.
Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., 298 SCRA 756 (1998).

Page 47

124. Petitioners are aware of the ruling in Arroyo v. De Venecia69

where this Honorable Court refused to investigate claims of what it
termed legislative skullduggery. In this case, this Honorable Courts
power of judicial review was invoked
to look beyond the
certification of the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the
bill, which was later enacted as Republic Act 8240, was properly
approved by the legislative body. Petitioners alleged that internal
house rules were breached. The petition was junked because it
raised a political question. The matter of whether or not Congress, a
co-equal body, violated its own internal rules could not be taken
cognizance of by the courts.
125. Farias vs. Executive Secretary70 ruled that (t)he signatures of
the Senate President and the Speaker of the House, appearing on the
bill and the certification signed by the respective Secretaries of both
houses of Congress, constitute proof beyond cavil that the bill was
duly enacted into law. Citing Osmea, Jr. v. Pendatun,71 this
Honorable Court said it is not the proper forum to enforce internal
rules of Congress saying that (p)arliamentary rules are merely
procedural and with their observance the courts have no concern
and that (w)hatever doubts there may be as to the formal validity
of Rep. Act No. 9006 must be resolved in its favor.
126. The above decisions do not imply in any manner or shape that
Astorga has been abandoned. In fact, this case decided under the
1973 Constitution applies squarely to this Petition. Arroyo and
Farinas do not enervate Petitioners stance that they are raising a
justiciable issue. It is not unexpected that the judiciary would accord
judicial deference to questions concerning the enforcement of
internal rules of either House of Congress,72 or the manner in which
either House conducts its proceedings which courts consistently
regard as internal matters over which they have no business.
127. Astorga did not deal with an internal matter requiring the Court
to scrutinize the secrets of another branch which may lead to the
discovery of dirty linens. Unlike in both Arroyo and Farinas, the Court
was simply asked to decide which prevailed between the conflicting
Senate Journal and the enrolled bill. This is, at its core, what this
Petition asks this Honorable Court to do given that the Senate
69
70
71
72

Arroyo v. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268 (1997).

Farias vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 503.
Osmea v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863 (1960).
Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution provides that each House may determine the
rules of its proceedings.

Page 48

Journal disclaims that what Rep. Act 10533 is coincides with what
Congress wanted it to be.
128. Moreover, in Abakada Guro Party List vs. Executive Secretary,73
this Honorable Court did not treat the enrolled bill as gospel truth
immune from questions. It virtually regarded as rebuttable the
presumption of regularity in the laws due enactment which an
enrolled bill guarantees. Thus, the Honorable Court went beyond it
saying, Nevertheless, just to put minds at ease that no blatant
irregularities tainted the proceedings of the bicameral conference
committees, the Court deems it necessary to dwell on the issue.
Abakada found that all the changes or modifications made by the
Bicameral Conference Committee were germane to subjects of the
provisions referred to it for reconciliation and ruled that it does not
see any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction committed by the Bicameral Conference Committee.74
129. Abakada affirms Astorga in the sense that it did not regard the
enrolled bill as a hallowed document that courts may not look into.
The enrolled bill is not a matter that raises a political question. It did
not under the 1973 Constitution. It does not under the present
Constitution especially with its provision on expanded jurisdiction.
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER/WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
130. Petitioners respectfully re-plead the foregoing by reference
wherever and whenever material.
131.
In his report to the Senate on May 5, 2015,75 respondent Sec.
Luistro of the Department of Education reported that more than 333
private schools had been granted permit by the DepEd to offer
Senior High School in the incoming 2015-2016 school year. At least
1,866 applications of private schools were approved for academic
year 2016-2017.
132. Many schools are opening the first two weeks of June to begin
the academic year 2015-2016. Minor Petitioners and the class they

73
74
75

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005.
Id.
Sec. Armin Luistro, K to 12 Basic Education Program Midterm Report, May 5 2015; Powerpoint
Presentation made before the Senate, Republic of the Philippines, Slide 32 (on file with the
Senate).

Page 49

represent will be compelled to enroll in the coming school opening

under an unconstitutional program. Petitioning parents and the class
they represent will have to pay tuition for the same and will likewise
be coerced by the State into paying two to three more years of
additional compulsory schooling for their children before the latter
may go to universities if they so desire, due to a haphazardly illconceived program shrived of any constitutional basis.
133. To implement the K to 12 Program, Dep Ed reported that at least
39,000 teaching positions will have to be created and this was
proposed in the 2015 budget.76 Thirty-thousand classrooms have to
be constructed this 2015.77 There is no assurance yet that such needs
will be met as what is sure now is that there is a proposal pending in
Congress which may or may not be approved.
134. Dep Ed also reported that while there will be 1.6 M students
from the public school system who will enter Grade 11 in 2016, only
800 thousand to 1 million of them can be accommodated by public
high schools.78 The others will be forced to enroll in private schools
where tuition alone is pegged at a minimum of P25,000. Their
parents, who have to enroll them since secondary education has
been made mandatory under the assailed Rep. Act 10533, will have
to shoulder the extra cost to educate them.
135. Additionally, Sen Antonio Trillanes, a member of the Philippine
Senate, said that based on consultations with various stakeholders,
the K to 12 Program is facing various challenges including
inadequacy in: resources, tools, classrooms, teachers, preparation
and planning, time to prepare for its implementation, information
dissemination among its stakeholders, consultations among affected
sectors, coordination between the government and private sectors,
opportunities for those who will graduate from the program,(and)
capacity of parents to send children for additional two years in high
school.79
136. The words of the Senator must not be taken lightly and should
be accorded great weight, unless there is proof to the contrary.

76
77
78
79

Id.,Slide 7.
Id., Slide 6.
Id., Slide 29.
Reyes, '80,000 to Lose Jobs Due to K-12' | Palace rejects call to hold program's implementation,
Interaksyon, 8 March 2015; accessed from
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/106478/80000-to-lose-jobs-due-to-k-12--coalitiontrillanes-seek-suspension-of-its-implementation.

Page 50

137.
Obviously then, Petitioners and the public will suffer grave and
irreparable injury if the acts of Respondents are not enjoined. This
instant case will be futile, and the entire cause of action of
Petitioners will be moot and academic, if a temporary restraining
order is not granted the soonest before the entire matter can be
heard on notice. Therefore, a prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order ex parte coming from this Honorable Supreme
Court is warranted to prevent any of the Respondents from
performing any act that would furthermore place them at a
disadvantage.
138. This Honorable Court has repeatedly declared that a void law or
act produces no effects, and creates no rights and obligations. This
applies with equal force to
laws, rules and regulations,
administrative and actions that are null and void like Dep Ed Order
No. 31 and the questioned Republic Acts.
139. Until and unless the constitutionality of the K to 12 Program
which is now polarizing the nation is settled, Respondents from the
Executive Branch should be restrained from implementing it.
140. On account of the nature of this Petition and the causes of
action involved such that even the undersigned counsels are also
working on this case pro bono, Petitioners respectfully pray of this
Honorable Court to waive the bond required for a writ of
preliminary mandatory and/or prohibitory injunction.
141. Petitioners and the members of the class they represent have
no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law
except the instant application for temporary restraining order and
writ of preliminary injunction.

PRAYER FOR RELIEFS

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court to:

1. ISSUE a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of

preliminary injunction
and/or
preliminary
mandatory
injunction to enjoin the public respondents from implementing
the assailed K to 12 Program and the statutes and
administrative orders supporting it such as Department Order

Page 51

No. 31, series of 2012, Rep. Act 10533 and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations dated 4 September 2013, and Republic
Act No 10157;
2. ISSUE a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the Department of Finance
from releasing public funds for the implementation of the K to
12 Program and, after hearing, make the injunction permanent;
3. NULLIFY AND SET ASIDE the above-mentioned statutes and
administrative orders for having been legislated or issued by
the respondents acting with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
4. ORDER, by way of mandamus, the Senate President and the
Speaker of House of Representatives to withdraw their
signatures in Rep. Act 10533.
20 May 2015; Baguio City for Manila, Philippines.

THE NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES' LAWYERS

55 Bengao Road
Marcos Highway, Bakakeng Norte
Baguio City
by:

CHERYL L. DAYTEC-YAGOT
Roll of Attorneys No. 45429
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 012884; Baguio-Benguet Chapter
PTR No. 2102085; 20 January 2015; Baguio City
MCLE Exemption No. IV-001729
Valid until 14 April 2016
Email Address: chytdaytec@gmail.com
Mobile No. +639277367946

HOWARD Y. CHAN
Roll No. 64816

Page 52

IBP Receipt No. 1007199; 4-23-2015, Baguio-Benguet Chapter

PTR No.2192536; 5-06-2015
(MCLE Status: New lawyer)

JADO RAFAEL A. BOGNEDON

Roll No. 57876
IBP OR No. 2009677, January 5, 2015, Baguio City
PTR No. 0980573, January 5, 2015, Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0021593, 5 August 2013

MARY ANN M. BAYANG

Roll No. 49292
IBP OR No. 0995735/02-18-15/Baguio-Benguet Chapter
PTR No. 0820910/02-02-15/Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0022745

-and-

JONATHAN P. SALE
Roll of Attorneys No. 42084
IBP OR No. 0988475, 01/09/15, Q.C.
PTRR No. SJ 0749261, 01/09/15, San Juan
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0018973, 04/29/13
18 Bronson St., Fairmount Park Subdivision
North Fairview, Quezon City

COPY FURNISHED BY REGISTERED MAIL:

HON. BRO. ARMIN LUISTRO
Secretary of Education
Respondent
Department of Education Complex,
Meralco Avenue, Pasig City,
Metro Manila
Registry Return No. _______
HON. REMEDIOS BALDOZ

Page 53

Secretary of Labor and Employment

Department of Labor and Employment Building,
Muralla corner Gen. Luna Streets
Intramuros, Manila, Metro Manila.
Registry Return No. _______
HON. PATRICIA LICUANAN
Chairperson, Commission on Higher Education
Commission on Higher Education
C.P. Garcia Avenue, U.P. Campus,
Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila
Registry Return No. _______
HON. JOEL VILLANUEVA
Director-General
Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA)
T East Service Road, Taguig, Metro Manila
Registry Return No. _______
HON. CESAR PURISIMA
Secretary
Department of Finance Secretary
Roxas Boulevard, Manila, 1004 Metro Manila
Registry Return No. _______
HON. FELICIANO BELMONTE
Speaker, House of Representatives
Batasang Pambansa Complex
Quezon City
Registry Return No. _______
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON
President
Senate Building
Roxas Blvd., Manila
Registry Return No. _______
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
OSG Building, 134 Amorsolo St.
Legaspi Village Makati City,
Philippines 1229
Registry Return No. _______

Page 54

EXPLANATION FOR MODE OF SERVICE

Service of this Petition upon the adverse parties was accomplished
through registered mail. Personal service was impracticable as the
undersigned lawyers are working on this case pro bono and do not have
enough personnel to effect such mode.

CHERYL L. DAYTEC-YAGOT

Page 55