Case Digest (G.R. No. 216930)
Facts:
Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (CoTeSCUP), et al. v. Secretary of Education, et al., G.R. Nos. 216930, 217451, 217752, 218045, 218098, 218123, 218465, October 09, 2018, Supreme Court En Banc, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners comprised a large set of groups and individuals (faculty, students, parents, party-list legislators, labor organizations and associations) who challenged the constitutionality of the K to 12 Basic Education Program: principally Republic Act No. 10533 (the K to 12 Law), Republic Act No. 10157 (the Kindergarten Education Act), and implementing issuances of DepEd, CHED, TESDA, and the joint DOLE–DepEd–CHED–TESDA guidelines (including DepEd Orders such as DO No. 31, the K to 12 IRR, the Joint Guidelines, and CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 20). Respondents included the Secretary of Education, CHED chairperson, TESDA, DOLE and other executive officials; private HEIs (e.g., Miriam College) intervened in some dockets.
The consolidated petitions were filed under Rule 65 (certiorari, prohibition and mandamus), and various petitioners sought TROs and preliminary injunctions to halt implementation. The Solicitor General opposed; Miriam College filed comments. The Court issued a TRO in G.R. No. 217451 limited to enjoining CMO No. 20 insofar as it excluded Filipino and Panitikan from the college general-education core; TROs and preliminary injunctions were denied in the other dockets. The Court directed memoranda (Resolutions dated April 5 and April 12, 2016) and consolidated the matters for decision. The petitions principally alleged (a) defects in enactment and the enrolled-bill process, (b) undue delegation of legislative power, (c) invalidity/usurpation by administrative issuances (e.g., DO No. 31),...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court exercise judicial review over the consolidated petitions, and are writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus proper remedies?
- Was Republic Act No. 10533 (K to 12 Law) duly enacted and free from unconstitutional enrolled-bill defect?
- Does the K to 12 Law constitute an undue delegation of legislative power to DepEd/CHED/TESDA?
- Is DepEd Order No. 31 (and related DepEd implementing issuances) valid and enforceable?
- Do RA No. 10533, RA No. 10157, the K to 12 IRR, DO No. 31 and/or the Joint Guidelines violate constitutional provisions on (a) free public education and compulsory elementary education, (b) right to accessible and quality education, (c) parental primary duty to rear children, (d) right to select profession/course of study, (e) patriotism/national culture provisions, (f) use of Filipino and regional languages as media of instruction, (g) academic freedom, and (h) protection of labor?
- Does CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 (GE curriculum) violate constitutional provisions on language, culture, inclusion of Constitution study, patriotism, or statutory mandates (e.g., RA 7104, BP Bl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)