BRILLANTES, ET. AL. vs. Aquino III, ET. AL. (Petition Against K
to 12 of the Manila Science Parents, Teachers and Students. They will file a 4th
Motion to Resolve their prayer for a TRO on February 15, 2016).
4th Most Extremely Urgent
Motion to Forthwith Resolve Without Further Delay Prayer for the Immediate
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order; To Hear Case on Oral Arguments &
to Include These Motions in the 2/16 Agenda of the Honorable Supreme Court En
Banc.
When
they filed their instant Petition
last June 23, 2015, they already
prayed for the ex parte issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order, which will direct Respondents (DepEd) to immediately stop the
implementation of the two (2) additional years of senior high school and allow
the Grade Ten Students among them (as
well as the class they represent) to take College Entrance Tests, lest the
reliefs they are praying for in their instant Petition for said senior high
school to be declared unconstitutional
and thus for them to be allowed to enter college after four (4) years of high
school be rendered ineffectual.
They
pointed out that colleges and universities are already about to conduct their
Entrance Tests. Thus, the matter is of
extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is issued ex
parte, grave injustice and irreparable injury will be caused to them
before the matter can be heard on notice, since said Grade Ten Students will
not be allowed to take said test. Most
sadly, notwithstanding said
extreme urgency and grave
injustice which provide valid grounds under the Rules, for the Honorable Court
to issue said TRO ex parte, all that
the Honorable Court did was to direct
Respondents to Comment on their Petition and their said prayer for a TRO
within ten (10) days from notice thereof. To aggravate matters, the June
30, 2015 Resolution of the Honorable Court which issued said directive, was
sent by registered mail to the parties only last July 13, 2015, thus further
delaying compliance thereto by the Respondents, when the Honorable Court taking
cognizance of the urgency of the situation, could have directed that it be
served in such manner that it will reach Respondents the fastest possible
time.
Considering
that the University of the Philippines as well as the other universities were
already about to conduct their College Admission Tests, they filed last July 28, 2015 a Most Urgent Motion for Early Resolution of their said prayer for a
TRO, arguing that the extreme urgency for
its issuance is already beyond dispute,
considering that without said TRO, Petitioner Students, a number of whom are
poor but most deserving, will be denied the chance to qualify and thus avail of
the quality education that the State University and other colleges and
universities offer. They added that the very records of the Department of
Education and the law itself show beyond dispute that the requirement for them
to attend two (2) additional years of senior high school is unconstitutional
and thus void. Most sadly, despite
the fact that
the Honorable Court could already
resolve their said most meritorious Motion for the ex parte issuance of a TRO,
all that it did in its August 04, 2015
Resolution was to merely NOTE it.
Respondents
however did not comply with the ten (1) day period given to them by the
Honorable Court. They (through the
Office of the Solicitor General)
instead asked for a one (1) month extension for the filing of their
Comment to the Consolidated Petitions (or
until September 05, 2015). In asking for that extension, they must
certainly have already considered their alleged “heavy pressure of work” (which incidentally is not a valid
justification, as it will only encourage needless delays) and thus could
not use that as an excuse to ask for another extension.
Thus,
herein Petitioners filed last September
17, 2015 a Vehement Opposition to
Respondents’ 2nd Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment with 2nd
Motion Urgent Motion for Early Resolution (of their prayer for the Immediate Ex
Parte Issuance of a TRO). They added that even in the absence of said
Comment, the Honorable Court will be able to judge based on the arguments they
have advanced, that there is indeed sufficient and convincing proof beyond
reasonable doubt and according to the rules of evidence, of the clear and
unequivocal breaches of the Constitution, not only by DepEd Order No. 31, s.
2012 and Republic Act No. 10533 but also by their implementation. Having
overcome their presumption of validity and constitutionality, justice but demands
that their Motion for a TRO be forthwith resolved and be so resolved in their
favor.
Most sadly,
their plea still remained unheeded by the Honorable Court, with their said
Vehement Opposition and 2nd Most Urgent Motion for Early Resolution,
again merely NOTED by the Honorable
Court in its October 06, 2015 Resolution.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Honorable Court in
its September 15, 2015 Resolution,
already issued a warning that no further extension will be given by it to
Respondents and thus its Second Motion for Extension will be the last,
Respondents in utter disregard of said warning, still asked for a third
extension which the Honorable Court, most sadly granted just the same in its November 24, 2015 Resolution. It was
only last October 30, 2015 or more than four (4) months since they filed their
instant Petition that Respondents were able to file their Comment thereto.
Last December
02, 2015, they filed their Reply to Respondents’ Comment With 3rd Most Urgent Motion to
Resolve Prayer for a TRO, beseeching the Honorable Court that since
Respondents’ Comment has already been filed and thus they have already been
heard on the instant Petition, their prayer
for the issuance of a TRO should already be acted upon[1], forthwith resolved
and be so resolved without further delay in their favor.
While they were
fully aware that the issuance of a TRO rests on the sound discretion
of the Honorable Court, there was absolutely no more reason for the Honorable Court not to act on
their said Motion, considering that Respondents have already been heard on
their Petition through their Comment and they have already complied with the
Order of the Honorable Court to file a Reply thereto.[2] They were expecting that at the very
least, their 3rd Most Urgent Motion for Issuance of a TRO will
be included in the agenda of the Honorable Court’s remaining En Banc sessions
last December 2015 and be deemed submitted for Resolution. They subsequently
sadly learned however that it was only last January 12, 2016 that it was heard
by the Supreme Court En Banc.
They eagerly waited for the Resolution of said January 12, 2016 session
to be released, expecting that finally their Motion for the issuance of
a TRO will already be resolved. Considering that the school year is about to
end, indubitably establishing the most extreme urgency for the
Honorable Court to already act on their said Motion and making the grave
injustice and irreparable injury which they will suffer most imminent, they saw
no valid reason why the Honorable Court may still suspend action on their said
Motion for the issuance of a TRO.
Most sadly, notwithstanding the sense of urgency which is already tormenting them no end, the Honorable
Court remained unmoved. As before, it simply NOTED without any
action their said Reply and 3rd Most Urgent Motion in its January
12, 2016 Resolution
(which to this very late date, they still have to formally receive).
They respectfully and humbly manifest that they are completely baffled by the continued
inaction of the Honorable Court, despite the fact that their Motion for the
issuance of a TRO is already most ripe
for resolution and long overdue.
They
respectfully wish to
call the attention of the Honorable Court that since
the school year is about to end, if it still does not resolve their prayer for
a TRO, the Grade Ten Students among them, will suffer
the grave injustice and irreparable injury
of not being admitted to College next school year, despite the utmost merit of their said Motion for a
TRO, thereby rendering ineffectual the judgment and reliefs they are
praying for in their instant Petition,
among which, is for the two (2) additional years of senior high school to be declared
unconstitutional and thus void. They beseech the Honorable Court to finally
feel the extreme sense of urgency of the situation and to forthwith and
without further delay, resolve their said Motion for issuance of a TRO no later than the first week of March 2016
or before the end of the current
school year of 2015-2016,
pursuant to their sacred constitutional rights to due process of law and for
the speedy disposition thereof.
They would
not have been
placed in this
most dangerous situation and the
Honorable Court would have resolved their Motion for a TRO much earlier, were
it not for the most inordinate and
unreasonable delay of Respondents in filing their Comment to their instant
Petition. With an Associate Solicitor assigned to Comment on each of the herein
Consolidated Petitions and with the entire machinery of the executive and
legislative departments at their disposal, there was absolutely no valid justification for their
repeated Motions for Extension of Time to File Comment, considering that their
instant Petition was filed way back in June 2015 and the other Petitions were
filed much earlier in March 2015.
Most sadly, the
Honorable Court has itself
allowed said most inordinate and unreasonable
delay committed by the Respondents, considering that notwithstanding its
warning that Respondents’ Second Motion for Extension will be the last, it
still subsequently granted Respondents’ Third Motion for Extension of Time to
File Comment. Moreover, the Rules allow the Honorable Court to issue orders
expediting proceedings. Thus, it
could have directed that its Resolutions be immediately served on the parties
and be so served by personal service, considering that said Rules specifically
direct that prayers for TRO be speedily acted upon in a summary hearing. As it
stands now, it is already more than seven (7) months and their prayer for the
issuance of a TRO has not even been submitted for Resolution. The earliest
Petitions against K to 12 which were filed way back in March 2015, will in fact
be celebrating already their first anniversary, with no clear resolution in
sight as regards their similar prayers for issuance of a TRO.
Under the circumstances, by reason of
extreme urgency and most imminent danger of the herein Grade
Ten Students suffering the aforementioned grave injustice and irreparable
injury, they respectfully beseech and appeal to the Honorable Court to
forthwith and without further delay finally resolve their Motion for Issuance
of a TRO and so resolve it in their favor. Their said Motion is no less important
that the other Motions for a TRO that the Honorable Court expeditiously acted
upon. As it now stands, if the Honorable Court still does not act on their said
Motion, it will be most inevitable that millions of Grade Ten Students will be
forced to attend senior high school in blatant violation of their sacred
constitutional rights, which if not prevented, will likewise inevitably lead to
the catastrophic unconstitutional massive displacement of College Teachers and
Personnel and the equally catastrophic unconstitutional massive dropping out
from school of high school students who will not be able to afford the further
added expense of senior high school.
They were fully
aware that they who are just ordinary parents, teachers
and students are ranged against powerful forces, namely, the combined machinery
of the executive and legislative departments which have colluded with private
school interests in imposing on them this
despotic and oppressive education program. In filing their Petition, they
prepared for the worst, that is, for their prayer for a TRO will be denied and
they, the Grade Ten Students among them, condemned to suffer two (2) additional
years of Senior High School. They however dared to file their instant Petition
and join the ranks of fellow parents, teachers and students who have long been
fighting against this unconstitutional K to 12 education program as they
remained hopeful, that the Honorable Court, pursuant to its solemn and sacred
obligation under the Constitution will come to their aid and without further
delay finally issue the TRO that they have been praying for.
It is now time for the
Honorable Court to decide as there is no more other time: condemn
them to two additional years of senior high school by denying the TRO that
they have long prayed for or free them of
said unnecessary and most unconstitutional burden by issuing said TRO and
eventually granting their Petition to declare the K to 12 Basic Education
Curriculum and the two (2) additional years of senior high school they are
assailing as well as the DepEd Order and law which serve as their bases to be
unconstitutional.
They respectfully submit that
they have more than
adequately established facts for the Honorable Court to make a
conclusive determination that they are entitled to the provisional reliefs they are praying for, particularly, undisputed facts (even admitted by
Respondents) of material and substantial invasion of their clear and unmistakable rights protected
by the Constitution, which are directly threatened (and
in fact already violated) by the acts of Respondents, which they are
seeking to enjoin and thus of the urgent and paramount necessity for the TRO to
be issued to prevent serious and irreparable damage to them,[3]
particularly the following:
Respondents, in a most brazen and arrogant manifestation of abuse
of power, usurped legislative power, in
utter disregard of the will of the people which has vested said power in the
Congress of the Philippines only, by commencing through the assailed DepEd
Order, to implement the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum in 2012, even if there was no enabling
legislation yet for the implementation of said new curriculum [as the then existing law defined the
system of education as consisting only of a ten (10) year basic education cycle
and the bill proposing to extend said cycle to twelve (12) years was still
being deliberated in Congress].
Respondents
continued to encroach on the power of the legislature, by persisting to
implement its K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (which by its own admission, was formulated in consultation only with a
pool of experts), without
complying with the law’s very requirement to formulate the enhanced
basic education curriculum, in consultation with national students
organizations, national teachers organizations and parents-teachers
associations. Without a valid
curriculum, neither can the two (2) additional years of senior high school be
implemented.
But even if Respondents eventually
comply with said consultation requirement, the implementation of Senior High
School cannot apply to herein Petitioners Grade Ten Students. This is for the
reason that their right to complete only four (4) years of high school,
has already been vested, since that was the law in place when they started
their high school in 2012. Thus, to impose on them the added burden of going
through two (2) additional years of senior high school is to divest them of
their said right and in effect apply the law retroactively (which is unconstitutional).
In
fact, the assailed Law cannot be implemented at all even prospectively, for
being violative of the constitutional right to substantive due process of herein Petitioner Students,
considering that, it is not reasonably necessary to decongest their curriculum
nor to lengthen their basic education cycle, since by reason of their higher mental capabilities as gifted
students, they can master their heavier in scope and more advanced special
science curriculum within four (4) years. Thus, to require them to attend two
(2) additional years of senior high school is most arbitrary and oppressive,
likewise violative of their constitutional right to be admitted to college free
from any unfair and unreasonable admission and academic requirement.
It
is violative too of the constitutional right to substantive due process of all
Filipino students and thus is unduly oppressive too and an unwarranted
intrusion into their right to education, particularly to be admitted to College
free from any unfair and unreasonable admission and academic requirement,
considering that it is not reasonably necessary to decongest their curriculum
nor to lengthen their basic education cycle in order to improve student
performance as studies show that some countries which have short cycles have
high scores in Math, Science and English while others with longer cycles have
low scores. The law fails to consider that there are other causes of lower
educational outcomes, like poverty, lack of good teachers, classrooms and
books. Thus, there is another alternative and less intrusive way of
accomplishing the objective of the law rather than lengthening the basic
education cycle, which is, to pour government funds to better learning
materials, better teachers (through the increase of their salaries), more classrooms
and thus as a whole, a better learning environment, instead of
unconstitutionally wasting government funds to private schools, who are pushing
for K to 12 solely for their purely private interests. Hence, it is unduly
oppressive and an unwarranted intrusion into the right to education of the
Filipino students.
Instead
however of decongesting the curriculum which is the law’s avowed purpose, in
order to give students more time to master the desired basic learning
competencies, it made it more congested, by transferring general education
subjects offered in college to Senior High School, thus defeating the very
purpose of the law, thereby undermining the right of high school students to
quality education. What the law authorizes is only the enhancement of the basic
education curriculum and not to transfer general education to high school,
which education is the exclusive obligation of tertiary education to provide.
So burdening high school with general education subjects, thus, likewise
amounts to an executive usurpation of legislative power.
There
is thus no reasonable necessity to transfer college general education subjects
to senior high school, which thus violates likewise the right to substantive
due process of College Teachers. That such is not reasonably necessary is
further evidenced by the fact that high school teachers have no competence to
teach them and thus College Teachers will just the same be relied upon to teach
them. Worse, it will inevitably and
necessarily result in the massive displacement of College Teachers in the
hundreds of thousands, violative of the constitutional mandate on the State to
afford full protection to labor, particularly their constitutionally guaranteed
right to security of tenure.
The law itself admits that DepEd does not
have the capacity to offer Grade 11 to all public school students. Thus it
provides funding for them to enroll in private schools. The funding however
will not cover the entire cost of private education, which is clearly violative
of the constitutional mandate on the State to provide for free public secondary
education (and thus of its duty to make education accessible to all). Thus,
even with government funding, majority of the Filipino students will just the
same not be able to afford private education and thus be forced to drop out
from school. This is another reason why the law is unconstitutional as it
violates the very purpose it seeks to achieve.
They sadly note
that while the February People Power Revolution which is being commemorated this
month, has supposedly ended dictatorship
and restored democracy with its principle of separation of powers as a
safeguard against abuse, an equally reprehensible virtual dictatorship exists
today, namely, the collusion of the executive and legislative departments,
together with private school interests, in the implementation of the
unconstitutional K to 12 Basic Education Program.
These
actions of Secretary Luistro, which are clearly violative of the Constitution
and thus are void are all over the papers. Yet, neither the Senate nor the
House of Representatives, ever registered any protest, over the encroachment of
their constitutional prerogatives by the executive department, notwithstanding
the fact that the law itself provides for the creation of a Joint Congressional
Oversight Committee to monitor the implementation of the law. Herein
Petitioners have never imagined that such tyranny of the executive and
legislative departments, which evidently are in collusion with each other, in
perpetrating the grave injustice which the Filipino youth are being subjected
to, would still befall them, many years after this country, in the words of a
Chief Justice, has experienced “the wrenching pain of dictatorship” and has
supposedly returned already to democracy.
The dictatorship at least exerted efforts to function under a
cloak of legitimacy, no thanks to a Supreme Court then which in the words of a
Chief Justice , did not have the moral courage to remind the dictator of his
mortality and the inevitable historical damnation of despots and tyrants.
Secretary Luistro however, perhaps certain that he can get away with it without
any protest from the Legislature, in a most brazen and arrogant manifestation
of abuse of power, proceeded to blatantly violate the Constitution, by
implementing his K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum, without waiting for the
law to be passed and persisted in implementing it in contravention of the very
law he was supposed to merely enforce.
In the face of this grave injustice, the Honorable Supreme
Court is their only hope, “as the last
bulwark of democracy being the administrator of justice and the legitimate
recourse of their grievances”. They
have no one
to turn to
and seek aid from but from the
Honorable Supreme Court. They thus implore and beseech the Honorable Supreme
Court to come to their aid, pursuant to its solemn and sacred obligation under
the Constitution. They implore and beseech the Honorable Supreme Court to
forthwith and without further delay, immediately issue the Temporary
Restraining Order they have long been praying for, so that the implementation
of the K to 12 law be stopped, thus allowing the current Grade Ten students to
take College Entrance Tests and eventually enter College next school year.
After
the issuance of said TRO, so that they may be able to answer whatever questions
or clarifications the Honorable Court may wish to propound and to definitively
establish the merits of their Petition as well as to indubitably rebut
Respondents’ vacuous arguments, they respectfully pray that their instant
Petition be heard on oral arguments.
Finally,
for purposes of expediting proceedings, they pray that the Honorable Chief
Justice direct the immediate inclusion of the herein Motions in the agenda of
the Honorable Court En Banc, to be held on February 16, 2016 and for all
Resolutions of the Honorable Court to be personally served on herein parties.
They cannot understand why it takes so long [some as long as two (2) months] for very simple Resolutions to
reach them. In fact, to this very late date, they have not yet received the
January 12, 2016 Resolution of the Honorable Court, whose directives they
learned only of, as their undersigned counsel asked to have an advanced copy of
it.
